Obama in Tucson—Three Brave Little Words
President Barack Obama faced a couple of real challenges as he took the stage last night in Tucson, Arizona to address the crowd that had gathered to pay tribute to the victims and the heroes of the Saturday massacre.
A lesser speaker may have felt that there was a bit of thunder stealing going on. After all, several speakers before him had paid eloquent tributes and covered all the background material. In addition, the president probably shared the surprise of most at the general atmosphere in the huge stadium. Mention of the names of the fallen were followed by whoops and hollers—shades of the Roman Coliseum.
Yet President Obama, who shows real signs that he is coming to understand more accurately where the heart of the American public lies, faced these challenges with a speech and delivery that were at once moving, rational, and inspirational.
I, for one, was happy that he took what some have characterized as too much time to add biographical information about the victims and the heroes. It moved the tragedy from the abstract to the personal in a very effective way.
Many had predicted that Obama would completely avoid any reference to the media flurry that immediately followed the tragedy concerning intemperate political discourse. Such a course would have been defensible as ignoring issues that were not directly related to the tragedy. To his great credit, Obama did not shrink from this challenge.
Up to a critical point, Obama's approach was pure politics. The left was given a few crumbs with references to the disadvantages of excessive political rhetoric; the right was assuaged by obligatory references to the importance of free speech and vigorous debate.
But then Obama cleared the air with three little words. Referring to heated political discourse as a purported causal contributor to the tragedy, he said, "It did not." There are media reports that these three words were not in the script delivered to the press in advance and were added. If this is true, Obama should be given even greater credit for the statement.
Nothing would have been easier than for Obama to continue the political balancing act by saying something along the lines of how futile it is to speculate about what made the shooter shoot. But instead, he took a bold stand for reason, delivering a scathing and unmistakable repudiation of the Paul Krugmans and the Sheriff Dupniks of this world, who will stop virtually at nothing to score political points or divert attention from personal misfeasance, respectively.
I'm sorry that Krugman was not there to receive this repudiation at close range. But Clarence "Pug-Ugly" Dupnik was. The good sheriff must have also taken great comfort from the fact that among the plentiful honors distributed during this remarkable ceremony, his name was conspicuously among the missing. Considering the mounting evidence of his dereliction of duty in this matter, it is not unreasonable to hope that his name may be soon be missing also from the rolls of Pima County law enforcement.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
baltimore aureole
David McClain
Bruce Majors
Arthur Louis
Stephen Guy Hardin
natalia pizano
Salon.com
Comments
Yes, as opposed to purely narcissistic ramblings of the queen of Wasilla yesterday morning. Don't think I would cast too many stones towards the sheriff if I were you... pug-ugly?
Rated nevertheless for balance..
I ask my fellow OS readers to read Krugman’s “Climate of Hate”op-ed from earlier this week:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1&ref=paulkrugman
Then tell me if anything that Gordon Osmond said in his last two paragraphs makes any sense.
Krugman was repudiated not for his excoriation of rabid rhetoric but rather for his opportunistic attempt to connect it causually to the massacre. Very different things.
His “Climate of Hate” theme, he felt, is something that we all need to consider after an act like this occurs. This is not an opportunistic political statement.
It’s a fact.
Cheers!
Assuming it's around, maybe he should try his mind next time.
You, osmond ought to get back in the bun where weenies belong.
Not surprising that you've received seceral negative comments here.
You deserve them.
Go play with Jim Jones if you can dig him up somewhere.
I won't be back to read your next BS.
He is a real man, not a coward- and as apolitical as they come.
Lets see, the opinion of an armchair whatever vs. an outstanding public servant with 40 years of protecting his citizens ... who is more credible?
I find it very, very instructive that not one of you has the aforementioned ovaries to comment on the statement of the congresswoman's father- that her enemies were the whole tea party.
Who would know better?
Selective cowardice is the worst kind, by far.
To absolve hate speech of any impact on the acts of individuals in the national political discourse; to be unwilling to connect the act of a deranged gunman with what he sees and hears around him is to be in total denial.
Words may not have an effect on a balanced person, but history tells us differently when one looks at the kinds of people who commit political murder.
I heard, "Assigning blame is futile, because we'll never know what motivated this killer. However, we should tone down the political rhetoric, which is creating a toxic atmosphere and is separating us rather than uniting us." You heard "the right wing is not to blame." Which inadvertently underlines Obama's point - we have to stop hearing what we want to hear, and actually listen.
Your reference to Krugman is way too obscure. There's a difference between a law enforcement official and a Noble prize winning economist with whom the issues are far more complex. It sounds like you are simply using the occasion to throw stones.
Barack "we won" "the election is over, John" Obama is a mediator? Oh, sure. Perhaps you missed his chairmanship of the Health Care conference at Blair House not to mention his years in office before the American public tenderized him like a tough steak on November 2.
Is Krugman being a Nobel Prize winner an endorsement or an indictment?
I don't really know how I can be less "obscure." Within hours, Paul Krugman (sufficiently clear?) posited a connection between conservative rhetoric and the Tucson tragedy (sufficiently clear?). The connection, which has nothing to do with Krugman's allegedly strong suit, economics, is irresponsible, groundless, morbidly motivated and has finally been repudiated by Barack Obama himself.
I really don't know how my post could be less "obscure" except, of course, for the blind that will not see.
I never accused Obama of performing an "act." My reference was that he did NOT pursue that course even though he well might have. Your putting that word in quotes, suggesting that I used it in an accusatory sense, is typical of the sleazy analysis and tactics you bring to my post from which I hope you will now gracefully retreat.
Apparently Gordon missed the part of the speech when Obama said, "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."
Please, you're so ideologically fixated it's hard to find much that's credible in your writing. I'm not sure you even know how to present an objective, non-personalized piece of opinion. You certainly don't do it in this piece and I haven't seen it in any other.
I will of course desist. I am well aware that providing you with the opportunity to showcase your vituperation is a waste of time.
If you can't see the difference between general encouragement for civil discourse and accusations that failing to follow that advice caused loss of innocent lives, there's really no point in listening to you further. Geeze!
You compliment the President because he showed himself to be above a caricature that you have set inappropriately low for him. I suppose that is something. What this really is, Gordon, is a case where you are the one most correctly referred to as "he" by your own words;
"he shows real signs that he is coming to understand more accurately where the heart of the American public lies ..."
Perhaps you might understand that this piece of evidence is an opportunity for your error correction, and not the President's or Paul Krugman's. You're right, Gordon, the President and several hundred million individuals see things in a particular way. You are standing outside of that group noting how the group is so nicely aligned. What about you, Gordon?
"the sleazy analysis and tactics you bring to my post from which I hope you will now gracefully retreat"
"there's really no point in listening to you further"
I've enjoyed this "conversation" too.
Your selective outrage about heated rhetoric is palpable. On this issue, you are standing with approximately 33% of the public. 55% and now Obama himself have abandonned you. Let's be clear about who is standing on the outside. And it's just beginning.
All your grand posturing and feigned eloquence washes out to sea with your choice of "close range."
I dont have any outrage at all, selective or otherwise. I am not outraged. I see this. Krugman noted that many were suspicious of his mention of "empathy" during the Soto Mayor nomination, but last night they approved of it. Last night you approved of it. That is what your post says, right? I think it is a good thing that you have acknowledged that which has been obvious to many for a very long time. You're getting it. I dont understand what you see as "outrage" though.
Obama at West Point----Gordon Osmond
http://open.salon.com/blog/gordono/2009/12/02/obama_at_west_point
In the piece posted by you, Gordon, is the following:
"But Obama seems to have forgotten the cause of that unity. It wasn’t because the nation came together in the common cause of building up the Afghanistan government to the point where it could service that country’s security needs. It was because the country was outraged by the act of Islamic terrorists and determined to wipe them off the face of the earth, to borrow a phrase.
Until Obama can focus on this killing intent, he has little hope of achieving his stated objective of recreating the national harmony that followed 9/11. I rather doubt that our relatively recent Harvard graduate and law instructor has the stomach for such fire in the belly. Certainly last night’s speech gave no evidence of it..."
This is interesting to me because you posted just after one of his speeches, just like this post. You mention "outrage", just like you have to me on this post. (You seem to be fond of outrage.) But in your post from 2009, you criticize the President for not having the "fire in the belly" to have the outrage that you think is required. But for last night, you seem to praise the very quality that many saw in him long ago, and you derided. Furthermore, you inaccurately accuse me of "outrage" in this time of calm, with my calm approval of your coming to appreciate the President, and the mention of your inconsistencies. This is not "outrage", Gordon. This is just the enjoyment of watching you see the light, take a lesson, and obviously cross yourself in these two posts. This is far from outrage. This is amusement.
@superduperman1
I never said I disagreed with his assessment of the political climate in Arizona. (Rereading can sometimes be helpful if prejudice gets in the way of comprehension first time through. )I believe that as a law enforcement officer he should not publicly express that assessment and CERTAINLY shouldn't cite it, admittedly without any evidence, as a causal factor in multiple murders he did a shitty job preventing. By the way, can you see Russia from your residence?
@Bill Beck
I'm touched by your bibliographical dedication to my posts. Almost a bit spooky.
Obama's West Point speech indicated a lack of understanding of certain matters. His Tucson speech indicated a degree of courage in repudiating certain far left elements in his base. As a result of November 2, 2010 and other factors, he's evolving. You might consider doing the same to avoid accelerating marginalization.
As for outrage, perhaps I misread your Wild Wild West post wherein your sentiments about Sarah Palin did not come across as exactly laudatory. As for selective, I searched in vain for any comparable excoriation of left wing rhetoric. Bullseyes and crosshairs somehow don't strike me as polar opposites.
The reason that it was so easy to find was that you make it so by being so dishonest. I looked back at some early posts, and clicked first on your post about Greg Thomas. You ridiculed him for sme mention of being "bi-polar" or something. I weighed that argument against some comments against it. Although it lacks compassion and empathy, it was useless in this point. So I went on to another one. The next one I clicked was Obama at West Point. Wouldn't you know it, you mentioned "outrage", like you had with me. Looking further, you seemed to criticize the President for lacking it. The rest is all there.
The point is, you're talking out of your hat almost all of the time, Gordon. And if anyone were to go thru your posts, one can find evidence of that in short order. You lack the honesty and the decency to address an issue properly. Your backhanded compliment of the President is evidence of that. You false accusation of "outrage" show that. And your predictable snark about "dedication" to your posts shows that.
The shooting is a serious issue, Gordon. I'm sure you can agree. The President's laudable handling of the issue, and the way the nation deals with it are serious issues. You are welcome to join the serious people. If you want to give the President a compliment, just do so. Don't do the backhanded snark that you did, and not expect to be exposed for your inconsistencies. That is what made you vulnerable to this. Most of your posts distort the truth. That is what makes them so easy to find. It does not require "dedication."
Although I don't own a hat, I'd prefer to speak through IT rather than the poisoned prisim of paranoia which is your chronic megaphone.
Although I certainly don't study your posts with the same dedication you seem to bring to mine, what little I've read causes me to conclude that you're a second-rate writer and a third-rate thinker. But no problem; it's always a pleasure to hear from you.
"Although I don't own a hat, I'd prefer to speak through IT rather than the poisoned prisim of paranoia which is your chronic megaphone." deleted my comment the first time, so let's see how many times he does so.
What's a prisim, gorgon?
Had the useful correction of my typo not been encased in the usual mire, I would have let it stand. You can be sure, however, that if you and yours continue to give out with the usual brand of illiterate, ignorant, bile, those comments will bite the dust.
In any event, the book is not for you. In addition to the big words, it is addressed to "those who think they don't need [a guide to English]." There is no way you could conceivably believe, even in your wildest fantasies, that you're in that group. Even one as stupid as you must realize how much help you need.
Just watched the presser by the fire and medical first responders. Again, Clarence "Pug-Ugly" Dupnik was nowhere to be found. I guess he was huddled with Paul Krugman on his next sociological tract.