Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

TO OUR READERS:  Please click on Urgent Agenda several times during the day.  We hope, in 2011, depending on the news, to put up at least one post during the afternoon hours, so there'll always be something new to read.  So visit us regularly.

JANUARY 13,  2011

OBAMA'S NUMBERS REBOUND – AT 9:09 P.M. ET:  It may be an awkward moment to be talking about political gains and losses, but we must report.  President Obama's poll numbers are rising, as noted by the Weekly Standard, and it's a lesson for Republicans, some of whom think 2012 will be easy:

Good news for the president. After nearly two years of sliding downward, his job approval numbers have ticked up a little bit. The average of major media polls in December had him clocking in with a job approval of about 45 percent. As of early January, his numbers are up to about 49 percent. The two daily tracking polls have shown similar movement. At the beginning of the month, Gallup had the president around 45 percent approval while today he is at 48 percent. Rasmussen has found similar movement.

And...

This is a good time to remind Republicans that 2012 is not going to be a cakewalk. It is extremely difficult to unseat incumbent presidents, if for no other reason than the fact that people want the president to succeed, giving him a structural advantage that the challenging party simply does not enjoy. Republicans will have to nominate a sharp candidate with broad appeal who inspires confidence that he or she will do a better job in the middle of the country. Otherwise, President Obama will surely win a second term.

COMMENT:  We have also stressed here that Republicans must take into account, and work to overcome, the terrible bias of the mainstream media.  There was no real media strategy on our side in 2008, and John McCain suffered because of it.  Ronald Reagan learned to speak above the heads of the media establishment and directly to the American people, with obvious results.

President Reagan, when chided over the fact that he'd been an actor, also said that he didn't know how anyone without acting training could be president.  He was making a good point.  A presidential candidate must have the rhetorical skill to present himself, or herself, to the American people, and that skill must be assessed during the nominating process.

January 13, 2011      Permalink

YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS – AT 6:10 P.M. ET:  At a time when we're concerned about extremism, volatile speech, and potential violence, this story appears.  It's from Fox News.  I'd love to know if anyone else will have the guts to run it:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said it will remove a poster from the group's website promoting an upcoming conference that encourages people not to talk to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The poster, which appeared on the website of CAIR’s California chapter, features a sinister-looking FBI agent with the headlines “Build a Wall of Resistance” and “Don’t Talk to the FBI.” The poster was designed in the late 1970s or early 1980s and has been reproduced by various groups and activists since then in response to alleged harassment by the FBI and to protest grand jury subpoenas.

“I think it’s subject to misinterpretation,” spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told Fox News Radio when speaking about the poster. “We decided out of extreme caution to take it down.”

The poster was promoting a conference called “FBI Raids and Grand Jury Subpoenas: Know Your Rights and Defend Our Communities.” The keynote speaker is Hatem Abudayyeh, identified by CAIR as an activist and Palestinian community leader whose home was allegedly raided by federal agents in September.

The conference is scheduled for Feb. 9 at the East Side Cultural Center in Oakland.

Hooper conceded the poster “crosses the line,” but refused to renounce the artwork and blamed critics for fomenting what he called a manufactured controversy.

COMMENT:  Manufactured controversy?  Really?  A poster tells Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement, when human life might be at stake, and that's a manufactured controversy?

I suppose the usual suspects will crawl out of the woodwork to denounce those who protested the poster as "Islamophobic," but it won't wash. 

By the way, CAIR is often described by the fashion plates of the mainstream media as "moderate."  Remarkable, isn't it?

January 13, 2011      Permalink

FINALLY, AFTER FIVE DAYS – AT 5:52 P.M. ET:  We have complained mightily here about the knee-jerk first response of the mainstream media to the Arizona shootings.  We've also griped, correctly, that certain institutions in American society, like colleges, are too often exempted from criticism.

To its credit, The New York Times runs a story today raising serious questions about the performance of the alleged shooter's college, which knew that he had serious mental deficits.   

TUCSON — Many people had a glimpse of the deep delusions and festering anger of Jared L. Loughner, but none seemed in a better position to connect the dots than officials at Pima Community College.

After the release of detailed reports on Mr. Loughner’s bizarre outbursts and violent Internet fantasies that the college had kept, the focus has turned to whether it did all it could to prevent his apparent descent into explosive violence last weekend.

In September, Pima had suspended Mr. Loughner and told him not to return without a psychologist’s letter certifying that he posed no danger. But it took no steps to mandate that he have a psychiatric evaluation, which in Arizona is easier than in many states.

Laura J. Waterman, the clinical director of the Southern Arizona Mental Health Corporation in Tucson, criticized Pima officials for not initiating an involuntary evaluation.

“Where does it reach a level where you say this person shouldn’t be a part of any community and we have a responsibility to do something about that?” she said. The clinic, which offers walk-in psychiatric crisis care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay, is one of the agencies Pima students are referred to when they need mental health services, including students who have been suspended like Mr. Loughner.

No record of Mr. Loughner seeking or receiving mental health care has surfaced.

And the college's response:

“It is part of our practice to provide students with information of where they can go,” said Charlotte Fugett, an official at the college. “It’s their responsibility to find a practitioner.”

So impressive.

The fact is that there is a history going back more than three decades of actions to discourage or even block involuntary commitment of mental patients.  Back in the 70s, some civil libertarians believed, and apparently still do, that it is a violation of someone's rights to involuntary commit that person because of certain mental disorders.

The crusade against involuntary commitment must now be reexamined.  It has produced some catastrophic results, including the phenomenon of dangerous people wandering the streets, possibly in possession of a weapon, and mentally ill people becoming homeless and even freezing to death.

The road to Hell, as we were taught, is paved with good intentions. 

The Times story is worth reading.

January 13, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:

David Nelson, the elder son of Ozzie and Harriet Nelson, the brother of Rick Nelson and the last surviving member of the television family that perhaps more than any other stood for the Eisenhower-era middle-class American dream, died at home in Los Angeles on Tuesday. He was 74.

It may have been artificial, superficial, and sugar-coated, but "Ozzie and Harriet" had a serenity and decency that told us that family was a pretty important thing.  We could use a little of that today.

January 13, 2011       Permalink

MORE ECONOMIC DISTRESS – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  Coming after the home-foreclosure report, our second post up today, the new jobs report can only add to apprehension that the economic recovery is sluggish at best, an illusion at worst.  From Bloomberg:

The number of first-time claims for unemployment insurance payments jumped in the first week of 2011 to the highest level since October as more Americans lined up to file following the holidays.

Initial jobless claims rose by 35,000 to 445,000, according to Labor Department data released today. The median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey called for 410,000 filings. The average number of applications over the past four weeks, a less-volatile gauge, increased to 416,500.

Today’s figures follow a report last week showing the U.S. added fewer jobs than forecast in December, underscoring the concern of Federal Reserve policy makers about the labor market. Economic growth may need to accelerate further and encourage companies to ramp up the hiring necessary to reduce the unemployment rate.

“Firms won’t go out and hire a lot of people until they’re confident that demand is increasing,” Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida, said before the report. “Demand is improving but it isn’t enough.”

COMMENT:  An economy is based partly on psychological perception, and the indicators of the last week will not improve that perception. 

Let's see how the mainstream media spins this.  As we've seen this week, it's already in 2012 mode, protecting President Obama, and it will be a formidable force in his corner, as it was in 2008.

January 13, 2011      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  In one of the most informed analyses of why the left went berserk this week in its attacks on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, Daniel Henninger of The Wall Street Journal recalls the intellectual basis for much left-wing thought:

What happened in November has to be stopped, by whatever means become available. Available this week was a chance to make some independents wonder if the tea parties, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Jared Loughner are all part of the same dark force.

Who believes this? They do.

The divide between this strain of the American left and its conservative opponents is about more than politics and policy. It goes back a long way, it is deep, and it will never be bridged. It is cultural, and it explains more than anything the "intensity" that exists now between these two competing camps. (The independent laments: "Can't we all just get along?" Answer: No.)

The Rosetta Stone that explains this tribal divide is Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter's classic 1964 essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Hofstadter's piece for Harper's may be unfamiliar to many now, but each writer at the opening of this column knows by rote what Hofstadter's essay taught generations of young, left-wing intellectuals about conservatism and the right.

After Hofstadter, the American right wasn't just wrong on policy. Its people were psychologically dangerous and undeserving of holding authority for any public purpose. By this mental geography, the John Birch Society and the tea party are cut from the same backwoods cloth.

COMMENT:  Henninger is correct, and I would go beyond his comments.  The cultural divide even includes such items as how someone speaks, the schools someone attended, and, of course, the part of the country from which someone came.

It was only a few years after Hofstadter wrote his essay that the left erupted over Vietnam, and over its dislike of Lyndon Johnson's culture, the way he spoke, his Texas roots.  He wasn't Kennedy.  He didn't have the right diploma.  And Texas was quasi-Southern.  In fact, the hatred against Johnson, a hatred that ignored his vast contributions to civil-rights legislation in 1964, began right after he was inaugurated, and he never overcame it.  He won the 1964 election only because his opponent, Barry Goldwater, was perceived as outside mainstream American politics.

The cultural divide explains much about the attacks on Sarah Palin.  True, she's created some of her own problems.  But had she been from Massachusetts, had she attended Wellesley, had she been pro-choice, the reaction would have been entirely different.

January 13, 2011       Permalink

MEANWHILE, IN THE REAL WORLD – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  The Arizona shootings have understandably taken our eye off other issues, like an economy whose recovery is ultra-fragile.  Consider this, from Fox:

The bleakest year in the foreclosure crisis has only just begun.

Lenders are poised to take back more homes this year than any other since the U.S. housing meltdown began in 2006. About 5 million borrowers are at least two months behind on their mortgages and more will miss payments as they struggle with job losses and loans worth more than their home's value, industry analysts forecast.

"2011 is going to be the peak," said Rick Sharga, a senior vice president at foreclosure tracker RealtyTrac Inc.
The outlook comes after banks repossessed more than 1 million homes in 2010, RealtyTrac said Thursday. That marked the highest annual tally of properties lost to foreclosure on records dating back to 2005.

One in 45 U.S. households received a foreclosure filing last year, or a record high of 2.9 million homes. That's up 1.67 percent from 2009.

COMMENT:  This is a catastrophe, but doesn't get much play in the mainstream media.  I can't think of much that is worse economically than a family losing its home. 

We were given "good" employment news last week, only to find out later that it wasn't very good at all.  The unemployment rate went down, but only because more and more people are leaving the work force.  If the employment picture doesn't actually improve, and if foreclosures escalate, the political implications for the president and his party can be grave.  Unless there is a major foreign crisis, the economy will still dominate our political discussion.

January 13, 2011       Permalink

ARE THEY HAPPY NOW? – AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  We warned about this just a few days ago, after the anti-Palin hysteria started.  From ABC News:

An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor's team has been talking to security professionals.

Since the shooting in Tucson, Palin has taken much heat for her "crosshairs" map that targeted 20 congressional Democrats in the 2010 mid-term election, including that of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was the main target of Saturday's attack.

Friends say Palin, a possible 2012 contender, was galled as suggestions of her role in the tragedy have swirled.

COMMENT:  This increase in threats against Palin was inevitable.  Yet, I still have not heard anyone on the left denounce them.  President Obama could be gracious and order the FBI to investigate the threats, and he could even offer Palin some temporary federal security protection, for she may actually need it.

I have rarely seen the kind of viciousness that has been directed at Sarah Palin this week. 

January 13, 2011    Permalink

JANUARY 12,  2011

10:32 P.M. ET:  The news outlets are back to normal programming, with Greta Van Susteren doing a fine report on the history of the suspect.  There are new reports about bizarre blog postings.  It is becoming clear that the sheriff's office may have some explaining to do.  Certainly some intervention was indicated, and is easily done under Arizona law.  More reporting please.

9:56 P.M. ET:  I turned to CNN to monitor its commentary.  I was very surprised to see the discussion switch over to Sarah Palin's remarks this morning, which were heavily slammed as being too much about Sarah.  I think that's unfair.  If Sarah Palin hadn't defended herself, she would have been accused of ducking the issue.  The rest of the CNN commentary, regarding the president's remarks, was split between a verdict of great, and a verdict of okay.

9:37 P.M. ET:  I'm monitoring the Fox News commentary, which is somewhat more favorable to the president than were my observations.  Fair enough.  Chris Wallace pointed out that Mr. Obama's remarks followed the general tradition of such things, but were twice as long, which may have contributed to my feeling that the impact became dissipated as the speech continued.

9:20 P.M. ET:  The president of the university is up again.  Fox News's Bret Baier has just echoed what we've said here, that the occasion lacks a certain solemnity. 

9:16 P.M. ET:  Obama is going on too long.  Nothing he says is wrong, but again I must say that there is a hollowness.  Obama the candidate has never quite been Obama the president.  He has now finished.  No objection to what he said, but the impact dissipated along the way.

9:08 P.M. ET:  A comment:  Obama's speech is fine, but not more than that.  You just have the feeling that he doesn't mean it.  Ronald Reagan had a touch.  He reached people.  Obama lacks that touch.  He reaches voters.  There's just something missing, and I hope that isn't too harsh.

9:02 P.M. ET:  Obama is getting political.  He talks about the need for a healing kind of speech.  He says it's okay to "challenge old assumptions" to prevent such tragedies from happening.  It's sufficiently vague to be acceptable.  He says, correctly, that we should not use this occasion to turn on each other.  Can't disagree.

8:55 P.M. ET:  Obama is delivering, thus far, an appropriate speech.  He's concentrating on the victims.

8:44 P.M. ET:  President Obama has just been introduced by the president of the Univesity of Arizona, who strikes me as a man who thought he was introducing a basketball star.  The guy strikes the wrong note, and the students are cheering again.  The event lacks the sobriety that was required.  We hope the president repairs that.

8:41 P.M. ET:  Attorney-General Holder does a Bible reading. 

8:37 P.M. ET:  Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano speaks.  She's a former Arizona governor, so her presence is appropriate.

8:30 P.M. ET:  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer speaks.  I feared that she'd be greeted with boos, but she was not.  She is giving a perfectly dignified speech.

8:28 P.M. ET:  Daniel Hernandez, an aide to Congresswoman Giffords, who assisted her after the shooting, gives a classy speech, thanking others, rejecting the title "hero." 

8:22 P.M. ET:  Well, the president of the University is finished, and now a student leader is speaking.  She speaks with class and style, and seems to understand that this is not a pep rally.

8:18 P.M. ET:  The national anthem has been well sung, and the president of the university is again speaking, and again the students in the crowd are whooping.  We feel like putting our fingers in our ears and waiting for the main event, Mr. Obama.

8:15 P.M. ET:  The president of the University of Arizona is speaking.  I have to tell you, there's a tone here that is inappropriate.  Apparently, whoever is running this service, which is being held in a huge hall, invited many University of Arizona students who don't seem to understand the solemnity of the occasion, and yell and cheer whenever they like something.  Upbringing counts.

8:09 P.M. ET:  The memorial service in Tucson, at which President Obama will speak, has begun.  The service started with "Fanfare for the Common Man," by Copland, entirely appropriate.

Now we're being subjected to a native American blessing, delivered by a gentleman who needed a bit of editing, and a reminder that it isn't about him.  There's one in every crowd.

WHITEWASH – AT 7:05 P.M. ET:  I've been disappointed in some of the reporting by the Washington Post following the Arizona tragedy.  The Post's editorial page has been restrained and responsible, in contrast to that of The out-of-control New York Times, but the reporting still has the tinge of the view from the left.  The paper has made important strides in the last two years to free itself from the grip of biased reporting.  But attempts to whitewash the actions of Arizona authorities over the years, in their reaction to complaints about Saturday's alleged shooter, are a bit of a setback.  Consider: 

The Pima County Sheriff's Department on Wednesday released reports from 12 cases in which its officers interacted with the family of Jared Loughner, files that provided evidence of the accused gunman's troubled childhood but contained no obvious foreshadowing of the rampage that killed six and left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) critically wounded.

Look, if there was any obvious foreshadowing, the guy could have been detained.  The problem here is that we're talking about 12 cases, plus 5 cases from the college he attended.  At what point is there enough information to place in the federal database, which would have prevented this guy from buying a gun?

The story lets the sheriff's office off too easily, especially since this sheriff has become a liberal darling in the last three days, announcing his political views for the world to hear.

None of the cases involves Loughner, 22, making violent threats, using a firearm or hurting anyone. The most serious case involved a small-time drug arrest in 2007, when a sheriff's deputy reported finding a marijuana pipe in Loughner's pocket.

I love the term "small-time drug arrest."  That is an editorial opinion.  Why wasn't that drug arrest in the federal database?  I don't know the answer, but the newspeople should have asked.

But other cases provided a window into Loughner's early life, in which friends have said he became increasingly isolated and at odds with his parents. In 2004, police were called to Mountain View High School at 9 a.m. because of an intoxicated student.

Combine this with the five reports from his college of class disruptions and frightening behavior, and we have a case that should have allowed official intervention.  It's been reported that Arizona has a low bar for such intervention, yet nothing was done.  And the story doesn't even delve into it.

There is some good factual reporting here, but the mainstream media has been far too lax in questioning how a man with the alleged shooter's background got so far without any clamping down by authorities.

January 12, 2011       Permalink

VULGAR, VULGAR, VULGAR – AT 6:08 P.M. ET:  It is just shocking to the tasteless reaction of some people to Sarah Palin's fine, dignified comment this morning about the Arizona tragedy.

You'll see that there is already a controversy over Sarah's use of the term "blood libel," with some "commentators" suggesting that she's so ignorant she doesn't know what the term means, or that its use is "hurtful," or that she may even be a bigot.  This is really bad stuff.

The term "blood libel" stems from the ancient myth that Jews take the blood of Christian babies for use in Jewish ritual.  True, it's a horrible, degenerate and untruthful charge, a "blood libel."  By using the term, Sarah's critics charge, she's shown insensitivity to Jewish feelings.

That is nonsense.

Over the centuries, the meaning of "blood libel" in everyday speech has been expanded to mean any serious and untruthful charge that someone is doing something unspeakable to someone else, resulting in that person's death or grievous injury.  The fact is, the Israelis use the term all the time to describe the horrible libels against Israel, often originating in Arab or pro-Arab journals. 

Sarah Palin is one of the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel political figures in America.  She even has a small Israeli flag in her office and has been seen wearing a pin with crossed American and Israeli flags.  To suggest that she is insensitive to Jews is a new low, in my opinion.  Will her critics stoop to any level?

What is particularly outrageous is that some of these new charges against Sarah are coming from two British newspapers, the Independent and the Guardian, two of the most viciously anti-Israel newspapers in the world.   Gee, are they just discovering anti-Semitism?  I hadn't noticed their concern before when they printed the most wild charges against the Israelis.

It is entirely legitimate to debate Sarah's remarks.  Some liked them, some didn't.  But to bring this ugliness into the discussion is out of bounds.  No class, no taste.

January 12, 2011     Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:

Calling the decision "disrespectful," Charlotte City Council member Patrick Cannon on Tuesday harshly criticized the school district's announcement that students would attend classes on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to make up for a snow day.  Also Tuesday, the Charlotte chapter of the NAACP called for local clergy to urge church members to keep their children out of school Monday.  Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools had planned next Monday as a holiday, but a severe winter storm has closed school so far this week.

Another horrible example of black "leadership," which often produces nothing but fodder for the race industry.  Dr. King would probably want those kids in school, to make up for time lost.  That would be a real way to honor him - a normal school day with time out for reflections on his legacy.  Too bad the "leadership" doesn't understand that, and prefers a day off to education.

January 12, 2011      Permalink

REMARKABLE TURN – AT 10:04 A.M. ET:  There has been a remarkable turn in public approval of Congress since the Republicans took over the House.  Andrew Malcolm reports in the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog:

With so much national attention focused on the keen criminology insights of Arizona's Clarence the Talking Sheriff, a stunning new Gallup Poll on Congress almost flew right by.

The new national survey finds that within only five days of Republicans taking majority control of the House of Representatives on Jan. 4, Americans' approval of the bicameral body's job shot up more than 50%, from its record low of 13% to 20%.

The spurt in support came despite the candidly ominous opening speech by the new Speaker John Boehner, "Our debt will soon eclipse the size of our entire economy."

The job approval of Congress has been trending downward for much of the past two years under the large Democratic majorities in both houses and the leaderships of now ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and barely surviving Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who lost six of his 10-seat margin in the Nov. 2 midterms.

We concede that 20% isn't very high, but the trend is upward, not downward, as Andrew Malcolm points out. 

Meanwhile, another poll finds that 42% of Americans view the Republicans' congressional agenda as "mainstream," while fully 49% call the Democrats' congressional agenda "extreme." How could that be after increasing the national debt only $54,000 every second?

COMMENT:  Now Republicans must produce, to build that approval rating.  It will take a long time for it to grow, so much damage having been done.  But only Republicans can grow it.  Democrats have stopped trying.

January 12, 2011       Permalink

THE ADULTS MOVE IN – AT 9:23 A.M. ET:  Some of our best journalists, and there are few in that categroy, are speaking out about Arizona, and providing the kind of context that has been missing for day.  Michael Barone, who knows more about American political history than almost anyone, examines the real history of political assassinations.  Amazing what some facts will do.  From the Washington Examiner: 

Some broader perspective may be in order. The last congressman to be attacked by a gunman was California Rep. Leo Ryan, murdered at the Jonestown massacre in Guyana in 1978, 32 years ago.

In other words, this isn't exactly an everyday event, despite the impression given by some overwrought TV commentators.

How many times have member of Congress made announced appearances, without security personnel, over the past 32 years? How many thousands? Tens of thousands?

The answer is that this kind of attack is, thank goodness, exceedingly rare -- though not as rare as all decent people would like.

And...

Vitriolic rhetoric comes from all points on the political compass. But many in the media, when trying to assess blame for violent acts, have an impulse to look for it only on the right.

Yes, we've noticed.

Actually, we do know of societies where people on one side of the political divide encourage and sponsor assassinations of people whom they oppose.

This was Germany in the years after World War I, when those who thought Germany had been stabbed in the back hailed the assassination of the industrialist and moderate (Jewish) politician Walter Rathenau in 1922. Including a failed painter from Vienna named Adolf Hitler.

This was Japan in the 1930s, when advocates of military aggression systematically assassinated moderates who wanted their country to live in peace with its neighbors and not seek conquests abroad.

Or, to take an example from last week, Pakistan, where the governor of Punjab was assassinated. His offense: opposing blasphemy laws that carried a death penalty. Those who supported his assassination celebrated publicly and urged more such killings.

And...

Suggestions that the shooting in Arizona are of the same ilk as these examples is something of a blood libel against the politicians of all stripes in our country and of the American people. No American politician, no significant segment of any political movement, no statistically identifiable share of the American people wishes the violent death of its political opponents.

Obviously.  Fine words from a master.

I wish now we would have the kind of reporting that is so needed at a time like this:  What motivates some of those who hurl the blood libel?  Who influenced them?  Who taught them in college?  Who challenges them inside their organizations when they are way off base?

We await answers.  Indeed, we await the questions.

January 12, 2011       Permalink

OBAMA'S TURN – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  Now that Sarah Palin has spoken, it is Obama's turn.  He speaks in Arizona tonight, and we wonder whether he will rise to the occasion, or take the advice of some petty members of his party to use Arizona as a means of gaining political advantage.

We hope the president speaks responsibly.  We hope he doesn't engage in the cynical opportunism displayed by Bill Clinton after Oklahoma City, when he tried to blame talk radio for the tragedy.  True, Clinton's approval ratings shot up, but eventually the charge did not stick, and is no ornament to Clinton's checkered record. 

Can Obama rise?  Can he become larger than himself?  At times he has failed, not understanding the majesty of his office, and its singular place as a "bully pulpit."

The president must condemn the act, express compassion, and then warn against reckless attempts to assess blame.  If he wishes to speak out about angry words in politics, he must condemn both sides equally.  If he wishes to make proposals, they must be well thought out, not knee-jerk reactions.  There are serious issues he can touch on – such as why the alleged shooter's mental condition, and the many complaints against him, did not warrant an intervention by authorities; or why the defendant's mental history was not in the federal database, which would have prevented him from buying a gun.

Your turn, Mr. Obama.  To paraphrase that famous line from "42nd Street," you can go out there a president, and come back a star.  Or you can come back a jerk.

January 12, 2011      Permalink

SARAH SPEAKS OUT – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  Sarah Palin has struck back, and she is magnificent.  Read the entire text of her statement here.  You can see the video here.

The excerpts speak for themselves:

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

And...

If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

And...

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

Please read the whole thing, and watch.  I hope Sarah appears again on TV today to discuss what she's said.  She should not fear questions, for she has the right answers.

Of all the statements issued since the Tucson shootings, hers is the best.  She has risen to the occasion, but I fear the damage inflicted on her has already been done.

January 12, 2011     Permalink