Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
Shall we all admit it?
After the partisan bickering that followed Saturday's killings, Obama stepped forward to be what analyst Nate Silver called "the adult in the room." This was meant to be the Republicans' week, as they took control of the House of Representatives and its legislative agenda. Instead they look small – as well as defensive, fending off accusations that it was the violent rhetoric of the right that fuelled the current toxic political environment. None smaller than the de facto leader of today's Republican party, Sarah Palin, who preceded the Tucson address with an aggressive, self-regarding and petty-minded videotaped message that claimed she had been the victim of a "blood libel". The contrast between the two performances could not have been sharper.
- Comment (162)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
Claire, you're the Coliseum, but this is utter bollocks. From my perspective, the left was crushed in this exchange. They have been made to appear what they are: filthy-minded, desperate and deeply dishonest. They essentially accused Sarah Palin of murder and when she answered with what was, to my mind, an eloquent and precise response, they said: "Hey, don't get all, like, defensive." Applesauce. Obama's speech was fine, but echoed the nonsensical meme that we all need to be much nicer to each other while he goes about dismantling the American system of government. This is the socialist Guardian expressing its hopes, not the view from the ground as I see it, or as anyone else except the navel-gazing left sees it.
Oct '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
If Alan Dershowitz is ok with Palin's use of "blood libel," so am I.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17081362
I also don't have a problem with an aggressive response from someone who has been (and continues to be!) maliciously and without a shred of evidence accused of being an accessory to mass murder and an attempted political assassination.
But that's just me.
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
For a clearer sense of political reality, try this from Jennifer Rubin at WaPo:
h/t Glenn Reynolds.
Nov '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
I admit nothing of the kind. I thought Palin's statement was exactly what she should have said. If it was not, I'd like to hear why.
Jul '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
What He Said!
Sep '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
I agree.
Sep '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
I feel similarly. I did not listen to the speech (it made me cringe listening to the hooting and hollering) but have read lots of plaudits for what the president said and how he said it. Very happy making. THAT said, must we always hedge in supporting Sarah Palin? It's so annoying to read headlines to the effect of "Palin lashes out," as if at nothing but the wind. And of course, there's always the hedge: "as you all know, I'm not into Sarah Palin." OK then, here I go: I really like this woman. I think she'd be great at heading up a relief organization and might be quite good as an energy secretary or some other such office. She's mostly made it on her own, which I'm in awe of, and in a crisis I'd feel much better being around her than most elected officials, Was she libeled? Definitely. Was it in the sense of libeled with blood on her hands? Yes. Is this libel far more dangerous to the body politic than flying the Gadsen flag? To my mind, infinitely more so.
May '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
It's easy for Obama to appear to castigate his minions from the lofty perch, but until last night, he was guilty of letting it go on, and he was no doubt cheering them along, if not directing it.
The guy that shot these people was, for all intensive purposes, a liberal (although not guided by ideology), the libs were the ones that made this political, and the libs are the ones pretending to call a truce as soon as the narrative started to collapse.
And we look petty?
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
I half agree with most of what's been posted above so far. The Dems came across as rabid animals in their reaction to Tucson. Obama's speech was good, and moving, if a little bromide-laden. And as for Palin....I think Charles Krauthammer hits it on the head: “I found her speech unobjectionable, unremarkable but unnecessary.” And since it was unnecessary, that makes her speech a bit pettily self-centered.
Aug '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
Thank you.
Oct '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
Claire, I have to side with Andrew here. In order for Obama's to rise above the fray and give a fair-minded and non-partisan response, he had mirror the talking points of the conservative pundits. That had to be difficult for him, though I don't doubt it was all calculated after a look at the polls. It might help him with the moderates, but it also serves to illustrate that the opinions expressed by the conservatives aren't just partisan reaction.
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
I see we don't all admit it! Okay, I'll have to make the case. But my fingers are tired from typing today--I spent all my energy on the Muslim Brotherhood. For now, I'll just say that the most salient part of Palin's speech for me was that it bored me. I thought, "I really should watch this, I'm sure we'll all be talking about it." But I had to struggle to pay attention. And while I would never argue that emotions equal the truth, I reckon something about my reaction is important. Let me think about what precisely it is, and make the case at greater length when I've put my finger on it.
Did anyone else feel bored?
Nov '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
Krauthammer is no fan of Palin. His review of her speech is high praise compared to what he usually says about her.
Sep '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
Here's what I admit: in that last 24 hours, disappointment that Claire, JPod, and Jen Rubin have in like manner taken this opportunity to try to score points against Sarah Palin, whom they dislike for entirely different causes. In my mind, that is shameful.
As far as "blood libel" goes, I, like I suppose Glenn Reynolds given his usage on Sunday, had taken this a term to use for a false charge involving murder from a lifetime in this culture. It was only after listening to Paul Johnson's "History of the Jews" and then later the "Prioress's Tale" earlier this year that the phrase crystallized in my Goy-mind into "the libel about the blood of Christian children." And, most people making a fuss about this phrase know damn well that it is used all the time in the way Sarah used it. But, cheap political point scoring is all that matters to some people.
Shame.
Sep '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
It totally bored me! And I don't like all the god references. Not at all. But I don't care about the speech itself because I actually don't want Palin to be president and so am not looking at it that way. What I see is a vicious subjectivity posing as objective fact, and being accepted and promoted as such. To me, this is a far more sinister reality than her admittedly very poor form.
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: the most salient part of Palin's speech for me was that it bored me.
Jan 13 at 7:48am
Sep '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
This is utter nonsense. Almost to the point of delusional.
Everyone from lowly bloggers to MSM figureheads to Democrat Senators and Representatives have lashed out in frothy mouthed condemnations of "conservative rhetoric" as being culpable in a mass murder. All of which is based purely out of personal vindictiveness on the D's part and has not a shred of tangible evidence to back up their claims.
Yet we are to believe that the R's are looking small?
May '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
This statement sends chills up my spine.
Sep '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
Claire...Sarah Palin in particular and Republicans in general have been publicly accused of being accessories to mass murder. They have decided to publicly defend themselves against this scurrilous charge. The Guardian thinks this is wrong, if not utterly stupid. You are going to think of reasons why the Guardian is correct. That is absolutely stunning.
Sep '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
First O’s address made me feel glad to be an American. I agree with “Coach K” (Krauthammer). Why anyone would want to contrast the two addresses is beyond me. The president’s proper role was to console a nation and eulogize the victims, which he accomplished. No one could possibly think Palin was attempting to do the same. Palin, who lost the vice presidential election, has more influence on the national conversation, with little help from the press, than anyone but the president. Bidden, who won, is a footnote. The fact that she is not an intellectual and does not condescend to attempt to be one irritates you and your class and explains the not so clever attack. Comparing O’s address with Bush’s, Clinton’s etc. is appropriate. Perhaps you would care to explain why you think comparing it to Palin’s is? I agree that O has started his comeback. I expected nothing less.
Nov '10
Re: Hey, For Once the Guardian is Right
Claire - I read rather than watched the speech. It was perfectly acceptable for the situation (it was put up simultaneously with the video). The 'blood libel' part is actually only a small part of it, but was absolutely necessary considering the way the commentary unfolded on the left. It's pretty clear the commentariat on the right is not going to defend Palin, and given that Palin is pretty representative of 'heartland' values, they look more than happy to abandon that as well. Maybe it's time to revisit Burke about what happens when good men do nothing.
And sorry it wasn't entertaining. Some things in life just aren't supposed to be.