Media meme o’ the day: Obama’s speech was much more presidential than Palin’s

posted at 8:04 pm on January 13, 2011 by Allahpundit

This is a useful way to wrap up (hopefully) the coverage of Our National Conversation On Rhetoric as it’s a stark example of how easily the propaganda about Palin’s culpability in the shootings was accepted as a political fact of life. There are two ways a reporter could address yesterday’s oratorical bookends by her and Obama. One: “Hey, isn’t it insane that Palin had to give this speech? People don’t normally have to point out that they’re not responsible for a mass murder that they’re not linked to in any way, do they?” Call that the “reality-based” approach. Two: “How silly of Palin to set up an unfavorable contrast with Obama by giving a defensive speech on a day when he’s pushing uplift. Don’t her advisors know anything about ‘messaging’?” We’ll call that the “you’re badly missing the point” take. It’s true as far as it goes — Palin’s team should have anticipated that some viewers will naturally compare her tone to his, notwithstanding the two speeches’ dramatically different circumstances — but it’s also utterly banal and lazy. What’s a more constructive use of a political reporter’s time — pointing out to his audience the eminently apparent fact that, yes indeed, Palin’s tone doesn’t compare favorably to Obama’s in this case? Or pointing out, in case they’re not aware, that that might be because she had to respond to an endless Orwellian smear tying her to a homicidal lunatic? Accuse The One of complicity in mass murder and, I assure you, his reaction won’t be sunshine and candy canes either.

The “badly missing the point” take is what I was getting at in goofing on Politico yesterday. For political media, whether any facts exist that link the right to Loughner is more or less immaterial; what matters is that the left’s narrative of tying the right to Loughner exists and, as such, it’s a fact of political life that should be assimilated and covered like any other. Obama’s eulogizing the victims of a shooting and Palin’s defending herself from the repulsive charge that she’s somehow responsible for the body count, but since they both spoke on the same day, well, that’s good enough for a moronic superficial horserace-type comparison. Politico:

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…

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…

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.

A homework assignment for aspiring speechwriters: Try to write an address titled “I Didn’t Kill Anyone” without sounding aggrieved. More from the Times:

Ms. Palin’s decision to post the video on the Internet on Wednesday morning all but invited comparisons to the president’s previously announced appearance at the memorial service for those slain in Arizona.

And her choice of words — most notably the accusation that her critics were guilty of “blood libel” for the things they have said about her — made it impossible to ignore the video as merely another statement from a politician…

[W]hat could not have been more different was the tone. Where Ms. Palin was direct and forceful, Mr. Obama was soft and restrained. Where Ms. Palin was accusatory, Mr. Obama appeared to go out of his way to avoid pointing fingers or assigning blame. Where she stressed the importance of fighting for our different beliefs, he emphasized our need for unity, referring to the “American family — 300 million strong.”

Nowhere in the piece does the Times explain precisely what “things they have said about her.” If you read it without knowing the backstory of the past several days and the left’s obsession with her crosshairs map, you might think Palin had posted a video to eulogize the victims and then inexplicably launched into a tirade against the media halfway through based on old grievances, like the Couric interview. The closest it comes to filling the reader in is to quote her denouncing “mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy.”

And on we go. Here’s some refreshing candor from Lloyd Grove: Yes, it’s unfair to compare the two speeches — but why should that stop us?

The prematurely retired Alaska governor had to serve up her remarks, really a litany of complaints against her critics and political adversaries, while seated in front of a non-working stone fireplace, apparently at her home in Wasilla—a claustrophobic setting framed by an outsize American flag.

The president got to deliver his affecting half-hour of heartfelt reflection and soulful inspiration—repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations—to an arena at the University of Arizona filled to the rafters with 14,000 mourners, notably members of his Cabinet and the Supreme Court, the governor of Arizona, the astronaut-husband of wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords, the heroes who risked their own lives to save others, the doctors and nurses who tended the injured and bleeding, and the friends and families of the six people, including a 9-year-old girl, who were killed by a gun-wielding maniac Saturday morning at a shopping center.

“At the end of the day, after listening to the president, we’ll know why he’s president and she never will be,” said Robert Shrum.

To the speechwriters: For extra credit on your assignment, figure out a “presidential” way to explore the theme, “I Didn’t Beam Homicidal Mind Control Rays into that Crazed Gunman’s Brain.” The big joke here, of course, is that the only “presidential” way Palin could have handled this — according to the media, I mean — would be to simply let this whole thing slide. That’s what presidents do, right? Thick skin, stiff upper lip, even when their enemies are being terribly unfair to them. When it comes to politics, that’s business as usual. My point this week, though, and Ace’s point at his site, has been that this episode isn’t business as usual. This isn’t some standard “Palin’s using rhetorical dog whistles for her Christian base!” attack. This is a congresswoman bleeding out of her head on the sidewalk with six bodies lying around her, one of them a little girl, and Palin being blamed for it instantly. And yet according to Keith Ellison, the proper response here should have been to validate that accusation by implication by saying, gee, yeah, I guess I should have toned it down. I’m not known for being a Palin fan (as, er, any actual Palin fan could tell you) and even I can’t contain my indignation at the charge. And yet she’s supposed to just mellow out and take it because political reporters who won’t flatly correct the record for their readers think it’s bad “optics” to do otherwise? Unbelievable.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

The difference between Palin’s and Obamas speeches to me:

I believe her and find her sincere. I don’t believe him and find him to be insincere. He would not have given the speech he gave if she had not first given the speech she gave.

I could care less what the BLM says…

CCRWM on January 13, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Where was Mitt, T-Paw, Huck and the rest of the gang while the media crucified Palin and the Tea Party?

Amadeus on January 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM

I seem to remember that Palin really stepped-up to the plate when Nicki Haley was being smeared in S. Carolina. Palin went to bat for her when I’m sure she only had Haley’s word that she never committed adultery. I wonder where Nicki was for the last 5 or 6 days while Palin was being eviscerated?

KickandSwimMom on January 13, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Palin and her supporters are winning:

T-PAw does a 180 at the national press club and STRONGLY DEFENDS PALIN.

Now gov chrisite will get the message quickly I think

unseen on January 13, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Worst part about this is that even the right is pulling this crap on Palin. Try reading Jen Rubin over at WP. According to her view, Palin should take the high road and not answer her detractors.

Sheesh.

cab8505 on January 13, 2011 at 10:40 PM

I don’t. I think he’s a sell-out.

Grow Fins on January 13, 2011 at 9:47 PM

This is the typical liberal meltdown when the single payer system didn’t go into the bill and Obama’s promise to prosecute the war in Afghanistan became the only campaign promise he kept. The “not left enough for my taste” goes down well with a box of fruit loops.

Rovin on January 13, 2011 at 10:43 PM

You’ve ignore this link twice, now. I wonder why?

Murder? nah.

Grow Fins on January 13, 2011 at 10:44 PM

it ain’t so.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Sounds like a semantics argument if that’s your only point.

Esthier on January 13, 2011 at 10:47 PM

KickandSwimMom on January 13, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Being inaugurated. She’s been kinda busy.

alwaysfiredup on January 13, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Hi, CCRWM,

Posted this in reply to you at the Christie thread but just saw you here so I wonder what you think:

Yes,CCRWM, I would say the Tea Parties are ready made to come to Sarah’s defense in this way. We do need a prominent spokesperson to lead the charge though and give the strategy visibility. I’m thinking Michelle Bachmann or possibly Alan West, but they too have been silent…I don’t want to lump them in with the Krauthammer types though….perhaps an email to each would be a good place to start…and to contact pro-Palin websites…

tigerlily on January 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Just saw a post that said Bachmann criticized Palin for not going on the shows with the talking heads and instead posting on Facebook. Is this true? If so, does she think it might help her get a leg up if she enters the primaries?
I hope it isn’t true because if so, she is totally disgusting.

tigerlily on January 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Esthier,

the difference between moral culpability for inciting violence and legal responsibility for the assassination of a judge is slightly more than a semantic difference.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Allah, while I appreciate your honest and astute comments here, I wonder why every time someone defends Palin, they have to say “Now I am not a fan of hers”. Why don’t people have to do that about anyone and everyone with whom they disagree if they are defending them. Stop doing that unless you want to make everyone sure that after this post, we shouldn’t expect this reasonable rational behavior from you again. We get it. You are NOT a Palin fan and proud of it.

Dan Pet on January 13, 2011 at 10:57 PM

tigerlily on January 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Tiger, I think you saw my post and misread it. Tonight Bill O’Reilly criticized Palin, and Bachmann, for not going on talking head shows this week. Palin said nothing about Bachmann. Rest easy.

JimP on January 13, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Palin so scares the establishment it’s unbelievable.
She is even scaring Fox now.
She is such a threat to both sides, I love it.

And she is so strong, she scares guys who fear a strong woman, too.

It’s really something to see. A private person who technically has no power, scaring the power elite senseless.
How can anyone who thinks for themselves not love that?

B Man on January 13, 2011 at 10:59 PM

audiculous:And your being governed by a Black Theology
Political Thug,oh,and he wears Mom Jeans too!

canopfor on January 13, 2011 at 9:39 PM

lol! Just one of the many reasons we love our North of the Border brother!

tigerlily on January 13, 2011 at 10:59 PM

the difference between Mad Con and a dozen other yutzes calling some guy a troll, scum, and other things for insisting that nobody in the mainstream accused Palin of murder and being Mad Con and the others being in error insisting that it happened and calling the other guy those nasty names is also more than a semantic difference.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Are we really supposed to believe the left would have had no problem at all with her speech if she didn’t use blood libel? Come on.

Wagthatdog on January 13, 2011 at 11:00 PM

I’m so glad MSNBC listened to the President and toned down the rhetoric. Now Palin gets more death threats than ever before.

Great job doing what you say she’s doing.

Wagthatdog on January 13, 2011 at 11:01 PM

we love our North of the Border brother!

tigerlily

yeah, that family love stuff looms large, but beware the hemophilia.

lots of Vitamin K.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:02 PM

blood libel.

alwaysfiredup on January 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

JimP on January 13, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Shouldn’t BOR realize that Palin has a contract with Fox and can’t just do that?

ladyingray on January 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

tigerlily on January 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Tiger, I think you saw my post and misread it. Tonight Bill O’Reilly criticized Palin, and Bachmann, for not going on talking head shows this week. Palin said nothing about Bachmann. Rest easy.

JimP on January 13, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Thank you for the clarification. I have always loved Michelle Bachmann and couldn’t dream of her doing something so heinous. As for O’Reilly, he seems to think that his show and ratings are more important than putting himself in the shoes of a woman and private citizen who is in extreme danger now from the the vile leftists, thanks to uhhh, ummmm, huhhhh, uhhhhh, you-know-who.

tigerlily on January 13, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Now Palin gets more death threats than ever before.

any real evidence of the truth of that?

if it’s just her staff putting out that story……

it’s likely for sweeps week or sumpin’

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Fins defined down “mainstream media” to about 7 sources, and refuses to consider NYDN or anyone offering an opinion. That’s pretty darn specific. Some might say the locations of the goalposts seem to vary a lot.

alwaysfiredup on January 13, 2011 at 11:06 PM

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM

What rubbish. You provide insinuations of Palin’s “moral responsibility” based on the timing of taking down a website but need actual evidence of death threats to Palin? You crack me up.

alwaysfiredup on January 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Worst part about this is that even the right is pulling this crap on Palin. Try reading Jen Rubin over at WP. According to her view, Palin should take the high road and not answer her detractors.

Sheesh.

cab8505 on January 13, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Understand that a lot of the Establishment GOP response to the Left’s blood libel campaign gives one a window into the collapsing house of cards that was the GOP under George Bush. No lefty attack went answered, no offense was too great to endure. The Dana Perino’s and Jen Rubins of this world might win an election for towel boy in a cathouse, but I’m not even sure about that.

Palin fights back. That’s what’s got the Left in a tizzy. They aren’t used to Republicans who fight.

victor82 on January 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM

the difference between moral culpability for inciting violence and legal responsibility for the assassination of a judge is slightly more than a semantic difference.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Only when it comes to the law, something I’d imagine most commenters and voters aren’t solely concerned with when picking a candidate or a political philosophy.

Besides, as others have mentioned, Manson didn’t kill anyone either. Inciting violence isn’t legal either.

Esthier on January 13, 2011 at 11:11 PM

more than a semantic difference.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:00 PM

No. It’s not. Accusations of incitement to murder are just as severe.

And yes, I believe her staff when they say death threats against her are on the rise. The Left is counting on it.

John the Libertarian on January 13, 2011 at 11:11 PM

alwaysfiredup, naw you’re reading wrong. find anyone not a blogger or some nut commenting on a blog who said that Palin is a murderess.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Only when it comes to the law, something I’d imagine most commenters and voters aren’t solely concerned with when picking a candidate or a political philosophy.

Besides, as others have mentioned, Manson didn’t kill anyone either. Inciting violence isn’t legal either.

Esthier

when the law says that someone is guilty of felony, you aren’t going to be picking that someone as a political candidate too often.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Dan Pet on January 13, 2011 at 10:57 PM

Well, don’t comments from lefties supporting Palin carry more weight? Same thing here. Palinistas are expected to be offended, even when Palin isn’t, so their words don’t carry much weight, no matter the offense. But those who are largely consider Palin haters do carry some weight when the defend her.

It’s no different if I were to go on camera tomorrow and defend Obama. It’s the tried and true formula “conservatives” have used for years, espousing conservative dogma when necessary bu taking republicans to task the rest of the time to get prominent spots on MSM programs.

The same principle is at work.

Esthier on January 13, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Accusations of incitement to murder are just as severe.

the accusations may be as vehement, but incitement is not as severe a moral and legal failure as murder.

just FYI.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:18 PM

when the law says that someone is guilty of felony, you aren’t going to be picking that someone as a political candidate too often.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:15 PM

This logic assumes that we will pick a candidate that has only incited a felony. Is that what you intend?

Esthier on January 13, 2011 at 11:18 PM

the accusations may be as vehement

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Politically speaking, as we all are, that’s entirely the point.

I don’t think you’re arguing the same thing others are.

Esthier on January 13, 2011 at 11:22 PM

This logic assumes that we will pick a candidate that has only incited a felony. Is that what you intend?

Esthier

the logic is that you’re usually not offered the option of having a candidate guilty of a felony, so that it’s more likely that you’ll choose someone who has incited. It’s certainly not saying that you need choose from either group.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:23 PM

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Here is the video of a sample of the death threats against Palin and other thoughtful responses about Palin by the unhinged left.

http://bigjournalism.com/libertychick/2011/01/12/youtube-asked-to-remove-video-of-lefts-threats-against-palin/

Any of your tweets or comments included in this video?

Palin’s staff doesn’t need to verify the death threats when anyone can read the disgusting tweets and comments all over the internet.

It would take a sick person to condone these threats, but I’m sure you will.

chief on January 13, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Understand that a lot of the Establishment GOP response to the Left’s blood libel campaign gives one a window into the collapsing house of cards that was the GOP under George Bush. No lefty attack went answered, no offense was too great to endure. The Dana Perino’s and Jen Rubins of this world might win an election for towel boy in a cathouse, but I’m not even sure about that.

Palin fights back. That’s what’s got the Left in a tizzy. They aren’t used to Republicans who fight.

victor82 on January 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Very well stated. I just wonder how long one person, man or woman, can continue, with no backup in sight, except for the millions of Tea Partiers, who, imo, need to unify to turn off, as one, FOX network and internet and ignore the hysterical memes that the Left has literally has everyone in a tizzy over. And let FOX know that we put them on the map and we can take them off, and we’ll do it for Sarah.

Laugh at them, obama especially, and drive on, full speed ahead with the constitutional reformation. Call their blood libels infantile and their words not worth reply. Refuse to answer their questions or idiotic memes. Let them live in their own echo chamber. Our deafening silence will spook them to their bones. Let them only hear the distant sound of our tom-toms.

I am in no way downplaying the serious nature of the Left’s threat to Sarah and to all of us, existentially. I am just trying to come up with a unifying strategy that we can employ to become the ACTORS and not REACTORS, because this attempt to shut us up will never end. As in all things, it’s 10% what actually happens and 90% how it’s dealt with.

I don’t think we have coalesced with a strategy to ignore the Left, stop letting them set the table and force slop down out throats.

They say nothing succeeds like success. If winning the House can’t make us put our heads to the wind and DRIVE our agenda home without the insanity that the Left tries and suceeds in using to tie us up in knots, then I don’t know what we’ll do. No one of integrity or worth will ever run again. If this keeps up, the Left wins by default. Our Constitution and Republic will no longer be in operation.
All the Left and obama have to do is keep this up.

We all know that they are high-fiving over this crisis/blood libel/obama revival on the bodies of the dead. They will manufacture or take advantage of many more crises in the same way before 2012.

If we can’t find a way to keep them from spinning us like tops, we’re doomed.

tigerlily on January 13, 2011 at 11:26 PM

the logic is that you’re usually not offered the option of having a candidate guilty of a felony, so that it’s more likely that you’ll choose someone who has incited. It’s certainly not saying that you need choose from either group.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:23 PM

The logic is that we can usually choose someone who hasn’t had either. Inciting violence is political suicide. Rev. Sharpton can’t win an election even though he enjoys a celebrity status.

Excluding pure partisan BS, I can’t recall a time an “inciter” has ever even “applied” for a political position.

Esthier on January 13, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Palin so scares the establishment it’s unbelievable.
She is even scaring Fox now.
She is such a threat to both sides, I love it.

And she is so strong, she scares guys who fear a strong woman, too.

It’s really something to see. A private person who technically has no power, scaring the power elite senseless.
How can anyone who thinks for themselves not love that?

B Man on January 13, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Ditto that B Man,

“Their” insecurity on both sides reeks with contempt. Technically, either side that did not either join in the stench of those persecuting the woman OR those who chose not to defend her, are also reprehensible. And yes, its lovely to see them sweating out the consequences of their actions—or lack of them.

Rovin on January 13, 2011 at 11:32 PM

chief, yes indeed. that was a bunch of hateful and ugly and there were indeed death threats among the general mass of wishing her dead.

I hope you won’t be disappointed if I join you in being greatly offended by that stuff.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Accusations of incitement to murder are just as severe.the accusations may be as vehement, but incitement is not as severe a moral and legal failure as murder.

just FYI.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Can you cite the Federal or state statutes that don’t have the option or mandate to penalize incitement to murder in the same manner as penalizing the murderer?

tigerlily on January 13, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Esthier, actually you supplied an example. Sharpton, (lying lowlife) has several times incited violence and has had the nerve to run for president. happily, he is loathed rather than chosen.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Don’t these idiots understand than when they discuss who is more “presidential” Obama or Palin, this is a win for Palin by definition. Obama has been President for two years and even taking into account all the harm he caused to the country, he will be President at least for another two years.
Taking into account all his success with ruining our economy, hopefully not more. Palin is a private citizen. So even calling her less presidential than Obama makes her presidential.

Idiots who lost their brains because of blind hatred for Palin and everything conservative.

finallyhere on January 13, 2011 at 11:44 PM

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Why? No one said anyone called her a “murderess”.

alwaysfiredup on January 13, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Can you cite the Federal or state statutes that don’t have the option or mandate to penalize incitement to murder in the same manner as penalizing the murderer?

tigerlily

please offer me a citation of a statute that mandates that incitement be punished equivalent to murder.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:46 PM

always,

The whole circus with Grow Fins came after this on page one of the comments.

That’s the most asinine thing I’ve ever heard. The woman was FALSELY ACCUSED OF MURDER BY THE MEDIA, AND THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN’T HAVE THE BALLS TO REFUTE THEM.

jimmy2shoes

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:52 PM

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:52 PM

We are being very specific tonight, if you hadn’t noticed. “Accused of murder” is not the same term as “murderess.” Saying someone has “blood on their hands”, on the other hand, is a metaphor for murder, so yes, she has been accused of murder by the New York Daily News.

alwaysfiredup on January 13, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Wonder how all of this “incitement” stuff squares with the Brandenburg test?

coldwarrior on January 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM

I don’t know what is more horrifying, that this hypocritical handling of events comes naturally and instantaneously or that they might actually contact one another to plot how to ruin the life and reputation of a possible political opponent. Either way they are very nasty people and shouldn’t be in a leadership role anywhere.

Cindy Munford on January 14, 2011 at 12:04 AM

always,

accused of murder is entirely equivalent (if the person accused is a woman) to saying that she’s a murderess, unless you insist on a trial and conviction as being necessary.

and no, blood on hands is not always a metaphor for murder. it’s a metaphor for a share of guilt in violent, bloody crime. saying that Palin has blood on her hands for the shooting of the Congresswoman is what this mostly is about… and the Congresswoman, thankfully, was not murdered.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 12:10 AM

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 12:10 AM

But six other people were.

Cindy Munford on January 14, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Meanwhile back on the ranch, Palin’s Facebook page has gained 100,000 plus in fans in the last 5 days.
People are not buying the liberal/NeoCon bull anymore.

LeeSeneca on January 14, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Obama’s speech was much more presidential than Palin’s

(corrected headline: Obama got the ‘p’ knocked out of him in November)

Obama’s speech was a predictable, shamelessly political, totally inappropriate presentation which attempted to turn the tragedy into a story about Obama.

Sick and sad.

landlines on January 14, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Leftist “Blood Libel” lie/meme in critical condition..is there a Harvard-Educated Doctor in the House?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/01/13/2000-dem-congressman-used-blood-libel-reference-gop-attack-gore-hardba

Del Dolemonte on January 14, 2011 at 12:34 AM

But six other people were.

Cindy Munford

yes, very sadly, six people were murdered.

not because guns kill people or anything. if the guy didn’t have a gun with a big bunch of bullets…..

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Del Dolemonte on January 14, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Cafferty? Probably drunk again.

slickwillie2001 on January 14, 2011 at 12:41 AM

That Cafferty is nuts. Palin was unelectable before this and is only slightly more unelectable now.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 12:42 AM

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Yep, too bad about the Second Amendment. Crazy only use guns.

Cindy Munford on January 14, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Maybe people have a reason to be looking Palin’s way…..

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Yep. It’s called hatred. The left seems to be overflowing with it.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 14, 2011 at 12:49 AM

Cindy,

the Second Amendment doesn’t really address the right to carry a concealed handgun.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 12:51 AM

but incitement is not as severe a moral and legal failure as murder.

just FYI.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:18 PM

I’m speechless. Truly.

You convince moron Lenny to kill your neighbor and promise to give him money and treats. You hire a hitman. You’re not culpable of murder?

John the Libertarian on January 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM

I love this. Papers actually have to go out and say the words: “The President is more presidential than Sarah Palin.”

Well, yeah. Because if he wasn’t, he’d be a laughingstock now wouldn’t he?

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2011 at 12:54 AM

There There,

the capacity for hatred is pretty evenly distributed throughout primates.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 12:54 AM

but incitement is not as severe a moral and legal failure as murder.

just FYI.

audiculous on January 13, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Thank you for reducing the unfounded charge you placed at her feet. I can see the call for civility working better already.

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2011 at 12:56 AM

I love this. Papers actually have to go out and say the words: “The President is more presidential than Sarah Palin.”

Well, yeah. Because if he wasn’t, he’d be a laughingstock now wouldn’t he?

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2011 at 12:54 AM

And yet, there he is in all his effeminate, gay, unamerican glory.

Inanemergencydial on January 14, 2011 at 12:56 AM

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Lol, it’s pretty amazing isn’t it?

B Man on January 14, 2011 at 12:57 AM

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 12:51 AM

Sorry, yet another thing we disagree on, shocking!

Cindy Munford on January 14, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Palin refuses to appear anywhere else BUT FOX.

Grow Fins on January 13, 2011 at 8:47 PM

When did Barbara Walters start working for Fox News?

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 14, 2011 at 1:00 AM

John the Libertarian,

be speechless, truly.

look up the definition of incitement.

paying or promising someone money or treats to commit a crime is distinct.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:01 AM

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:01 AM

So what?

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2011 at 1:02 AM

I live in Phoenix. I am weary of this whole mucking fess.

If we would just control the border, Arizona would begin to heal of all its wounds.

The Federal Government is as responsible for the state of Arizona as much as anyone – and yet they trot down here during a week of mourning and get standing ovations. What a joke.

And when exactly WILL Senator John McCain start building the dang fence?

Mr_Magoo on January 14, 2011 at 1:03 AM

the capacity for hatred is pretty evenly distributed throughout primates.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Good Lord. Moral relativism at its worst, with a pseudo-intellectual whiff of Darwinism to try and sell it.

No, it’s not. Even this trait would be at minimum subject to the Bell Curve for distribution.

John the Libertarian on January 14, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Cindy, think a second. If the second amendment guarantees the right to carry a concealed handgun, how is it that states and municipalities can deny you that right?

The second amendment guarantees you the right to own guns, not a right to have any gun under any circumstance.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:04 AM

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Ever hear of the Brandenburg Test? Deals with incitement. For incitement to be a crime one need not have to promise payment or goodies, or anything at all; one merely has to suggest a criminal act to a willing or susceptible audience and let the chips fall…and be proven to have known or understood that one’s suggestion would be acted upon with immediacy.

coldwarrior on January 14, 2011 at 1:05 AM

be speechless, truly.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Do not promises of reward incite? I think you’re dancing around your pitfall.

John the Libertarian on January 14, 2011 at 1:06 AM

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:04 AM

I think it guarantees the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) a handgun. I think the SCOTUS recently decided that D.C. and Chicago’s gun bans were unconstitutional. And I think that is the correct decision.

Cindy Munford on January 14, 2011 at 1:08 AM

In the world of audiculous, Iago is innocent of wrongdoing. It was the jealous Moor, Othello, who is entirely to blame.

John the Libertarian on January 14, 2011 at 1:09 AM

John the Libertarian,

are you really able to find the missing link that ties assertion of equality of distribution of emotional capacity to……moral relativism?

you might be well served by seeing the libertarian librarian.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Cindy, read the decisions. they do not say that the second affords the right to carry concealed handguns. if they did, the SCOTUS decisions would have struck down all such limitations throughout the 50 states.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:13 AM

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:13 AM

We’ll see.

Cindy Munford on January 14, 2011 at 1:15 AM

Unbelievable.

not really. people who go into journalism are generally sackless do-gooders who get all pissy when somebody threatens their little world.

Metro on January 14, 2011 at 1:15 AM

I

n the world of audiculous, Iago is innocent of wrongdoing. It was the jealous Moor, Othello, who is entirely to blame.

John

gads. get thee to a librarian, why be a breeding ground for imbecility?

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:16 AM

We’ll see.

Cindy

If you’re interested in this stuff, after the second amendment, look through Article I Sec 8 and then look at the Militia Act of 1792,

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Who cares about the definition of incitement? On another thread they found proof that Organizing for America (formerly known as Obama for America) came up with the brand, the slogan, and half of Obama’s speech. They did the shirts, not the college. That’s why the college can’t just hand out more yet cuz hey don’t have any, I’ll bet.

But this link is even better…I KNEW it sounded familiar…
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/johnberry_iv/C94H

Equality 7-2521 on January 13, 2011 at 10:57 PM

They’ve had “together we thrive” around for 2 years waiting for the right time to drag it out. I think the reason they haven’t yet dropped the whole thing is that there’s a whole lot more to this campaign. “Together we Thrive” may be intended to be Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan. If this is a dud he’ll have to go back to the drawing board.

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2011 at 1:21 AM

gads. get thee to a librarian, why be a breeding ground for imbecility?

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:16 AM

What are you, 12? Nice try, chump. You’re giving Iago a pass, and lay blame only on Othello.

Iago incited Othello.

John the Libertarian on January 14, 2011 at 1:25 AM

are you really able to find the missing link that ties assertion of equality of distribution of emotional capacity to……moral relativism?

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:09 AM

By assigning hate “equally” among humanity, you are practicing moral relativism. “Oh, it’s okay, hatred is evenly distributed among us, so it’s cool.”

I cry bullsh!t.

Most traits, even learned traits, follow the Bell Curve of distribution.

So stop peddling gobbledy-gook obfuscation, recent college grad. And I’m being generous with that distinction.

John the Libertarian on January 14, 2011 at 1:30 AM

Why are y’all giving this one the time of day? Doesn’t have anything to offer, clearly.

Christien on January 14, 2011 at 1:30 AM

Certainly doesn’t pass the sniff test.

Christien on January 14, 2011 at 1:31 AM

John, really.

you simply don’t understand that a hierarchy of culpability is quite different from an offer of absolution or an assertion of innocence.

here.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:32 AM

You know the world is upside down when AllahPundit is defending Palin :=) Nice one, AP !

This whole saga reminds me that there are several leftists who are among the WORST people that you will ever have the misfortune of coming in contact with. The utterly disgusting smear of Sarah Palin and the LSM lap dogs who were comparing her speech to Obama’s only confirms the overwhelmingly repugnant bias that the LSM has for lefties.

Do these lefties have any sense of shame ? Any decency at all?

nagee76 on January 14, 2011 at 1:36 AM

tigerlily on January 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM

I got busy when I left the site and emailed everyone I know with a bunch of good info I got here and at C4P such as Obama’s big lie about not being repsonsible for the camapign rally yesterday.

I also had to do some things with my husband and daughter. I get a lot of grief about being on here and Palin sites so I can’t push it. At work I can sneak a peek when I’m in a meeting or waiting for one to start or time alone in my office.

Anyway, as to your question, I think we should do it ourselves within the Tea Party we are a member of. Politicians are politicians and I’ve not seen any honor in them lately. One of the reasons Palin resonates so much is because she is honest and genuine and I think it shocked us. I’ll think more about this.

I’m glad I checked one more time before bed… Hope you see this.

CCRWM on January 14, 2011 at 1:44 AM

Do these lefties have any sense of shame ? Any decency at all?

nagee76 on January 14, 2011 at 1:36 AM

No. That’s why they are “lefties.” It is genetic.

coldwarrior on January 14, 2011 at 1:44 AM

That’s why they are “lefties.” It is genetic.

coldwarrior

amazing.there was also a hypothesis that people without opposing thumbs would opt for being called JoJo the Libertarian.

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:59 AM

audiculous on January 14, 2011 at 1:32 AM

Don’t this thing sound like crr6?

djohn669 on January 14, 2011 at 2:01 AM

djohn669 on January 14, 2011 at 2:01 AM

It’s possible opposable. Heh.

Christien on January 14, 2011 at 2:09 AM

Of course the press found ObaMao’s speech better than palin’s, NOBODY has ever thought that the speech they get when being spanked is any good.

I found ObaMao’s first campaign speech for 2012 weak.

Slowburn on January 14, 2011 at 2:48 AM

The only remarkable thing about teh Won’s Tucson production was his going from outright lies to insinuation and misleading verbal constructions. Methinks he has a new speechwriter.

Caststeel on January 14, 2011 at 3:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5