Quotes of the day

posted at 9:00 pm on January 16, 2011 by Allahpundit

“In his superb speech in Tucson Wednesday evening, Barack Obama did great service to the nation. He put to rest the libel that political incivility is responsible for the Tucson shootings. He did so with three words that he added to the written text: ‘It did not.’…

“Obama first came to the favorable attention of the nation at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 when he proclaimed that we were not red states and blue states but red, white and blue America. After months of partisan debate, in which he like others used the military metaphors common in our political vocabulary, he spoke in Tucson as the leader of one nation.

“It will probably help him politically. But, more important, it will help the nation.”

***
“By the time he spoke in Tucson, Obama had let four days pass while some of the angriest voices in the media — his supporters — either blamed Republicans directly for the killings or blamed the GOP for creating the atmosphere in which the violence took place. During those four days, the president could have cooled the conversation by urging everyone to avoid jumping to conclusions, as he did the day after the November 2009 massacre at Ft. Hood, Texas. But he didn’t. Only after Loughner’s insanity had been indisputably established did Obama concede that politics was not to blame for the shooting.

“By then, however, the president’s supporters had tied the killings to the issue of political rhetoric. In Tucson, Obama played good cop to their bad cop by assuring everyone that rhetoric had not motivated the violence. But he still brought up the topic because, he said, it had ‘been discussed in recent days.’ Of course, it would not have been discussed in recent days had his supporters not made so many unfair accusations.

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

***
“This isn’t about angry blog posts or verbal fisticuffs. Since Obama’s ascension, we’ve seen repeated incidents of political violence. Just a short list would include the 2009 killing of three Pittsburgh police officers by a neo-Nazi Obama-hater; last year’s murder-suicide kamikaze attack on an I.R.S. office in Austin, Tex.; and the California police shootout with an assailant plotting to attack an obscure liberal foundation obsessively vilified by Beck.

“Obama said, correctly, on Wednesday that ‘a simple lack of civility’ didn’t cause the Tucson tragedy. It didn’t cause these other incidents either. What did inform the earlier violence — including the vandalism at Giffords’s office — was an antigovernment radicalism as rabid on the right now as it was on the left in the late 1960s. That Loughner was likely insane, with no coherent ideological agenda, does not mean that a climate of antigovernment hysteria has no effect on him or other crazed loners out there. Nor does Loughner’s insanity mitigate the surge in unhinged political zealots acting out over the last two years. That’s why so many — on both the finger-pointing left and the hyper-defensive right — automatically assumed he must be another of them.”

***
“A reaction so disproportionate and immaterial to a news story by a news organization is indicative of trouble in the body politic​—​trouble almost as severe as that which the Times claims the Giffords shooting indicates. I worry that in the tremors and hysteria of the Times we’re seeing the sad end of liberalism.

“Its passing is to be mourned, perhaps most by true conservatives. -Civilization owes a debt to liberal politics. From the Reform Act and the religious emancipation fight of the British Whigs to the American civil rights movement, liberals have in fact held positions on political high ground (though not during Clinton’s exploitation of the Oklahoma City bombing). Liberals have seen government as a force for good, and sometimes it can be. World War II comes to mind. While conservatives have delighted in the free market, liberals have been there to remind us that all freedoms, including market freedoms, entail responsibilities. At the very least it can be said that we conservatives would not be so upright in our ideals if we hadn’t been pushing against liberals.

“But liberalism, as personified by the New York Times, became a dotty old aunt sometime during the Johnson administration. She’s provincial, eccentric, and holds dull, peculiar views about the world. Still, she has our fond regard, and we visit her regularly in her nursing home otherwise known as Arts and Leisure and the Book Review. Or we did until Sunday, January 9, when she began spouting obscenities and exposing herself.”

***
FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: Richard Cohen, do you have answers?

RICHARD COHEN, WASHINGTON POST: I have nothing but answers. I don’t think for a second that Sarah Palin knew the meaning of blood libel. I just don’t. There’s nothing in her background which suggests it. And if she did, I don’t think she used it all that inappropriately. I mean, if it refers to a false accusation for which a community is blamed then she was right.

BERNARD-HENRI LEVY, FRENCH PHILOSOPHER/INTELLECTUAL: Hold on. You think Sarah Palin is stupid enough not to know what a blood libel is?

COHEN: How much time do we have left to talk about how stupid Sarah Palin is?

***
Via Mediaite.


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

canopfor on January 17, 2011 at 4:48 AM

Hey Art Bell and Whitless Stieber wrote a book entitled The Coming Global Super Sh!t Blizzard!

I think they are talking about SaraCuda winning the Primary in 2012; that’s when the world ends according to the Mayan Calendar. The Chupacabra is a sign of the times.

Geochelone on January 17, 2011 at 4:54 AM

Gohawgs on January 17, 2011 at 4:52 AM

Gnite.

Geochelone on January 17, 2011 at 4:55 AM

canopfor on January 17, 2011 at 4:46 AM
================================
Yeah, big feet means big galoshes…And, the story says that the bear was about 25 feet from the guy bugling (and unseen) when the shooter started shooting…

Gohawgs on January 17, 2011 at 4:50 AM

Gohawgs:Yup,years ago,hunting partridge,(.410),my gramps
bolt action,I would carry another clip,with slugs,
just in case sumpin bad might happen!:)

canopfor on January 17, 2011 at 4:56 AM

Well, O.C. is up. Time for a shift change…See y’all later today/tomorrow…

Gohawgs on January 17, 2011 at 4:52 AM

Gohawgs:Nite:)

canopfor on January 17, 2011 at 4:57 AM

canopfor on January 17, 2011 at 4:48 AM
=================
Hey Art Bell and Whitless Stieber wrote a book entitled The Coming Global Super Sh!t Blizzard!

I think they are talking about SaraCuda winning the Primary in 2012; that’s when the world ends according to the Mayan Calendar. The Chupacabra is a sign of the times.

Geochelone on January 17, 2011 at 4:54 AM

Geochelone:Could be,about Sarah,haha.Ya all based on
global warming,looks like that backfired!:)

canopfor on January 17, 2011 at 4:59 AM

It looks like Insty has a pretty good take on why the Left and MFM is going on like it is in the ‘why they would rather talk about Sarah Palin’ line. In all the political hyperbole there are important stories not being covered that are far more important than Loughner and the shooting… if the Left and MFM would like to have a real discussion of problems, they would pipe down and stop asking for others to be ‘civil’ and start being ‘civil’ themselves and help to find a way out of the mess that has been created by our government.

ajacksonian on January 17, 2011 at 6:51 AM

WHY……two things?:

1. WHY……do they keep talking about her (seriously) if she’s so freaking stupid?

2. WHY……do they continue to slather wet passionate kisses on the feet of the President and his Administration (they can find out how many wipes the shooter used the last time he used the bathroom) but the won’t do any serious investigations of the O’Jesus?

Is this an alternate Universe where up is down and wrong is right?

PappyD61 on January 17, 2011 at 7:05 AM

PappyD61 on January 17, 2011 at 7:05 AM

The media know she isn’t stupid. The stupid meme isn’t about THEM thinking she’s stupid. It’s about people in this country thinking it because the media tells them so.

Something about telling people a lie enough, they’ll believe it.

As far as Fox kissing O’s feet, well…it worked, look who landed an interview with him.

B Man on January 17, 2011 at 7:11 AM

Calling her stupid is what I think is pretty stupid. This just continues the war that the liberal media is losing.

AnninCA on January 17, 2011 at 7:35 AM

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110116/COLUMNIST0110/101160338/Palin-s-character-carries-her-through-adversity
wi farmgirl on January 17, 2011 at 7:15 AM

Thanks Wisconsin farm girl. Richard Grant, a professor of economics treats us to a fair minded, dare I say common sense assessment of Sarah Palin. It ends with this beauty:

But at least he [Obama] has had enough sense to change his staff and to bring in advisers who will spend the next two years asking, “What would Sarah Palin do?’

David Brooks, take note. Professor Grant is your better.

Basilsbest on January 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM

Whatever, AP.

Instead of dreaming Demint to run in 2012, My clan has now decided to 100% support SARAH PALIN in 2012!

The Tucson tragedy pushed for it. My family and relatives have concluded that:

Liberals and Dems are evil and their politicians are demons, always taking the opportunity to LIE and DECEIVE even at the height of a great tragedy!

Meet you all in the primaries.

TheAlamos on January 17, 2011 at 7:49 AM

Is this an alternate Universe where up is down and wrong is right?

PappyD61 on January 17, 2011 at 7:05 AM

Your question was previously addressed by a Jewish author, ca. 700 B.C.

[20] Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
[21] Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!

[23] who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
and deprive the innocent of his right!
(Isaiah 5:20-21, 23 ESV)

oldleprechaun on January 17, 2011 at 7:50 AM

I mean, if it refers to a false accusation for which a community is blamed then she was right.

According to Alan Dershowitz and other lefty Jews who’ve recently weighed in on this silly controversy, that’s exactly what “blood libel” means in modern usage. It’s one of many phrases whose meaning has evolved and expanded over time. Surely, an uber-intelligent, well-educated guy like you knows all about such phenomena, eh Cohen?

How pathetic is it that these lefties are so petrified of Sarah Palin that they come up with nonsense like this with which to attack her?

Cohen, you’re an embarrassment.

AZCoyote on January 17, 2011 at 8:22 AM

oldleprechaun on January 17, 2011 at 7:50 AM

Just started a study on Isaiah and we all thought that it sounded like now. Thanks for posting that!

wi farmgirl on January 17, 2011 at 8:30 AM

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity,” -George Orwell.

Akzed on January 17, 2011 at 9:12 AM

His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush

Gee, some conservative, looks like the hate against President Bush had an effect.

right2bright on January 17, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Yet another Palin attack that missed the mark. It’s starting to become more about incompetence in messaging than anything else. *haha

AnninCA on January 17, 2011 at 9:34 AM

With the attitude Juan Williams has about Palin responding to the attacks on her……..why did he respond when NPR fired him and called into question his sanity? Why did he not do what he says Palin should have done, i.e., shut up? He went on all the FOX News talk shows defending himself and painting NPR in a bad light? Why?

artman1746 on January 17, 2011 at 11:31 AM

oldleprechaun – and also in 2 Timothy 3

“This know also that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affections, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, DESPISERS OF THOSE THAT ARE GOOD, (emphasis mine), traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; HAVING A FORM OF GODLINESS, but denying the power thereof;”

This nails us all but outlines the Democrat national platform.

artman1746 on January 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM

After months of partisan debate, in which he like others used the military metaphors common in our political vocabulary, he spoke in Tucson as the leader of one nation.

Barone

Nonsense. It has been three years of bitter partisan rhetoric, and it has often been led to the fringes by Obama himself, the most partisan and juvenile President since … uh, Clinton.

Barone whiffs badly in his attempt to rise above.

Jaibones on January 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Sarah Palin: The Rock on which the conservative movement grows and thrives.

WordsMatter on January 17, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Jaibones on January 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM

I agree. Nonsense. It points out what credulous fools we have on “our side,” or rather, what lack of perspicacity. If all the education in the world and all the experience in Washington cannot stop you from uttering inane statements like Barone’s, what and who are you? This episode has been a valuable lesson on many fronts, and we should not soon forget who said what, and who was silent. I’m sure Palin has taken note of all those she supported who did not come to her defense. They did not even have to come to her defense in particular but only speak out against the outrageous assaults on free speech itself. Where were they?

rrpjr on January 17, 2011 at 3:29 PM

I have nothing but answers. I don’t think for a second that Sarah Palin knew the meaning of blood libel. I just don’t. There’s nothing in her background which suggests it. And if she did, I don’t think she used it all that inappropriately. I mean, if it refers to a false accusation for which a community is blamed then she was right.

She didn’t know what whe was talking about but she did know what she was talking about? Who is the stupid one here? He contradicts himself in the same paragraph.

jerseyman on January 17, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4