If you read Obama’s speech delivered last night at the Tucson memorial rather than watched it, you probably have a better opinion of it.
First of all, you didn’t have to watch Obama’s usual preachy, stuffy, pedantic delivery. Or watch the nauseating scene of someone using other peoples’ grief for political advantage. Not even die hard media Democrats would deny that there is an element of campaigning when a politician inserts himself into a tragedy.
He starts out all right, appropriately mentioning the victims. Surprisingly his usual high number of “I’s” gave way to an abundance of “we’s.” The imperial we, however.
“We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions,” he said. OK. Old assumptions such as innocent til proven guilty or the right to free speech as assumed in that old Constitution document? He continued, “in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.” Seems like a reference to his personal fears.
“Perhaps we question whether we are doing right by our children, or our community and whether our priorities are in order.” Obama continued “that process of reflection, of making sure we align our values with our actions.” A jarring note that suggests using Organizing for America, the SEIU or MoveOn.Org to get a leftist agenda accomplished?
“And if their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.”
A diagram for this sentence, please! It’s a maze. Is he saying that the loss of a full life to a 9 year old girl is worth a few more civil words? What if it doesn’t? Does her mother agree with that, or the other victims’ families? And isn’t a civil and honest public discourse what Fox News and thinkers on the right do? Does MSNBC contribute to it or the New York Times? Don’t think so.
If you watched the speech, though, you might have thought you were at a pep rally or campaign stop rather than a solemn memorial service.
The “Together We Thrive” T-shirts on each seat can only be described as repugnant. What kind of thing is this? Is it a memento for people to enjoy or a slogan the Obama campaign wants to test drive? Wonder what the background is on that slogan, but it definitely has a Marxist tinge. The underlying thought is you can’t make it on your own. Smells like a 2012 theme.
The venue, a college arena stuffed with students smacked of a campaign to get back the youth vote. The clapping and cheering seemed inappropriate for a funeral service. As one reader commented, “no lasers? No fog machines? Did someone yell Freebird?”
I wonder if the programs included a coupon for a free Slurpee. Tacky.
With an absence of priests, ministers or rabbis, it was all too political also to have a Mexican professor deliver a Native American blessing. Two political birds with one stone, you could say.
Somehow, Sarah Palin’s dignified and brief address, far away from the madding crowd. honored the victims – and our country – much better.