The President has always been called upon as national cheerleader. I was fine with his 1 minute of silence but he could have joined with a tribute in Congress and been done with it. I didn’t see the need to fly to TUS and make a tent show out of it. Crazy people do this crap all the time but because a member of Congress gets shot the President swoops in. There was no national crisis and we didn’t need our collective hands held.
The people who died deserve and got our sympathy but they didn’t deserve an Air Force One salute to environmental waste. It could all have been done in Washington DC. The speech would sound exactly the same. Nobody needed a $350,000 Presidential hug and the city of Tuscon didn’t need an Arena sized kumbaya rally.
If his speech was good than good on him for making the effort.
I wouldn’t say I’m unfamiliar with it. I know, this stuff has been going on for a long time, and it’s probably too ingrained in the national consciousness to change now. But the way I see it, the president is, or should be, at least, an administrator. It’s his job to lead the executive departments, to appoint judges, to command the armed forces, to engage in diplomacy with foreign nations, and things like that. It shouldn’t be his job to inspire, or things like that. We’ve developed some sort of cult of celebrity around the presidency, elevating him to some sort of exalted god-king, where everything he does is scrutinized and picked apart, and I don’t think it’s healthy for democracy.
“God-king” probably isn’t the term you want there. God-kings are not scrutinized and picked part; their will is its own justification.
On the other hand, the roles of the president are certainly exalted, by virtue of the importance we assign to the job. In the American system, he is head of state (symbol) as well as head of government (administrator). It’s been this way since George Washington. Granted, modern communications makes the practical dynamic somewhat different.
Most people, it seems, want an individual to “stand” for us. If nobody else is filling the role in the public mind, and a President won’t or can’t, it will be seen as his failing, and consequently a national weakness. I think that’s pretty much the deal.
I think you are mistaken. It seems very evident to me that a huge number of Americans do see this as a crisis moment, or a moment that crystallized a period of crisis. You didn’t feel that, at all?
As for the people of Tucson, the people who elected Gabrielle Giffords to represent them, the people who see Christina Taylor Green as a child of their community–I would not presume just now to tell them what they need.
But I think the President felt a call, and responded admirably.
Your cynicism has blinded you here. This is the USA. Assassinations of our political leaders in open daylight aren’t supposed to happen here, we’re supposed to be better than this. This is absolutely a national crisis because it could be the harbinger of much darker days where our actions speak louder than our words, and if you haven’t noticed, we’ve all been screaming at each other across the aisle for years now.
I don’t buy the jaded, cynical contrivances that I’ve heard from people here and elsewhere. I don’t buy the silly notion that this happened entirely separate from the tone of our national discourse. That sounds entirely like an excuse peddled by those who have profited by rousing anger and rage in order to acquit themselves of any responsibility.
Having witnessed first hand the contentious election Gabrielle Giffords won here in Tucson, I’ll just say I’m not at all surprised someone took aim at her personally instead of just trying to shoot up her office. And I’m glad the President came here and tried to use his abilities to help soothe and heal. It is his job, as leader of our country and head of our government, to respond to crises in a way that helps people to feel that everything is under control.
I just read one conservative online pundit opine that Obama has “failed miserably at every speech he has given as President” up to this one, so I guess it went over pretty well if this one isn’t being included (and by my reading, it wasn’t… sort of – it’s hard to explain).
It was by far the best speech of his presidency, he took the high road and his challenge to us to make the nation as good as that little girl imagined was inspired and perfectly appropriate. Of course, had he done nothing but pick his nose and lick the boogers off his fingers, he would have seemed much more dignified and presidential than Sarah Palin.
Not to trivialize the judge who was killed, but I wouldn’t call him a political leader.
Aside from that, the reality is that assassination of our political leaders happens in the US more often than your typical western democracy. Sadly, we aren’t better than this.
There was once a Republican president who gave a brief speech at the dedication of a military cemetery in Pennsylvania. I’m sure some of the public wondered why he didn’t stay in DC. He had a war to run, after all.
Since then, the Republicans & Democrats have both changed considerably.
When I heard it, I thought the same thing, but it turns out I was wrong. It didn’t have its intended effect at all.
Cite:
Notwithstanding that lack, it was a very brilliant and well-done speech. I, too, found my only real problem the applause breaks, which detracted from the mood, but that wasn’t Obama’s fault.
I was just expressing well founded pessimism about the effect it would have on the right. If you read any comment section on any news site about the speech, you’ll see that I am fully vindicated in that pessimism.
OK, there’s a difference between watching the whole speech and watching out of context sound bites. As it involved a politician getting shot in the head and people being killed while meeting their Congresswomen no, you couldn’t avoid all political reference, but the speech as a whole was clearly about those killed and wounded.
I’m sure you can watch the whole thing on YouTube or whatever. Try that instead of chopped up bits that may or may not have been specifically selected by a biased editor.
'Tis indeed a pity - everyone had been playing nicely together and no one had said anything negative at all until Dio ruined it for everyone everywhere.
A good speech and I’ve no objections to him going and making it, but I did get a “Lisa Simpson goes to Washington” vibe from the whole “young girl not yet disillusioned by the system” thing. Maybe that’s just me though.
I’ll agree. During times of crisis a President should be, to steal a phrase, a uniter and not a divider. He acknowledged the blame game sideshow that have been going on while not taking part in it.
But what I really liked is that he did a good job of keeping the focus clearly on the victims of the shooting. It would be easy for this to have been a Wellstone funeral type situation, but he kept it non-political and about the people who were killed/injured. When reading the speech (I didn’t catch it live), I got the feeling this was the President speaking. Not a Democrat President. Not a politician who isn’t letting a crisis go to waste. Just the President of the United States expressing the feelings of many regardless of which party they’re in. Exactly the right tone.
As opposed to the OP which is too busy stepping over the corpses to make cheap political jabs and to analyze this in a purely political context to actually seem like it shows any sympathy for those murdered.
For those who missed the speech and would like to discuss it without relying on excerpts: White House website. There’s links to video and transcript at the top of the front page right now.