Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting
~AGG~
A bad week for Democrats compounded by an awful moment for Barack Obama
By ROBERT A. GEORGE
Updated 2:56 PM CST, Fri, Nov 6, 2009
President Obama didn't wait long after Tuesday's devastating elections to
give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the
subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.
After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas,
the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The
White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out
that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously
scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president.
The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace
and perspective.
But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and
expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected
and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the
event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's
Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered
a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor
winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in
measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?
Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to
have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early
light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks,
explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for
calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should
occur.
Indeed, an argument could be made that Obama should have canceled the Indian
event, out of respect for people having been murdered at an Army post a few
hours before. That would have prevented any sort of jarring emotional switch
at the event.
Did the president's team not realize what sort of image they were presenting
to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home
knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their
president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.
It must have been disappointing for many politically aware Democrats, still
reeling from the election two days before. The New Jersey gubernatorial vote
had already demonstrated that the president and his political team couldn't
produce a winning outcome in a state very friendly to Democrats (and where
the president won by 15 points one year ago). And now this? Congressional
Democrats must wonder if a White House that has burdened them with a
too-heavy policy agenda over the last year has a strong enough political
operation to help push that agenda through.
If the president's communications apparatus can't inform -- and protect --
their boss during tense moments when the country needs to see a focused
commander-in-chief and a compassionate head of state, it has disastrous
consequences for that president's party and supporters.
All the president's men (and women) fell down on the job Thursday. And
Democrats across the country have real reason to panic.
New York writer Robert A. George blogs at Ragged Thots. Follow him on
Twitter.
______________
NBC Local Media
First Published: Nov 6, 2009 5:16 AM CST
Find this article at:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html
Alexander Arnakis
<Australian_Cap...@Pacific-Rim.act.au> wrote:
>After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas,
>the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The
>White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out
>that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously
>scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president.
>The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace
>and perspective.
>
>But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and
>expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected
>and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the
>event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's
>Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered
>a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor
>winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in
>measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?
>
>Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to
>have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early
>light banter.
I saw this in real time, and I have to agree that it was very badly
handled. (In fact, those were my very thoughts at the time.) This is
the sort of misplaced "multitasking" that's par for the course with
Obama. Either of the Clintons wouldn't have made the same mistake.
~AGG~
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:rip9f5tkca0vmusga...@4ax.com...
***Agreed. Can we begin to conclude that the pre-election pundits were
right...Obama was not ready for the presidency?
John Galt
Quite. A writer (professing to be liberal and an Obama supporter) wrote
that from this and some other examples, Obama does not appear to be a
man who has any "sense of the moment", if that makes sense.
JG
>
Alexander Arnakis
<Australian_Cap...@Pacific-Rim.act.au> wrote:
>
>***Agreed. Can we begin to conclude that the pre-election pundits were
>right...Obama was not ready for the presidency?
No, because you have to consider the alternatives. Democratic primary
voters supported Obama because he was seen as a bridge-building
moderate who could do better in the general election than a stronger
partisan, such as Hillary Clinton. The problem now is that he may be
*too* moderate and unfocused to govern. And his bridge-building and
reaching out to Republicans has been answered by stonewalling and
(unfounded) accusations that he's a radical or, worse, that he's
disloyal to the country.
So, with all his faults, Obama is far better than the opposition.
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>Quite. A writer (professing to be liberal and an Obama supporter) wrote
>that from this and some other examples, Obama does not appear to be a
>man who has any "sense of the moment", if that makes sense.
>
party into line, I'm done with him.
John Galt
to eat, IMO.
JG
Polynesia@pacific-rim.tf ~AGG~
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
***Unfortunately for you, a majority of Americans at this point would not
agree that Obama is far better than anyone else.
Polynesia@pacific-rim.tf ~AGG~
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
***If Obama can't whip his party into line, it's because his party has begun
to realize that the 1,990-page disaster awaiting a possible vote in the
House this weekend is an abomination.
***More later. It's nearly time for the Penn State game to begin and I'm
half tanked from the tailgate party!!!
Alexander Arnakis
Poly...@Pacific-Rim.tf> wrote:
>
>***If Obama can't whip his party into line, it's because his party has begun
>to realize that the 1,990-page disaster awaiting a possible vote in the
>House this weekend is an abomination.
>
going to be a vote on the overall bill later tonight -- and you can be
assured that Nancy Pelosi wouldn't bring it up unless she was pretty
sure she had the votes. The main sticking point will be the Stupak
amendment on abortion, which the Republicans will support even though
they're all going to vote against the overall bill in the end.
Therefore, the Stupak amendment might well pass, and then the question
will be how many pro-choice Democrats will vote "no" on the final
bill. My guess is not many. (Actually, the bill's overall chances
would be *worse* if the Stupak amendment fails. This is another case
in which the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. If they
really wanted to kill the bill, they would tactically vote *against*
the Stupak amendment. But since this is a record vote, they have to
worry about explaining it to their pro-life constituents.)
>***More later. It's nearly time for the Penn State game to begin and I'm
>half tanked from the tailgate party!!!
What else is new? You appear to be drunk or stoned all the time,
judging from your behavior!
Alexander Arnakis
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>Follow the debate and the voting on C-SPAN right now, as I am. There's
>going to be a vote on the overall bill later tonight -- and you can be
>assured that Nancy Pelosi wouldn't bring it up unless she was pretty
>sure she had the votes. The main sticking point will be the Stupak
>amendment on abortion, which the Republicans will support even though
>they're all going to vote against the overall bill in the end.
>Therefore, the Stupak amendment might well pass, and then the question
>will be how many pro-choice Democrats will vote "no" on the final
>bill. My guess is not many. (Actually, the bill's overall chances
>would be *worse* if the Stupak amendment fails. This is another case
>in which the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. If they
>really wanted to kill the bill, they would tactically vote *against*
>the Stupak amendment. But since this is a record vote, they have to
>worry about explaining it to their pro-life constituents.)
>
amendment, which passed with the support of 64 Democrats. The final
vote in favor of the bill was 220-215 (only two votes to spare). In
other words, several pro-life Democrats voted for the bill: they might
not have without the Stupak amendment. So the Republicans did indeed
shoot themselves in the foot by voting for Stupak.
Polynesia@pacific-rim.tf ~AGG~
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
***You don't have to be tipsy to be "right"!!!!!!!!!!!!
Polynesia@pacific-rim.tf ~AGG~
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
***Nope. They did manage to make a statement about the sanctity of life!
That's a win-win.
***Now on to the Senate where nothing will likely happen until January...and
drag out and towards election day!