 |
|
| Religion Forum Index » Christian Orthodox Forum » Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| ~AGG~... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alexander Arnakis... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:03:13 -0500, "~AGG~"
<Australian_Capital_Territory at (no spam) Pacific-Rim.act.au> wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ~AGG~... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Alexander Arnakis" <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:rip9f5tkca0vmusgaopopv65ud9meuv78r at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Quote: On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:03:13 -0500, "~AGG~"
Australian_Capital_Territory at (no spam) 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.
***Agreed. Can we begin to conclude that the pre-election pundits were
right...Obama was not ready for the presidency? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alexander Arnakis... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:51:48 -0500, "~AGG~" <French
Polynesia at (no spam) Pacific-Rim.tf> wrote:
Quote:
***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.
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.)
Quote: ***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! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alexander Arnakis... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:11:47 -0500, Alexander Arnakis
<invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote:
Quote:
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.)
This played out as expected. The Republicans voted for the Stupak
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:25 am
|
|