Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

TO OUR READERS:  Please click on Urgent Agenda several times during the day.  We hope, in 2011, depending on the news, to put up at least one post during the afternoon hours, so there'll always be something new to read.  So visit us regularly.

We'll be covering President Obama's remarks in Tucson, scheduled to be delivered tonight at about 8 p.m. ET.

JANUARY 12,  2011

10:32 P.M. ET:  The news outlets are back to normal programming, with Greta Van Susteren doing a fine report on the history of the suspect.  There are new reports about bizarre blog postings.  It is becoming clear that the sheriff's office may have some explaining to do.  Certainly some intervention was indicated, and is easily done under Arizona law.  More reporting please.

9:56 P.M. ET:  I turned to CNN to monitor its commentary.  I was very surprised to see the discussion switch over to Sarah Palin's remarks this morning, which were heavily slammed as being too much about Sarah.  I think that's unfair.  If Sarah Palin hadn't defended herself, she would have been accused of ducking the issue.  The rest of the CNN commentary, regarding the president's remarks, was split between a verdict of great, and a verdict of okay.

9:37 P.M. ET:  I'm monitoring the Fox News commentary, which is somewhat more favorable to the president than were my observations.  Fair enough.  Chris Wallace pointed out that Mr. Obama's remarks followed the general tradition of such things, but were twice as long, which may have contributed to my feeling that the impact became dissipated as the speech continued.

9:20 P.M. ET:  The president of the university is up again.  Fox News's Bret Baier has just echoed what we've said here, that the occasion lacks a certain solemnity. 

9:16 P.M. ET:  Obama is going on too long.  Nothing he says is wrong, but again I must say that there is a hollowness.  Obama the candidate has never quite been Obama the president.  He has now finished.  No objection to what he said, but the impact dissipated along the way.

9:08 P.M. ET:  A comment:  Obama's speech is fine, but not more than that.  You just have the feeling that he doesn't mean it.  Ronald Reagan had a touch.  He reached people.  Obama lacks that touch.  He reaches voters.  There's just something missing, and I hope that isn't too harsh.

9:02 P.M. ET:  Obama is getting political.  He talks about the need for a healing kind of speech.  He says it's okay to "challenge old assumptions" to prevent such tragedies from happening.  It's sufficiently vague to be acceptable.  He says, correctly, that we should not use this occasion to turn on each other.  Can't disagree.

8:55 P.M. ET:  Obama is delivering, thus far, an appropriate speech.  He's concentrating on the victims.

8:44 P.M. ET:  President Obama has just been introduced by the president of the Univesity of Arizona, who strikes me as a man who thought he was introducing a basketball star.  The guy strikes the wrong note, and the students are cheering again.  The event lacks the sobriety that was required.  We hope the president repairs that.

8:41 P.M. ET:  Attorney-General Holder does a Bible reading. 

8:37 P.M. ET:  Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano speaks.  She's a former Arizona governor, so her presence is appropriate.

8:30 P.M. ET:  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer speaks.  I feared that she'd be greeted with boos, but she was not.  She is giving a perfectly dignified speech.

8:28 P.M. ET:  Daniel Hernandez, an aide to Congresswoman Giffords, who assisted her after the shooting, gives a classy speech, thanking others, rejecting the title "hero." 

8:22 P.M. ET:  Well, the president of the University is finished, and now a student leader is speaking.  She speaks with class and style, and seems to understand that this is not a pep rally.

8:18 P.M. ET:  The national anthem has been well sung, and the president of the university is again speaking, and again the students in the crowd are whooping.  We feel like putting our fingers in our ears and waiting for the main event, Mr. Obama.

8:15 P.M. ET:  The president of the University of Arizona is speaking.  I have to tell you, there's a tone here that is inappropriate.  Apparently, whoever is running this service, which is being held in a huge hall, invited many University of Arizona students who don't seem to understand the solemnity of the occasion, and yell and cheer whenever they like something.  Upbringing counts.

8:09 P.M. ET:  The memorial service in Tucson, at which President Obama will speak, has begun.  The service started with "Fanfare for the Common Man," by Copland, entirely appropriate.

Now we're being subjected to a native American blessing, delivered by a gentleman who needed a bit of editing, and a reminder that it isn't about him.  There's one in every crowd.

WHITEWASH – AT 7:05 P.M. ET:  I've been disappointed in some of the reporting by the Washington Post following the Arizona tragedy.  The Post's editorial page has been restrained and responsible, in contrast to that of The out-of-control New York Times, but the reporting still has the tinge of the view from the left.  The paper has made important strides in the last two years to free itself from the grip of biased reporting.  But attempts to whitewash the actions of Arizona authorities over the years, in their reaction to complaints about Saturday's alleged shooter, are a bit of a setback.  Consider: 

The Pima County Sheriff's Department on Wednesday released reports from 12 cases in which its officers interacted with the family of Jared Loughner, files that provided evidence of the accused gunman's troubled childhood but contained no obvious foreshadowing of the rampage that killed six and left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) critically wounded.

Look, if there was any obvious foreshadowing, the guy could have been detained.  The problem here is that we're talking about 12 cases, plus 5 cases from the college he attended.  At what point is there enough information to place in the federal database, which would have prevented this guy from buying a gun?

The story lets the sheriff's office off too easily, especially since this sheriff has become a liberal darling in the last three days, announcing his political views for the world to hear.

None of the cases involves Loughner, 22, making violent threats, using a firearm or hurting anyone. The most serious case involved a small-time drug arrest in 2007, when a sheriff's deputy reported finding a marijuana pipe in Loughner's pocket.

I love the term "small-time drug arrest."  That is an editorial opinion.  Why wasn't that drug arrest in the federal database?  I don't know the answer, but the newspeople should have asked.

But other cases provided a window into Loughner's early life, in which friends have said he became increasingly isolated and at odds with his parents. In 2004, police were called to Mountain View High School at 9 a.m. because of an intoxicated student.

Combine this with the five reports from his college of class disruptions and frightening behavior, and we have a case that should have allowed official intervention.  It's been reported that Arizona has a low bar for such intervention, yet nothing was done.  And the story doesn't even delve into it.

There is some good factual reporting here, but the mainstream media has been far too lax in questioning how a man with the alleged shooter's background got so far without any clamping down by authorities.

January 12, 2011       Permalink

VULGAR, VULGAR, VULGAR – AT 6:08 P.M. ET:  It is just shocking to the tasteless reaction of some people to Sarah Palin's fine, dignified comment this morning about the Arizona tragedy.

You'll see that there is already a controversy over Sarah's use of the term "blood libel," with some "commentators" suggesting that she's so ignorant she doesn't know what the term means, or that its use is "hurtful," or that she may even be a bigot.  This is really bad stuff.

The term "blood libel" stems from the ancient myth that Jews take the blood of Christian babies for use in Jewish ritual.  True, it's a horrible, degenerate and untruthful charge, a "blood libel."  By using the term, Sarah's critics charge, she's shown insensitivity to Jewish feelings.

That is nonsense.

Over the centuries, the meaning of "blood libel" in everyday speech has been expanded to mean any serious and untruthful charge that someone is doing something unspeakable to someone else, resulting in that person's death or grievous injury.  The fact is, the Israelis use the term all the time to describe the horrible libels against Israel, often originating in Arab or pro-Arab journals. 

Sarah Palin is one of the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel political figures in America.  She even has a small Israeli flag in her office and has been seen wearing a pin with crossed American and Israeli flags.  To suggest that she is insensitive to Jews is a new low, in my opinion.  Will her critics stoop to any level?

What is particularly outrageous is that some of these new charges against Sarah are coming from two British newspapers, the Independent and the Guardian, two of the most viciously anti-Israel newspapers in the world.   Gee, are they just discovering anti-Semitism?  I hadn't noticed their concern before when they printed the most wild charges against the Israelis.

It is entirely legitimate to debate Sarah's remarks.  Some liked them, some didn't.  But to bring this ugliness into the discussion is out of bounds.  No class, no taste.

January 12, 2011     Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:

Calling the decision "disrespectful," Charlotte City Council member Patrick Cannon on Tuesday harshly criticized the school district's announcement that students would attend classes on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to make up for a snow day.  Also Tuesday, the Charlotte chapter of the NAACP called for local clergy to urge church members to keep their children out of school Monday.  Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools had planned next Monday as a holiday, but a severe winter storm has closed school so far this week.

Another horrible example of black "leadership," which often produces nothing but fodder for the race industry.  Dr. King would probably want those kids in school, to make up for time lost.  That would be a real way to honor him - a normal school day with time out for reflections on his legacy.  Too bad the "leadership" doesn't understand that, and prefers a day off to education.

January 12, 2011      Permalink

REMARKABLE TURN – AT 10:04 A.M. ET:  There has been a remarkable turn in public approval of Congress since the Republicans took over the House.  Andrew Malcolm reports in the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog:

With so much national attention focused on the keen criminology insights of Arizona's Clarence the Talking Sheriff, a stunning new Gallup Poll on Congress almost flew right by.

The new national survey finds that within only five days of Republicans taking majority control of the House of Representatives on Jan. 4, Americans' approval of the bicameral body's job shot up more than 50%, from its record low of 13% to 20%.

The spurt in support came despite the candidly ominous opening speech by the new Speaker John Boehner, "Our debt will soon eclipse the size of our entire economy."

The job approval of Congress has been trending downward for much of the past two years under the large Democratic majorities in both houses and the leaderships of now ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and barely surviving Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who lost six of his 10-seat margin in the Nov. 2 midterms.

We concede that 20% isn't very high, but the trend is upward, not downward, as Andrew Malcolm points out. 

Meanwhile, another poll finds that 42% of Americans view the Republicans' congressional agenda as "mainstream," while fully 49% call the Democrats' congressional agenda "extreme." How could that be after increasing the national debt only $54,000 every second?

COMMENT:  Now Republicans must produce, to build that approval rating.  It will take a long time for it to grow, so much damage having been done.  But only Republicans can grow it.  Democrats have stopped trying.

January 12, 2011       Permalink

THE ADULTS MOVE IN – AT 9:23 A.M. ET:  Some of our best journalists, and there are few in that categroy, are speaking out about Arizona, and providing the kind of context that has been missing for day.  Michael Barone, who knows more about American political history than almost anyone, examines the real history of political assassinations.  Amazing what some facts will do.  From the Washington Examiner: 

Some broader perspective may be in order. The last congressman to be attacked by a gunman was California Rep. Leo Ryan, murdered at the Jonestown massacre in Guyana in 1978, 32 years ago.

In other words, this isn't exactly an everyday event, despite the impression given by some overwrought TV commentators.

How many times have member of Congress made announced appearances, without security personnel, over the past 32 years? How many thousands? Tens of thousands?

The answer is that this kind of attack is, thank goodness, exceedingly rare -- though not as rare as all decent people would like.

And...

Vitriolic rhetoric comes from all points on the political compass. But many in the media, when trying to assess blame for violent acts, have an impulse to look for it only on the right.

Yes, we've noticed.

Actually, we do know of societies where people on one side of the political divide encourage and sponsor assassinations of people whom they oppose.

This was Germany in the years after World War I, when those who thought Germany had been stabbed in the back hailed the assassination of the industrialist and moderate (Jewish) politician Walter Rathenau in 1922. Including a failed painter from Vienna named Adolf Hitler.

This was Japan in the 1930s, when advocates of military aggression systematically assassinated moderates who wanted their country to live in peace with its neighbors and not seek conquests abroad.

Or, to take an example from last week, Pakistan, where the governor of Punjab was assassinated. His offense: opposing blasphemy laws that carried a death penalty. Those who supported his assassination celebrated publicly and urged more such killings.

And...

Suggestions that the shooting in Arizona are of the same ilk as these examples is something of a blood libel against the politicians of all stripes in our country and of the American people. No American politician, no significant segment of any political movement, no statistically identifiable share of the American people wishes the violent death of its political opponents.

Obviously.  Fine words from a master.

I wish now we would have the kind of reporting that is so needed at a time like this:  What motivates some of those who hurl the blood libel?  Who influenced them?  Who taught them in college?  Who challenges them inside their organizations when they are way off base?

We await answers.  Indeed, we await the questions.

January 12, 2011       Permalink

OBAMA'S TURN – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  Now that Sarah Palin has spoken, it is Obama's turn.  He speaks in Arizona tonight, and we wonder whether he will rise to the occasion, or take the advice of some petty members of his party to use Arizona as a means of gaining political advantage.

We hope the president speaks responsibly.  We hope he doesn't engage in the cynical opportunism displayed by Bill Clinton after Oklahoma City, when he tried to blame talk radio for the tragedy.  True, Clinton's approval ratings shot up, but eventually the charge did not stick, and is no ornament to Clinton's checkered record. 

Can Obama rise?  Can he become larger than himself?  At times he has failed, not understanding the majesty of his office, and its singular place as a "bully pulpit."

The president must condemn the act, express compassion, and then warn against reckless attempts to assess blame.  If he wishes to speak out about angry words in politics, he must condemn both sides equally.  If he wishes to make proposals, they must be well thought out, not knee-jerk reactions.  There are serious issues he can touch on – such as why the alleged shooter's mental condition, and the many complaints against him, did not warrant an intervention by authorities; or why the defendant's mental history was not in the federal database, which would have prevented him from buying a gun.

Your turn, Mr. Obama.  To paraphrase that famous line from "42nd Street," you can go out there a president, and come back a star.  Or you can come back a jerk.

January 12, 2011      Permalink

SARAH SPEAKS OUT – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  Sarah Palin has struck back, and she is magnificent.  Read the entire text of her statement here.  You can see the video here.

The excerpts speak for themselves:

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

And...

If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

And...

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

Please read the whole thing, and watch.  I hope Sarah appears again on TV today to discuss what she's said.  She should not fear questions, for she has the right answers.

Of all the statements issued since the Tucson shootings, hers is the best.  She has risen to the occasion, but I fear the damage inflicted on her has already been done.

January 12, 2011     Permalink

JANUARY 11,  2011

IS HE STILL AROUND? – AT 8:39 P.M. ET:  Lincoln Chafee was once a Republican senator from Rhode Island, sliding into office on the back of his father, John Chafee, who'd been a senator from the same state.

Chafee's time in the Senate consisted mostly of trying to prove that he really wasn't a Republican after all.  When he was defeated for reelection he left the Republican Party.

Now, incredibly, Chafee has reinvented himself and has been elected governor of Rhode Island.  When will they ever learn?  And Chafee's brilliant, deeply thought-out reaction to the Arizona killings?  Here is a great mind at work:

PROVIDENCE — No one is likely to confuse new Governor Chafee with his Republican predecessor, Donald L. Carcieri, and now here’s another way to tell them apart:

Chafee doesn’t plan to spend his own time on talk radio, and he intends to ban state employees from spending their state work time talking on talk radio, which was Carcieri’s favorite medium and an integral part of his communications operation.

Spokesman Michael Trainor said a directive will go out over the next day or so that reflects that new policy.

He said the policy emanates from a belief that talk radio is essentially “ratings-driven, for-profit programming,” and “we don’t think it is appropriate to use taxpayer resources” in the form of state employee work time to “support for-profit, ratings-driven programming.”

Trainor said the new governor will continue to talk to the news reporters for the local radio stations, and the nonprofit local NPR affiliate.

Reached Monday night, WHJJ’s program director, Bill George, said he was curious about the explanation for Chafee’s singling out talk shows since “most media outlets, whether news or opinion, are profit-making entities.”

He said he hopes to have a conversation with Chafee in the next few days in the hope that he can change the governor’s mind.

COMMENT:  The idea that the governor has a mind is itself questionable.  This is one of those knee-jerk reactions to all the hysteria about talk radio causing the Arizona shootings.  The governor should cancel the directive and let each state executive decide for himself or herself which news outlet is worthy of an appearance.

January 11, 2011      Permalink

THE BACKLASH – AT 7:29 P.M. ET:  The backlash is building against the outrageous, obscene attempts to blame conservatives for the Arizona shooting.  Even though some commentators and politicians won't grow up, others are speaking out against the modern McCarthyism we've seen in the last few days.

Even Jon Stewart, the liberal host of The Daily Show, has ridiculed the idea that fiery political rhetoric had anything to do with this.

And a psychologist appearing on CNN today made clear that, from his viewpoint, the alleged shooter did not have either right-wing or left-wing views.  He had, this man said, serious mental illnesses.

And the Arizona Republic, the state's leading newspaper, has now reprimanded the rogue sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, who's been running around to various TV outlets announcing his profound political views:

Enough attacks, sheriff. Enough vitriol. It is well past time for the sheriff of Pima County to get a grip on his emotions and remember his duty.

With each passing hour, we learn more about the 22-year-old suspect. And everything we learn adds to the profile of a deeply troubled young man detached from reality. There is nothing to date that suggests any partisan motivation for his crimes, whether right-wing or left.

Dupnik needs to recall that he is elected to be a lawman. With each additional comment, the Democratic sheriff of Pima County is revealing his agenda as partisan, and, as such, every bit as recklessly antagonistic as the talk-show hosts and politicians he chooses to decry.

COMMENT:  Right on.  Indeed, one of the issues we've raised here is the possibility that these venomous voices of the left are placing conservative political figures in physical danger with their wild attacks. 

We need more newspapers and broadcasters to speak out before some real damage is done.

January 11, 2011      Permalink

AMERICANS GET IT – AT 4:47 P.M. ET:  Americans, as usual, are showing themselves a lot smarter than the geniuses in the painstream media.  From London's Daily Mail:

A new poll has revealed that the majority of Americans do not believe frenzied political rhetoric was to blame for the Arizona massacre.

In the CBS survey, 57 per cent of people said they did not believe political vitriol was responsible for Jared Lee Loughner, 22, going on a shooting spree in Tuscon on Saturday.

Just 32 per cent of those questioned agreed there was a connection between the violence and the heated political tone.

And...

In the poll there was a definite split in opinion depending on which party the respondents supported.

Republicans were more likely to disagree that rhetoric was involved with 69 per cent of respondents saying political vitriol was not to blame while 19 per cent said it did play a role.

Whereas, Democrats were more undecided on the subject with 49 per cent responding that political rhetoric did not play a part while 42 per cent were convinced there was a connection.

COMMENT:  The breakdown by party isn't surprising.  Today's Democrats are taught to believe that it's always someone else's fault.  If someone commits a crime, it's society's fault.  If he uses a gun, blame the gun manufacturers.  If a kid fails in school, it's the school's fault. (If he didn't study, the school didn't make the subject interesting enough, or ethnically relevant.) 

President Obama has an opportunity here to rise above politics and make it clear that the blame lies squarely with the person pulling the trigger.  There is a legitimate question to be asked also about why the alleged assailant's mental-health record was not in the federal database.  If it had been there, he would have been prevented from buying the pistol he used to shoot on Saturday.

January 11, 2011       Permalink

BACK TO REALITY – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is one of the grown-ups in the Obama administration.   He warns us about North Korea, a subject most Americans don't think about when they go to bed at night, but should:

BEIJING — In a major new assessment of North Korea, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on Tuesday that the country is becoming a direct threat to the United States and was within five years of developing a missile with the potential of hitting Alaska or the West Coast. 

A critically important point.  We're used to the media describing countries like North Korea and Iran as threats to their neighbors, which tends to diminish our concern here.  But modern technology makes them threats to us as well, and very direct threats. 

Mr. Gates said that although he expected North Korea’s ability to be limited, he anticipated the country would still develop within that time frame a small number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that could at least potentially deliver nuclear warheads. “I don’t think it’s an immediate threat, but on the other hand I don’t think it’s a five-year threat,” Mr. Gates said.

Mr. Gates made his comments during a visit to Beijing on the same day that China, in a show of force for the United States, apparently conducted the first test flight of its new stealth fighter jet. The 15-minute flight occurred just hours before Mr. Gates met with President Hu Jintao to talk about improving relations between the Chinese and American militaries and ways to reduce tensions during a nascent arms buildup between the two countries.

COMMENT:  The Chinese fighter comes at a time when we've eliminated production of our F-22 stealth fighter. 

The White House has ordered the Defense Department to cut its budget.  While there are probably some savings to be had, we should take a warning from history and not place ourselves in a position where we are unprepared.  North Korea, though a poor country, still has a devastating military force.  It starves its people to devote resources to its forces, as did the Soviet Union.

China is becoming a major military threat, and it's barely discussed in the United States.

Both China and North Korea see a weakening United States, and they are responding accordingly.

January 11, 2011      Permalink

THE EXEMPTION – AT 9:13 A.M. ET:   I find it fascinating, in the wake of all the chatter following the Arizona shooting, that one institution in American life gets off without so much as a mention – the American university. 

And yet, our colleges and universities have too often been centers of extremism, extremist thought, and social policies that are a danger to democracy.

The journalists who have fouled the landscape in recent days were trained in colleges and universities, yet the kind of training they received is never mentioned.  Universities have a kind of exemption.

About six years ago a distinguished civil-liberties lawyer told me how worried he was by what was being taught in colleges.  Those students will be our leaders in 20 years, he said.  He was referring to the contempt for democracy displayed by practices like "speech codes," still in place in many institutions, despite court challenges.  Speech codes are presumably installed in colleges and universities to prevent "hate" speech, but the definition of "hate" speech often turns out to be highly selective and politicized.  You can't "hate" one group, but another is an entirely appropriate target, depending on this year's trends on the political left.

Fast forward to Arizona.  Already there are calls to moderate our political discourse, but the calls are directed almost exclusively at the right.  It's kind of a repeat of the "speech code" experience many journalists had at college.   

And what are we to make of universities in Illinois who will hire a Bill Ayers, friend of Barack Obama?  Ayers wrote a book dedicated to the murderer of Robert Kennedy, Sirhan Sirhan.  What are students to draw from that?

Journalists, and political leaders, do not drop out of the sky.  They come from somewhere.  They have backgrounds.  And those backgrounds often include instruction by highly partisan professors of the left, and indoctrination in a world view that students bring into journalism or politics.  When a budding journalist is taught that there's no such thing as "truth," that truth is just a "cultural construct," what kind of journalist will he or she become? 

We are often reminded of the story of Pauline Kael, the distinguished New York film critic, who, after the 1972 presidential election, exclaimed that she was surprised that Richard Nixon had won because she didn't know anyone who voted for him.  Her background, her culture, did not permit her to understand or even recognize anyone who disagreed with her.

Maybe we should start a national discussion about higher education, what it's for, and what it actually provides.  But don't hold your breath.  There are too many honorary degrees and commencement-speech invitations out there for journalists to stick their necks out and ask questions.  

Someone better start asking, for the future of this country may depend on the answers.

January 11, 2011      Permalink 

WHAT WILL SARAH DO? – AT 8:26 A.M. ET:  In a fair report in the Washington Post, Dan Balz wonders how Sarah Palin will respond to attempts by the reckless left and the equally reckless media to link her to the Arizona tragedy:

In her more than two years on the national stage, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has proven to be a master of attention-grabbing quotes and vivid images. As a result, she finds herself at the center of a political and media controversy - unfairly in the estimation of her allies - after Saturday's shootings in Tucson.

The controversy, which may have caught the Republican by surprise, is the kind of test candidates commonly face in a presidential campaign. How she navigates it, several Republican strategists said Monday, could be a defining moment for her politically.

What makes her challenge unique is that it comes as a result of a national tragedy in which there is no known connection between anything Palin said or did and the alleged actions of Jared Loughner, who is accused of fatally shooting six and severely wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 13 others.

COMMENT:  Speak, Sarah, speak.  This is a defining moment for Sarah Palin, whether she wants it to be or not.  As readers know, we've been skeptical about her here.  We love her as a person, but have wondered whether she has the seriousness or discipline required for national candidacy. 

This is the moment for to prove that she does.

Sarah should hold a press conference to defend herself – you must always defend yourself in politics – and to indict the wild-eyed fools who have acted so recklessly in the last few days.  She should name names, give details, and yet do so in a stateswomanlike style, modulating her voice and speaking somberly.  She should call for reflection by everyone, including the members of the media.  Mention The New York Times by name, MSNBC, and the fool sheriff from Arizona who has politicized the event and weakened his office. 

Palin should make it clear that disagreeing with Obamacare is not extremism, and that running against Barack Obama is not racism.  And she should finally declare that the person responsible for the shootings in Tucson is the man who pulled the trigger.

She could, of course, thoughtfully ask for a probe into why the background-check system, employed when someone tries to buy a gun, did not work in this case.  It did not work because data about the shooter's psychological past was not, under law, eligible to be entered into the federal database, and so did not come up when he bought his Glock semi-automatic pistol.  Sarah can demonstrate that she is a responsible gun owner, not a "gun nut."

Sarah Palin owes it to herself and the nation to speak out responsibly.  She has the capacity.  She now must have the will.

January 11, 2011      Permalink 

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:13 A.M. ET:  We have not been great fans of David Brooks of The New York Times, whose mushy conservatism on the paper's op-ed page can often be more maddening than enlightening.  But today Brooks performs brilliantly, lashing out at his fellow journalists, including, presumably, those on The Times, who have sought to politicize the Arizona tragedy:

We have a news media that is psychologically ill informed but politically inflamed, so it naturally leans toward political explanations. We have a news media with a strong distaste for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement, and this seemed like a golden opportunity to tarnish them. We have a segmented news media, so there is nobody in most newsrooms to stand apart from the prevailing assumptions. We have a news media market in which the rewards go to anybody who can stroke the audience’s pleasure buttons.

I have no love for Sarah Palin, and I like to think I’m committed to civil discourse. But the political opportunism occasioned by this tragedy has ranged from the completely irrelevant to the shamelessly irresponsible.

The good news is that there were a few skeptics, even during the height of the mania: Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast, James Fallows of The Atlantic and Jonathan Chait of The New Republic. The other good news is that the mainstream media usually recovers from its hysterias and tries belatedly to get the story right.

COMMENT:  Well said.  We are hoping that there'll be a backlash against the mainstream media, a demand for an accounting for its irresponsible behavior.

That backlash could be part of the silent revulsion against the media that has seen its credibility ratings drop in recent years, and has seen millions of readers and viewers simply look elsewhere.

The New York Times needs a good buyout, and may get one, which would lead to the departure of its hippie publisher, a most welcome development.

January 11, 2011     Permalink