Byron York rethinks Barry’s “political performance” in Tuscon.
…By the time he spoke in Tucson, Obama had let four days pass while some of the angriest voices in the media — his supporters — either blamed Republicans directly for the killings or blamed the GOP for creating the atmosphere in which the violence took place. During those four days, the president could have cooled the conversation by urging everyone to avoid jumping to conclusions, as he did the day after the November 2009 massacre at Ft. Hood, Texas [my emphasis]. But he didn’t. Only after Loughner’s insanity had been indisputably established did Obama concede that politics was not to blame for the shooting.
By then, however, the president’s supporters had tied the killings to the issue of political rhetoric. In Tucson, Obama played good cop to their bad cop by assuring everyone that rhetoric had not motivated the violence. But he still brought up the topic because, he said, it had “been discussed in recent days.” Of course, it would not have been discussed in recent days had his supporters not made so many unfair accusations.
Some Democratic strategists hope Obama can capitalize on Tucson the way Bill Clinton capitalized on Oklahoma City. Perhaps he’ll be able to, and perhaps he won’t. But he’s already trying.
York’s piece is a must read.
Another must read is Canadian David Warren’s column. In this excerpt, he describes the emergence of:
…a “New Left” in the sixties, a strange new slurry of Marxist, Freudian, feminist, and hippiesque notions which by increments seized the American liberal mind. And so completely that today, the attitudes of the Kennedy generation of American liberals seem indistinguishable from those of the Tea Party.
Indeed, on plain policy as opposed to superficial style, I defy anyone to prove that John F. Kennedy was to the left of Sarah Palin. From tax-cutting to anti-Communist confrontation — with all the Norman Rockwell in between — his positions were generally those we now associate with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, though presented in the smoother suit of an age when men wore narrow ties, with two-inch collars.
The rewriting of history is a necessary component of the world view in which the forces of “progress” are constantly warring with the forces of “reaction.” It is necessary because, to make that view plausible at all, we must overlook the daisy chain of social, moral, demographic, fiscal, and associated disasters that have followed from triumphs of the left; and the retreat of traditional American values to what they ungenerously call “the flyover country.”
Yet “New Left” was simply the old left on drugs, and the formula “progressives versus reactionaries” was the very item laid bloodily down in the French Revolution of 1789. Given a choice only between these two positions, you bet I am a reactionary, as I think any fully sane person must be…