Daily Kos

SUBSCRIBE! (or exclude from AdBlock)

If you use ad blocking software while viewing Daily Kos, you're getting all the benefits of our site but we're not getting any of the advertisement revenue associated with your visits. This site relies on ad revenue for daily operations: a decrease in the number of ads seen means a decrease in the funding available to run the site, to pay those that work on it, and to create improved site features.

We won't stop you from using ad blocking software, but if you do use it we ask you to support Daily Kos another way: by purchasing a site subscription. A subscription is an inexpensive way to support the site that eliminates the advertisements without using ad blocking software.

Revenue generated from the subscriptions goes to the Daily Kos fellowship program, providing a steady income for bloggers and allowing them to concentrate full time on expanding the reach and influence of the netroots through a variety of projects.

By using ad blocking software, you may be hiding the site ads but you're also reducing the site's primary source of revenue. So if you must use one, please do your part to support the site and the people that bring it to you by purchasing a site subscription today.

To exclude Daily Kos from Adblock Plus, in Firefox click Tools > Adblock Plus > click on Add Filter, and copy/paste @@http://*dailykos.com/* to the field, then click Add Filter at the bottom of the window, then OK.


A comparison of the President and the Palin in 172 words

Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:38:57 AM PST

Much will be written today, comparing last night's moving speech by President Obama to Sarah Palin's eight-minute exercise in narcissism, so to save you time, here's a succinct and spot-on take by Lloyd Grove:

The prematurely retired Alaska governor had to serve up her remarks, really a litany of complaints against her critics and political adversaries, while seated in front of a non-working stone fireplace, apparently at her home in Wasilla—a claustrophobic setting framed by an outsize American flag.

The president got to deliver his affecting half-hour of heartfelt reflection and soulful inspiration—repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations—to an arena at the University of Arizona filled to the rafters with 14,000 mourners, notably members of his Cabinet and the Supreme Court, the governor of Arizona, the astronaut-husband of wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords, the heroes who risked their own lives to save others, the doctors and nurses who tended the injured and bleeding, and the friends and families of the six people, including a 9-year-old girl, who were killed by a gun-wielding maniac Saturday morning at a shopping center.

“At the end of the day, after listening to the president, we’ll know why he’s president and she never will be,” said Robert Shrum.


Poll respondents: Tucson shooting 'isolated incident' & concealed firearms should be allowed

Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:46:03 AM PST

A slight majority (51 percent) of respondents to a survey conducted Jan. 10-11 by Vision Critical & Angus Reid believe the Tucson shooting last Saturday was an isolated incident resulting from an individual's action. About a third (31 percent) said the shooting was the consequence of a negative tone in U.S. politics. And 37 percent said they expect there will soon be more such incidents. In addition, 73 percent of respondents said that citizens should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm, although only 9 percent said they should be able to do so without obtaining a permit. In Arizona, as well as Alaska and Vermont, no such permit is required.

The poll surveyed 1008 American adults and had a 3.1 percent margin of error.

Some 56 percent of respondents said they were satisfied with the way President Barack Obama handled the aftermath of the shooting and 50 percent voiced satisfaction with the way the media handled their coverage.

The surveyors asked several questions about attitudes toward firearms, including:

"If it were up to you, would you prefer to have stricter firearm laws, looser firearm laws, or would you
keep existing regulations the way they are?"

Stricter:
   All - 50 percent;
   Democrats - 65 percent
   Republicans - 30 percent
   Independents - 51 percent

Looser:
   All - 13 percent;
   Democrats - 6 percent
   Republicans - 19 percent
   Independents - 15 percent

 Keep existing:
   All - 27 percent;
   Democrats - 18 percent
   Republicans - 44 percent
   Independents - 31 percent

Not sure:
   All - 10 percent;
   Democrats - 10 percent
   Republicans - 7 percent
   Independents - 4 percent

"Below is a list of weapons. For each one, please say whether this type of weapon should be
available to every American who is eligible to own firearms, or only to the police and other authorized
persons."

Every American who is eligible to own firearms should have access to these weapons:
    Handguns - 70 percent
    Rifles/Shotguns - 73 percent
    Semi-automatic firearms - 26 percent

Only the police and other authorized persons should have access to these weapons:
   Handguns - 21 percent
   Rifles/Shotguns - 18 percent
   Semi-automatic firerms - 63 percent

Unsure:
   Handguns - 9 percent
   Rifles/Shotguns - 8 percent
   Semi-automatic firerms - 10 percent

"Across the U.S, states have different regulations related to how individuals can carry a concealed
weapon in public. Thinking about your own state, which one of these options would you prefer to
implement?"

Citizens should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon at all:
    All - 24 percent
    Democrats - 32 percent
    Republicans - 15 percent
    Independents - 25 percent

Citizens should be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon if local authorities agree to it:
    All - 16 percent
    Democrats - 17 percent
    Republicans - 19 percent
    Independents -  16 percent

Citizens should be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon if they meet specific criteria laid out in the law:
    All - 47 percent
    Democrats - 45 percent
    Republicans - 54 percent
    Independents -  44 percent

Citizens should be allowed to carry a  concealed weapon without any permit.:
    All - 9 percent
    Democrats - 4 percent
    Republicans - 11 percent
    Independents -  11 percent

Not sure:
    All - 4 percent
    Democrats - 2 percent
    Republicans - 2 percent
    Independents - 4 percent

Vision Critical did not report whether it found differences between men and women or by race or age.

California man arrested for threats on Rep. McDermott, others

Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:16:03 AM PST

A California man who has been accused of threatening Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and other political figures was arrested Wednesday and charged federal court.

Charles Turner Habermann -- a 32-year-old Palm Springs, Calif., resident with a $3 million trust fund -- was arrested Wednesday morning on allegations that he made threatening phone calls to the office of the Seattle Democrat late last year....

Federal prosecutors in Seattle described statements left by Habermann in two Dec. 9 phone calls as an "expletive-laden" effort to influence McDermott's vote on tax policy. According to charging documents, Habermann to have threatened to kill McDermott's friends and family, then, in the second call, threatened to put McDermott "in the trash."

Contacted by the investigators the day after the messages were left, Habermann allegedly admitted to threatening McDermott and a congresswoman not identified in court documents.

"He said he was trying to scare them before they spent money that didn't belong to them," FBI Special Agent Dean Giboney told the court....

Jenny Durkan, U.S. attorney for Western Washington, said in a statement that such threats "are intended to silence debate, not further it."

"We are blessed to live in a country that guarantees and protects the freedom to disagree with our government and speak our minds," Durkan said in a statement. "That protection, however, does not extend to threats or acts of violence."

McDermott is the second Washington politician in less than a year's time to be subject to threats that ended up in an arrest. In the case of Charles Wilson, and eastern Washington man who repeatedly threatened Sen. Patty Murray, the threats ended in a conviction, and this statement from U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour, who "described the Eastern Washington man's actions as terrorism and Wilson, by extension, as a terrorist":

"The very foundation of our system of laws and government, and the promise of democracy is that political change is accomplished through reasoned debate, through persuasion, and through voting," Coughenour said, reading from a text prepared by law clerk Colin George. "And we have a word for people who try to effect political change through violence and threats of violence....

"Terrorism is not an ethnicity. Terrorism is not a color. Terrorism is replacing peaceful political participation with violence."

It's hard to think of a more fitting statement for this week.

For more discussion, here's N in Seattle's diary.

Cheers and Jeers: Thursday

Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:48:53 AM PST

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Attn C&J Subscribers: the PayPal Thingee is Working Again

Mornin', bedhead.

Pardon the meta, but those of you who subscribe to C&J have probably gotten a notice (or two or three) from PayPal recently informing you that the account was suspended. I probably owe you an explanation.

Without going too far into the weeds, the primary reason is because the IRS now requires PayPal to keep records on certain accountholders, and they in turn needed to verify some information. The other reason, of course, is because I toilet-papered the CFO's trees last Halloween and, man, Mr. Dupuis sure has a lot of surveillance cameras.

I'm happy to report that, after handing over several tax documents, letters, ticket stubs, passports, the eye of Sauron, the Holy Grail (I chose...wisely), a random old lady from a Bingo hall and a few stiff drinks, they finally lifted the curse on the C&J account and the shingle has been re-hung.

If you received a notice from the Borg PayPal saying that your subscription had been cancelled (or if you'd like to become a new subscriber), it's now safe to re-up:

One time contribution: click here.
 
$5 monthly contribution: click here
 
$10 monthly contribution: click here
 
$20 monthly contribution: click here

As always, thank you for keeping this humble corner of the republic purring and whirring. My apologies for the inconvenience and panic this has caused, and I'm glad it has a happy ending. I only wish I could say the same thing about tonight's Martian invasion.

Cheers and Jeers starts below the fold... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Poll

How often do you clean out your fridge?

8%152 votes
19%363 votes
39%754 votes
33%629 votes

| 1898 votes | Vote | Results


Open Thread

Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:34:02 AM PST

Jabber your jibber.

Abbreviated pundit round-up

Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:43:42 AM PST

New York Times:

It is a president’s responsibility to salve a national wound. President Obama did that on Wednesday evening at the memorial service in Tucson for the six people who died in last weekend’s terrible shooting. It was one of his most powerful and uplifting speeches.

Mr. Obama called on ideological campaigners to stop vilifying their opponents. The only way to move forward after such a tragedy, he said, is to cast aside "point-scoring and pettiness." He rightly focused primarily on the lives of those who died and the heroism of those who tried to stop the shooter and save the victims. He urged prayers for the 14 wounded, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, the target of the rampage. Their stories needed to be told, their lives celebrated and mourned.

It was important that Mr. Obama transcend the debate about whose partisanship has been excessive and whose words have sown the most division and dread. This page and many others have identified those voices and called on them to stop demonizing their political opponents. The president’s role in Tucson was to comfort and honor, and instill hope.

Eugene Robinson also praised the president for rising above partisan pettiness:

In Tucson tonight, President Obama played the role that all presidents must play at times of great tragedy: consoler in chief. His speech at the memorial service for the victims of Saturday's massacre seemed not to come from a speechwriter's pen, but from the heart.

Asking whether it "helped" or "hurt" the president politically seems petty. After he described how Rep. Gabriel Giffords' husband, Mark, had just visited her and announced that "Gabby opened her eyes for the first time," politics vanished. At a moment of great sorrow, there was a glimpse of the kinder, gentler America that Obama described -- an America in which "we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."

Naturally, not everyone heard the president's speech as non-partisan. Marc Thiessen, former Bush speechwriter, said the president actually gave two speeches: the first one, brilliant, and the second one, courageous.

In the first, Obama delivered a traditional memorial address, and did so with elegance and eloquence.

And the courageous part?

The president could have ended there. But instead he pivoted to a second speech on our political discourse -- and delivered a clear rebuke to those on the left who were so quick to politicize this tragedy and assign blame to their political opponents[.]

Of course it was a rebuke to the left because only the left politicizes tragedy. No one on the right has ever used tragedy to score political points. Ever.

Gail Collins:

Maybe President Obama was saving the magic for a time when we really needed it.

We’ve been complaining for two years about the lack of music and passion in his big speeches. But if he’d moved the country when he was talking about health care or bailing out the auto industry, perhaps his words wouldn’t have been as powerful as they were when he was trying to lift the country up after the tragedy in Tucson.

"Our hearts are broken, and yet our hearts also have reason for fullness," he said, in a call to action that finally moved the nation’s focus forward.

The days after the shootings had a depressing political rhythm. There was the call for civility, followed by the rapidly escalating rhetoric over whose fault the incivility was, which climbed ever upward until Wednesday when you had a congressman from Texas claiming that the F.B.I. was hiding information on the gunman’s political beliefs because the truth would embarrass the White House.

For me, Obama’s best moment came when he warned that "what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another." In his honor, I am not saying a word about Sarah Palin’s video.

Doyle McManus, however, makes no such promise:

Still, the Arizona shootings and their aftermath will probably be remembered as the end of Palin's chances of being taken seriously as a Republican presidential candidate. She had an opportunity to rise to an occasion, and she whiffed.

...

Palin had a chance with her statement on the Tucson tragedy to show voters she's equal to the demands of the presidency. Instead, the eight-minute video she released Wednesday reflected her chosen role as lightning rod of the right. Rather than rise to the occasion, she continued the partisan slugfest.

Dana Milbank says some nice things about Congress:

As it happened, the best and worst of American politics was on display Wednesday morning. The ugly side emerged a few hours before the debate in the form of a Facebook posting by Sarah Palin. Rather than soften her own excesses (in this case, the map showing bull's-eyes over Giffords' and other districts with accompanying instructions to "RELOAD") Palin defended her actions and inflamed the debate further by accusing her opponents of a "blood libel" - a reference to centuries of anti-Semitism.

Happily, the lawmakers did not fall for Palin's provocations. Speaker John Boehner, who distinguished himself with his original response to the shooting - "an attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve" - began Wednesday's session with an admonition that "we gather here without distinction of party."

The notoriously weepy speaker, sitting alone in the front row of the chamber, wiped a tear from his eye as the clerk read the resolution and choked up as he spoke. But this time, he had company in his tears.

And now for your weekly Mark Morford:

Every tragedy births a supplication. Every assault, violent attack, assassination attempt and murderous spree begets the same series of questions, a palms-open appeal to the gods of law, society, humanity.
It goes like this: What will we learn? What will change? Will any solutions emerge? Who can fix this? Is it even possible? And finally, what the hell is wrong with us?

So it is that, in the wake of the Tucson rampage wrought by a deranged monster named Jared Loughner, a man with far too easy access to firearms and a brain far too full of tortured rhetoric, comes the collective wail from the right, the left, the president himself: Something must be done. We will get to the bottom of this. We will examine from every angle, figure this out, heal the wound.

Right. What wound would that be, exactly? The bottom of what? What, really, can or will be done? No one seems to know. Or rather, they sort of do, but no one has the nerve to do it. Ain't that America.

Regardless, some have already taken action. Already, two political creeps have decided to reduce themselves to, well, almost the same level as Loughner himself. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) have declared that they will start packing heat, carrying their own handguns around D.C. like twitchy thugs, because gosh, it just makes sense. More guns will somehow equal less guns, and violence never begets more violence. Well done, boys. You're a couple of goddamn geniuses. Now shut up.

Finally, in some non-Tucscon-related news, Ann Jones has a novel proposal for peace in Afghanistan:

Looking for a way out of Afghanistan? Maybe it's time to try something totally different, like putting into action, for the first time in history, the most enlightened edict ever passed by the United Nations Security Council: Resolution 1325.

Passed on Oct. 31, 2000, the resolution was hailed worldwide as a great victory for both women and international peace. In a nutshell, it calls for women to participate equally in all processes of conflict resolution, peacemaking and reconstruction.

The resolution grew out of a recognition that while men at the negotiating table still jockey for power and wealth, women who are included commonly advocate for interests that coincide perfectly with those of civil society. They are concerned about their children and consequently about shelter, clean water, sanitation, jobs, healthcare, education — the things that make life livable for peaceable people.

Letting women participate in their own political process? Nah, that'll never work.

Open thread for night owls: FDR and the New Bill of Rights

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 09:06:05 PM PST

On Jan. 11, 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave an historic State of the Union address. In it he outlined an economic Bill of Rights.

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
       
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

• The right of every family to a decent home;

• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
       
• The right to a good education.

   All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

   America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

As Bob Borosage at the Campaign for America's Future wrote Tuesday:

After Roosevelt's death, his wife, Eleanor, led the drive to get the United Nations to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and later the economic rights were codified in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. By 2003, 142 nations had ratified this covenant, but not the United States. Here it was entangled in the bitter domestic politics of the Cold War and torpedoed by Senators intent on defending segregation.

Now as we struggle to emerge from the worst economic decline since the Great Depression, we would benefit from returning to Roosevelt's principles and vision.

Once more our economy is sapped by extreme inequality, with the wealthiest 1 percent controlling as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and capturing fully two-thirds of the income growth of the five years before the financial collapse. Fifty million people go without health insurance, while health reform is under assault. The minimum wage has lost more than one-fourth of its value since 1968. Unions are down to less than 9 percent of the private workforce. Wages for most Americans haven't kept up with prices even when the economy was growing. The size and concentration of the big banks -- now with assets at 60 percent of GDP (up from 17 percent in 1995) -- threaten our economy and our democracy.

The shared miseries of the Great Depression and the shared sacrifices of the Great War led many Americans to embrace the idea that basic economic rights are essential to freedom. In the wake of the worst economic downturn since that depression, we would be wise to revive Roosevelt's call once more.

Many progressives have argued that it's time to move on, that the FDR era and its supposedly moth-eaten legacy, ideas and ideals are no match for a 21st Century dominated by globalization and multinational oligarchy. In fact, the New Deal itself was a modest affair and all those rights Roosevelt spoke of 67 years ago are still unattained. But are they not worth seeking still?

We live in a time when the successors of the rightist plot to overthrow Roosevelt seek to pulverize the gem of his presidency, Social Security. Shamefully, they have allies for their efforts within FDR's own party. In terms of inequality of wealth and income, we are worse off than we were in '44. Higher education, decent housing, adequate health care and, of course, a "useful and remunerative" job are beyond the reach of far too many Americans. Should we not look upon those facts with shame and horror?

With a little tweaking - some mention of a sustainable environment, for instance - the excerpt from Roosevelt's speech would make a fine addition to any State of the Union address today. Of course, his clarion words need to be accompanied by practical proposals for achieving those rights, the kind of proposals progressives have been urging for decades. Such proposals would run into more enemies in and out of Congress than Roosevelt ever faced. But that does not mean a Democratic Party worthy of the name should abandon the attempt.

• • • • •

At Daily Kos on this date in 2008:

As the (vastly underestimated) unemployment rate rises, retails sales disappoint, home sales continue to sink, the stock market takes another tumble, and the nation's top banks and mortgage lenders huddle together against the storm, economists have only one question:  are we heading for recession, or are we already there.

The formal recognition of a start of a recession probably wouldn't come for at least six months if not more than a year, as official judges from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) pour through various economic readings.

But top economists from two of the major Wall Street firms - Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs - say recession is likely already here.

Now or six months from now, there's little doubt that US economy has run out of steam, and unlike recent recessions, economists fear that we're going to be a long time recovering from this slump.  Why?  Because we've taken all the elastic out of the system.  ...

On the Democratic side, it would be terrific to see candidates whose solution doesn't begin and end with the phrase "tax cuts."  It would also be nice to see one that wasn't made up of one time expenditures that left the basic problems in place.  The stimulus effort that have worked best in the past involved a good injection of funds into public projects and into areas of the economy that could help reverse the downward slide.  Tax cuts don't help if you're not making any money to be taxed on in the first place.  Jobs help.  Education helps.

Tonight's Quote:

"I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others."
Ann Hart Coulter
The O'Reilly Factor, June 24, 2009


Open Thread and Diary Rescue

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 08:18:04 PM PST

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are ItsJessMe, rexymeteorite, Purple Priestess, ybruti, and vcmvo2 as reader and editor.

The Rescued diaries are:

jotter has High Impact Diaries: January 11, 2010.

bronte17 has tonight's Top Comments (01-12-2011): Ark Encounters of the Spooky Kind.

Enjoy and please recommend your own favorite diaries from the past twenty-four hours in this Open Thread!

President Obama: 'Gabby opened her eyes for the first time'

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 07:41:37 PM PST

This day began with ugliness -- let's end it with positive news:

And from ABC News:

The three lawmakers who witnessed the moment were House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

“We had been telling her that she was inspiring the country with her courage and that we couldn't wait to take her out to pizza and a weekend away,” Gillibrand said later, through a spokeswoman. “Then after she heard our voices and the encouragement of Mark and her parents, she struggled briefly and opened her eyes for the very first time. It was a miracle to witness."

President Obama's speech at Tucson memorial -- full video

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 07:03:40 PM PST

If you missed it -- or would like to watch it again -- here's the full video of President Obama's speech from earlier tonight:

Remarks as prepared here.


President Obama at Tucson memorial service

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:33:15 PM PST

On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow reports about 26,000 showed up to remember the victims of Saturday's shooting and hear President Obama's address to the nation. On CNN, Anderson Cooper tracks President Obama shaking hands with members of the audience. And on Fox, Charles Krauthammer initially complains about the cheers from the crowd at the beginning of the speech, but quickly recognizes that his speech was inspirational -- ultimately calling it a "brilliant" speech.

Your thoughts?

Update: One theme that I've heard on both MSNBC and Fox is that while some may have founding cheering from students initially disconcerting, by the time the speech reached it's emotional crescendo -- when President Obama said "Gabby opened her eyes for the first time" -- the reaction fo the crowd become an uplifting, inspirational component of the address.

Update: MSNBC's Luke Russert:

Republican and Democrat, not a dry eye in the arena. Leave it to presidential historians to rank that speech, I bet it'll be high.

Update: Based on comments just now from Chris Wallace and Brit Hume, Fox's party line seems to be emerging -- it was a great speech, but it won't matter because next week John Boehner is repealing health care. Plus, sometimes the cheering students made us feel a bit uncomfortable. But the President still handled it well. Charles Krauthammer, however, cautions against minimizing the importance of the speech, saying it will have a lasting impact, arguing President Obama was very effective and established himself not just as head of party and head of government but also as head of state.

Update: On CNN, Paul Begala said he felt the most powerful part of the speech was when President Obama spoke not as President, but as a father. And Anderson Cooper breaks the Palin ice, playing her grotesque "blood libel" quote. Begala called it political narcissism in the extreme, saying he'd watched it twice today and read it three times and it didn't get better with each rendition. As Dave Weigel tweeted, "Didn't think it was possible for Palin's speech/video to seem even smaller, but there you go."

Update: National Review's Jim Geraghty tweets:

Obama has never been more presidential than he was tonight.

Update: CNN producer Steve Brusk:

Sen. Gillibrand was in room when Rep. Giffords opened her eyes, tells @DanaBashCNN "it was like witnessing a miracle".

Open Thread

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:26:01 PM PST

Jabber your jibber.

President Obama at Tucson memorial service

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:43:40 PM PST

About 45 minutes into the service, following remembrances by Gov. Brewer, former Governor and current DHS Secretary Napolitano, and Attorney General Holder, President Obama is introduced by UA President Robert N. Shelton. The text of his remarks as prepared are available below the fold. President Obama is expected to speak for just under twenty minutes.

Update: President Obama's begins:

To the families of those we’ve lost; to all who called them friends; to the students of this university, the public servants gathered tonight, and the people of Tucson and Arizona:  I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today, and will stand by you tomorrow.

There is nothing I can say that will fill the sudden hole torn in your hearts.  But know this: the hopes of a nation are here tonight.  We mourn with you for the fallen.  We join you in your grief.  And we add our faith to yours that Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other living victims of this tragedy pull through.

Update: President Obama's speech has been punctuated by applause as he remembers the lives of the victims. I imagine some folks are worried that conservatives will attack the service because of this applause. My advice: stop worrying. Most of them won't do that, and those who do will ultimately be embarrassed for having done so. The applause we're hearing tonight isn't applause for political lines -- it's applause for the victims and their lives. It's in their honor. Memorial services aren't just about the sadness of loss -- they are about remembering that which was good. That's what the applause is about.

Update: And the biggest applause of the night came as President Obama spoke of Gabrielle Giffords opening her eyes, followed immediately by the heroism of Daniel Hernandez, the men who wrestled the killer to the ground, and the woman who took his ammunition. It's completely appropriate. Amidst such sadness, there is still reason to celebrate.

Update: This is the core of the message President Obama has about the national dialogue:

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations – to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless.  Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems.  Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding.  In the words of Job, “when I looked for light, then came darkness.”  Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack.  None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.

Yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy.  We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.

But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other.

Update: This passage of the speech was simultaneously heartbreaking and inspirational.

For those who were harmed, those who were killed – they are part of our family, an American family 300 million strong.  We may not have known them personally, but we surely see ourselves in them.  In George and Dot, in Dorwan and Mavy, we sense the abiding love we have for our own husbands, our own wives, our own life partners.  Phyllis – she’s our mom or grandma; Gabe our brother or son.  In Judge Roll, we recognize not only a man who prized his family and doing his job well, but also a man who embodied America’s fidelity to the law.  In Gabby, we see a reflection of our public spiritedness, that desire to participate in that sometimes frustrating, sometimes contentious, but always necessary and never-ending process to form a more perfect union.

And in Christina…in Christina we see all of our children.  So curious, so trusting, so energetic and full of magic.

So deserving of our love.

And so deserving of our good example.  If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost.  Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle.

The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better in our private lives – to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents.  And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.

Update: President Shelton concludes the service by leading a moment of silence, which will be followed by a musical selection.


President Obama at Tucson memorial service

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:48:04 PM PST

President Obama is scheduled to speak at the memorial service for Saturday's shooting victims at 6:00pm Mountain Time. You can watch live in the video feed below and we'll be tracking developments throughout the service.

The memorial service will be held at the University of Arizona's McKale Center, which filled to capacity about an hour before it was scheduled to begin. The overflow crowd was directed to the university's stadium, where the memorial service is being simulcast.

According to the New York Times, President Obama is expected speak for about 16 to 18 minutes at the end of the service. His remarks will focus on remembering the victims of the tragedy, and will speak to how we can all best remember them in our own lives. Earlier in the day, he and the First Lady visited with Rep. Giffords and other victims of Saturday's shooting at the University Medical Center in Tucson.

Update: Jake Tapper tweets that there were big rounds of applause for the doctors, Sheriff Dupnik, and the hero intern Daniel Hernandez.

Update: According to the pool report, President Obama spent about 45 minutes at the hospital where he met with Giffords and four other victims of the attack. He arrived at the McKale Center around 5PM local time where he met with familes of the deceased. With the President were Senators McCain and Kyl along with Rep.Sen. Barrasso and Attorney General Holder.

Update: In the comments, Al Rodgers assembles some photos from the ground. At least 14,000 are in attendance.

Update: President Obama has just arrived at the memorial service at one minute past the hour local time. He arrived with the First Lady.

Update: Immediately to the President's right is Daniel Hernandez, the hero intern. Mrs. Obama is to his left.

Update: Dr. Carlos Gonzales delivers the Native American blessing to start the service. Sitting to the First Lady's left is Mark Kelly, Rep. Giffords' husband.

Update: Dennis Tamblyn, a student at the University of Arizona, delivers a stirring rendition of the national anthem. And for those of you keeping score at home, President Obama did sing along.

Update: CNN's Kathleen Parker decided to mock Dr. Gonzales' blessing. Way to be classy, Kate. Instead of mocking Dr. Gonzales, how about you join in offering your best wishes for his son serving in Afghanistan?

Update: A standing ovation for Daniel Hernandez, who is joined by ASUU. of A. student body president Emily Fritze.

Update: And a warm reception for Governor Jan Brewer who follows Fritze and Hernandez.

Update: Former Governor and current DHS Secretary Napolitano follows Brewer, reading from the Old Testament.

Update: Attorney General Holder delivers remarks. He'll be followed by President Obama. There will be a new post for his remarks.

Late afternoon/early evening open thread

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:50:47 PM PST

Louie Gohmert hits the trifecta: violent rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and guns

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:05:19 PM PST

While it would be impossible to top the self-centered offensiveness of today's Sarah Palin video -- where she used the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords to peddle her message of victimhood -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) gave it his best shot, but could only manage a trifecta of stupidity.

First, his thoughts on the public comments by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik on today's political climate:

I hope the sheriff tones his rhetoric down.

Well, sure. Sheriff Dupnik needs to tone down his rhetoric of calling on people to tone down their rhetoric.

Gohmert than turned around and started peddling conspiracy theories of obstruction by the FBI:

It may be that if the things that we're reading -- that he's [Jared Loughner] a liberal, hates the flag, supports Marx, that type of thing, turn out to be true, then it may be embarrassing to some of the current administration's constituents, and, heaven help us, we wouldn't want to embarrass any of the president's constituents.

This after four days of complaints by Republicans about people laying blame or attaching political motivations to Loughner's actions.

And he finished the day with the announcement that he is:

... drafting a measure to allow members of Congress to carry guns in the District of Columbia, including in the Capitol and on the House floor.

... which is going to be a real problem since:

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

Quite a day, Louie.


Palin disables comments on her video about open discourse

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:09:42 PM PST

So in her web video supposedly designed to defend the open discussion of ideas no matter how objectionable they might be...Sarah Palin disabled public comments on the video she posted on Vimeo.

Palin Video Disabled Comments

Note that Palin released her 'heartfelt' video at exactly 4:00AM Alaska time...just the right moment to take the news cycle by storm, and make today be about her. Also too, and perhaps more telling, Palin didn't even have the courage to take questions from Fox about her message. Instead, she hid behind a TelePrompter, secure in the knowledge that she would not have to respond to a single question about her speech. Now that's political courage, eh?

A fair and balanced conversation about violent political rhetoric

Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 01:20:07 PM PST

A water cooler conversation about violent political rhetoric:


:: Next 18

Hate ads? Subscribe.

45
51
PPP 1/6-9
MoE 3.1%.
More poll results here.






On Mothertalkers:

Thursday Open Thread

Midday Coffee Break

Book Review:  The Creative Family by Amanda Blake Soule

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Midday Coffee Break

On Street Prophets:

D'var Torah - Beshallach

Coffee Hour at the Bookshelf

"Careful the things you say"

Moment of Zen - Sit - 2011.01.12

The Cayuse Indian War

On Congress Matters:

Today in Congress

This Week in Congress

Today in Congress

Senate rules reform gains more momentum

SHOCK! Fox immediately lies about Senate rules reform