Before giving a much-anticipated speech in which he would lavish attention on the smallest details of a horrific crime that is now the subject of his administration’s most closely watched federal prosecution, Pres. Barack Obama spent hours with his attorney general and trusted legal adviser, Eric Holder. Flying across the country together, preparing for their joint appearance at a University of Arizona memorial service (or was it a rock concert?), they had plenty of time to strategize about what he should say, to ensure that the speech would have no negative impact on the case.
What could go wrong?
Advertisement
Okay, okay, that’s not really fair. As it happens, the president gave a superb speech, the best of his presidency — though it wasn’t the gem the awed punditocracy seemed to think it was. Mr. Obama is graded on a generous curve whenever he comes within a ZIP code or two of doing the right thing, particularly by conservative pundits so anxious that America know they can rise above the riff-raff’s icky partisanship and give credit where credit is due.
The president, unwilling to give credit — or place blame — where it is due, opted for moral equivalence. Culpability for the poisoning of our discourse is, in his telling, shared by all of us. No need to mention that his lunatic base had spent days slandering conservative commentators as accomplices to murder and mayhem. Mr. Obama, moreover, still finds irresistible any opening to portray America as forever failing to live up to his lofty aspirations, rather than to embrace the greatness of the America that we have — an America in which last weekend’s events are so shocking precisely because they are so rare, and where the survivors survived due to the heroism of ordinary citizens.
In the scheme of things, though, these are quibbles. So is the observation that the president’s graciousness made such an impression because he has so often lacked grace. For a few moving minutes, at least, he was the president we hoped he would be, wedding intelligence and empathy with his unparalleled delivery. This time, no police had “acted stupidly,” no Republicans were told “they can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back,” and Jared Loughner’s atrocities were not spun as somehow George W. Bush’s fault.
That is not to say the scene was not disturbing. The raucous throng gave an ostensibly solemn ceremony the air of the Wellstone memorial. The Obamaphilic electioneering by the university president was nearly as off-putting as the self-absorbed weirdness of that Chicano Native American, there to remind the world of Arizona’s heartless racism (i.e., its citizens want the immigration laws enforced). When it came Obama’s time to soar, though, soar he did. Blessed by fortune to break the news that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords had opened her eyes for the first time since being shot, the president was uplifting and, at times, inspiring. The families of those killed and wounded were clearly comforted. The president could have done no better thing, and nobody could have done it better than he did.
But there was one slip up. In a fitting sketch of John Roll, the chief federal district judge slain in the shootings, President Obama extolled the judge’s dedication to the law, his devout Christianity, and his civic-mindedness. Underscoring that last virtue, Obama said Roll had stopped by the Tucson mall simply to say “hi” to his congresswoman, Representative Giffords. That shouldn’t be a problem, but it is. Unfortunately, this is not just a tragedy to be eulogized. It is also a case to be tried.
Murder is a state crime. There are only a few narrow situations in which it can be prosecuted federally. One is the killing of a federal officer. That status, though, is not enough to invoke federal jurisdiction. The Justice Department must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the moment of the murder, the victim officer was performing his official duties. A federal judge’s official duties do not include saying “hi” to his representative in Congress — no more than doing so would be a part of your job.
Hilariously, this last paragraph is worth repeating:
"The president’s speech in Arizona was anything but. It didn’t violate anyone’s rights. It was well done, and for a high civic purpose. The laudatory remembrance of Chief Judge Roll was deserved and appropriate. That it could have been done with slightly more attention to the legal ramifications is a point, but a very small-minded one."
If Andrew McCarthy's column was written to make a "small-minded point," why bother? Is he paid by the word?
I am a little disappointed in NRO complimenting Obama on a great speech in Tucson. If the past two years have shown nothing else, they have shown that everything Obama does is a political calculation, and the political calculation does not contain factors for sincerity or for what is good for America or Americans. Obama is sincere about little beyond his massive albeit unwarranted ego and living large at taxpayer expense. The rest is a facade. The man has even lost the ability to read scripted lines convincingly from a teleprompter - left right left right, thrust nose and chin in air. Repeat. I did think those tee shirts were a real nice touch though...
MikeB aren't you the one always complaining about how things are made out to be an existential threat? Well here's a column from a /lawyer/ (who is going to think in this manner) complaining of a small slip by the incompetent Holder and you still complain.
@MikeB: Your comments comes off to me as condescending. Mr. McCarthy made two important points; Holder should have prevented this unforced error and Obama has no such excuse for the more obvious and aggregeous one he made when speaking about KSM's prosecution.
Forget the "small-minded" legal point, Andy's column was worth the read for exposing the conservative pundits who rush to the microphone to be first to praise President Obama for doing that which most people wouldn't think twice about doing. And then after being adored and cheered by his audience for a well-delivered speech, the President sent them on their way with their campaign 2012 t-shirts.
Actually, I'm glad Obama screwed-up if it will mean the State of Arizona rather than the Federal Government will handle this case. Treating Federal officials like a special class of citizens is generally repulsive and certainly undemocratic.
Futhermore, if anything was small minded in this thread it was the comment by MikeB rebuking Mr. McCarthy for what was a very generous appraisal of Obama's speech.
Jenna,
Are you implying there has not been enough dialogue regarding differing conservative reactions to Obama's Speech? It is the dominant topic of conversation. Furthermore, if McCarthy wanted to write that article he could have. Instead he wrote about a subject that he admits is smallminded.
O.K. it's a "minor detail". The judges life is worth no more than the little girl's life who was shot and killed. What else could he say at a time like this. All the while masking the insincerity of the left at this horrific situation. The Dems are drooling to use this sad occurance to further their liberal godless agenda. Heads up Rush, they have you and many others in the crosshairs. Obama tried to put on his "all people" presidential face but the puppeteers strings were clearly visible.
No where in the article, nor in the LIBERAL press, was it mentioned that Judge Roll was a REPUBLICAN judge.
The liberal press inundated the public with the knowledge that the wounded congresswoman is a democrat.
Was that omission , by the press, to allow the BLOOD LIBEL launched against SARAH PALIN ?
I stopped reading this article half way through. Mr. McCarthy was making a "small-minded point" and it bored me. What was this thing that Obama spoke at? This is the point! Was it a memorial? A campaign event with screaming t-shirted supporters in attendance? All that comes to my mind is the absolute agony the next presidential campaign will be. Obama making one campaign speech after another.
No, Tom, I am not implying, nor did I say, that there have not been differing conservative reactions to the President's speech. What I did say is that I agree with Mr. McCarthy's assessment of the reaction of the usual conservative suspects. To bristle so much about an admittedly unimportant criticism of President Obama's speech is an indication that his supporters are unwilling to tolerate any criticism directed at him. If the little things are criticized, the critics are petty, and if the big things are criticized, the critics are ignorant, insane and/or racist.
Mike, this article is a skillful rebuttal of conservative critics of Obama's speech. I'm not sure why you choose to be so churlish, but the "small-minded" critique certainly applies to you.
I've read this article twice and I'm still not sure whether McCarthy wants us to take his petty jabs at the president seriously. I'm left to conclude that he knows better but just couldn't help himself.
It's like you started writing about the legal issue and then realised it was a non-issue, but you ran out of time so you published this, anyway. A judge dropping by to say "Hi" to a Congresswoman is a political activity and therefor an "official" activity. As the prosecution will argue, if they ever need to, which is doubtful.
I still don't understand how people can divorce Obama's speech from his telling inaction over the five days previous to the speech, plus the crass nature of the "memorial" itself. There is nothing authentic about Obama's world except his cynical ploys for self-promotion.
Nor do I get why his appalling attempt at moral equivalence typically either goes unnoticed, or else considered a minor deal. We didn't "turn on each other." Liberals turned on conservatives. Tell the truth for once!
Nor do I understand why a ridiculous identity politics medicine man was allowed to give a pantheistic prayer when none of the victims were Indian, and most were Christian. Even just a whiff of paganism at a supposed memorial event is at least as offensive to Christians as the term "blood libel" is to some other people.
And having two non-Christian government officials (Holder and Napolitano) read from the Holy Bible was offensive and bizarre as well. The New Testament reading should have been delivered by a local Christian leader. And since two of the victims were Jewish, the Old Testament reading should have been delivered by a local Jewish leader.
The campaign t-shirts were utterly contemptible, as was the behavior of the University president and the audience (liberal partisan all the way). These last two things happened because of Obama's insistence on having a "memorial" at a college gymnasium - assuring a pro-Obama crowd.
Anything where Obama is appearing is carefully scripted, and the crass, tasteless, inappropriate, classless and offensive nature of the "memorial" can all be laid at Obama's feet.
For those of us 300 million-plus non-experts on the elements of offense necessary to prosecute for murdering a federal official, McCarthy's article was informative. His "small-minded" point provided more evidence that Holder was never up to the job as either the DAG or AG.
