Guests: Dr. Michael Lemole, Rep. Jane Harman, Tom DeLay, Dr. Karen Sutton,
Benyamin Korn, Collin Goddard
LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, HOST: In the midst of the sadness in Tucson, there is good news—astounding news, really, that Congresswoman Gabby Giffords has not just opened her eyes but it now aware of her surroundings. At the moment, the very moment, she opened her eyes, she was surrounded by three members of Congress, including Democratic Leader of the House Nancy Pelosi.
And while this was happening, where was the current speaker of the House? The man who called this attack on one of us, an attack on us all? Speaker Boehner stayed in Washington for a Republican cocktail party.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(MUSIC)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is an incredible story.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She spontaneously reached out for her husband.
O‘DONNELL (voice-over): Finally, some good news from Tucson.
SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D), NEW YORK: The one thing about Gabby is she‘s a fighter.
DR. MICHAEL LEMOLE, CHIEF OF NEUROSURGERY, UMC: She‘s starting to become aware of her surroundings.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A remarkable milestone mentioned by the president last night.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Gabby opened her eyes for the first time.
LEMOLE: I was in the room. This is when some of her congresswomen friends and senators were visiting.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), CALIFORNIA (via telephone): We really felt that we witnessed almost a miracle.
REV. WELTON GADDY, INTERFAITH ALLIANCE: Given what she‘s been through, if she opened her eyes, maybe we can, too.
O‘DONNELL: The president, the Democratic leadership, even Senator John McCain joined the wounded community.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We appreciate all the dignitaries coming to the memorial service yesterday.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: There was a moment where you had one political figure that did seem to rise above it all.
GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS: With all sincerity, thank you, Mr. President, for becoming the president of the United States of America last night.
O‘DONNELL: But where was the Republican leadership?
ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS: But one person noticeably absent, House Speaker John Boehner.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Air Force One took off at 1:00, which conflicted
--
O‘DONNELL: If Republican leaders would not even travel to Tucson, what are the chances they will work to curb the plague of gun violence?
MITCHELL: Let‘s talk about gun control.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why is it we can‘t bring a bottle of shampoo on an airplane but this guy can buy a semi-automatic weapon?
TOM BROKAW, NBC NEWS: Gun owners are worried that they‘re going to be outlawed.
SCARBOROUGH: Americans are inherently distrustful of gun control.
JON STEWART, TV HOST: It‘s clear that there are going to be no quick fixes.
O‘DONNELL: But the cost of doing nothing is too great.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today starts the six funerals for those who are lost. The funeral services for the little Christina, the 9-year-old.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a child born on 9/11.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Her biography is book-ended by political violence.
OBAMA: We should do everything we can do to make sure this country lives up to our children‘s expectations!
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O‘DONNELL: Good evening from Los Angeles.
Today, hundreds of people gathered to say their final good-byes to 9-year-old Christina Green, the youngest victim of Saturday‘s massacre in Tucson. She had gone to Gabby Giffords‘ Congress on Your Corner event to learn about our democracy.
Christina was born on September 11th, 2001, and so, a flag pulled from the rubble of Ground Zero hung between two fire truck ladders at her funeral.
Congresswoman Giffords, meanwhile, continues to make very surprising progress as she recovers from the point-blank shot through her head.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: I said to her, you know, Gabby, you‘ve got to get better as fast as possible because we‘re expecting you in New Hampshire this summer. And her eyes just started to open a slit, and then Mark—you know, Mark was just—he was overcome. He said, “Touch my—touch my ring, Gabby, you know, if you can hear me.” And she touched his ring, his arm, you know, his neck.
It was—it was so unbelievable. Then we just kept talking to her.
Her parents were crying. We were crying. Mark was crying.
It was—it was an incredible moment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now is Dr. Michael Lemole, chief of neurosurgery at University Medical Center in Tucson, Arizona.
Doctor, please put her progress in perspective for us. As of Saturday night, could you imagine that this is what we would be discussing on Thursday?
LEMOLE: I was nowhere near as hopeful at that time as I am now. Really, because of the progress she‘s made. And I think you might have heard me say earlier that a general trend in neurologic recovery is the faster you get better, the more complete it will be. And again, this is—this is going way beyond my wildest expectations for her.
O‘DONNELL: What is her level of alertness, if you can characterize it, body movements, that sort of thing?
LEMOLE: Well, without getting into details of her examination, what I do want to emphasize is that she‘s now starting to open her eyes spontaneously. And we think maybe in response to some of the stimuli around the room. So, maybe it‘s a familiar voice. Maybe it‘s someone mentioning her name. These are things that are new in the last 24 hours or so.
O‘DONNELL: What is the impact of her progress that you‘ve been able to see on her family and friends that are visiting?
LEMOLE: Oh, it‘s had a—it‘s had a profound impact. You know, they were—there were clearly tears flowing freely last night when she first opened her eyes in this way. And I think, to some extent, their excitement fed back to her. And I‘m hoping that this is a positive cycle all around.
O‘DONNELL: Yesterday was a work day, unlike any other in your life.
What was it like to have the president come to the hospital?
LEMOLE: What I think it really underscores is the value that Congresswoman Giffords really represents to the Tucson community, Arizona community and really the entire nation. And the fact that he came there, came here, really shows us that the national leadership recognizes her value to all of us.
O‘DONNELL: Dr. Lemole, how has this been for you? This is an unprecedented burden that has landed on you in the last week. What is your sleep level, your team? How are you people getting through this, both emotionally, physically? And how do you carry out your tasks day to day under this kind of pressure?
LEMOLE: Well, you have to understand that in terms of medical care, this is what we do on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis. We care for very, very sick people. And, so, in term of emotionally dealing with patients with devastating injuries, I never want to say that we ever become immune to the pain and that we ever give up that sense of compassion, but we have to be functional, which means we have to be able to deal with it. And we all deal with it in our own ways.
As far as the whole media component of this and the various dignitaries of state, that‘s all been humbling because it tells me that people with job descriptions that are way above my pay grade find that this entire event really warrants their attention.
O‘DONNELL: Dr. Michael Lemole, thank you very much for joining us tonight. And thank you for all the work you‘ve done in the last week.
LEMOLE: Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: Today, the Pima County Sheriff‘s Department got a report of a black diaper bag filled with 9 millimeter ammunition discovered by a man who was out walking his dog in accused murderer Jared Loughner‘s neighborhood. Authorities believe it‘s the same bag that prompted a confrontation between Jared and his father in the hours before the shooting on Saturday.
Earlier that day, Jared had gone to two different Wal-Marts to buy ammunition and then was pulled over for running a red light and released with a warning. When he returned home, he got into an argument with his father, Randy Loughner, who is chased him into the desert. Jared then took a taxi cab to the Safeway grocery store where Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was hosting her event.
Loughner‘s aunt says that Jared‘s parents are victims, too, who are going through an unbearable psychological trauma now as a result of their son‘s action. She says her nephew is mentally ill and his parents did the best they could.
So, could anything have stopped the tragic chain of events that led to the mass shooting on Saturday? How easy do we want it to be for the Jared Loughners of this world to get their hands on loaded guns?
On Monday night, gun and bullet control was (inaudible) coming almost exclusively from this network. The smart money said there is no chance of a crack in the wall of Congress‘ bipartisan resistance to weapons control, but that was then.
By Wednesday, Rupert Murdoch‘s “New York Post,” a reflexively Republican vehicle, ran an editorial in favor of stopping sales of the kind of high-capacity magazines Jared Loughner used to fire his 31 bullets without having to reload.
If even Rupert Murdoch has had enough of America‘s gun madness, change is possible.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JANE HARMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: We should revisit sensible federal laws to control access to guns and ammunition. At a minimum, I believe we must promptly restore the expired federal ban on extended magazine clips. I personally would urge us also to reenact the 1994 ban on assault weapons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now is Congresswoman Jane Harman, Democrat of California.
Congresswoman, in your comments the other day on the House floor in commemoration of the tragedy in Tucson, you did bring up the otherwise forbidden subject, apparently, in Congress, of doing something about these weapons. What do you think the prospects are of getting some progress now?
HARMAN: Well, let me say first that as I sat on a House floor for about an hour and a half waiting to be recognized for my comments on our colleague Gabby Giffords, I noticed that no one else—no one who‘s speaking before me and the leadership on both sides and a number of people were before me, mentioned anything about sensible gun control and ammunition control.
I nonetheless felt that even as I was paying tribute to Gabby Giffords, whose views on guns are different from mine, it was important as a legislator to put this subject back on the table. We have too many guns and too much ammunition in civilian hands—and people with mental troubles, like this alleged shooter clearly appears to have, can freely buy, not just in Arizona but in many other states, as much ammunition as he wants. That is just wrong.
And I think that there is, as you just said, some renewed momentum here. I don‘t know whether it‘s adequate. I think the Senate is able—will be able to pass some legislation.
Frank Lautenberg has introduced a ban to extended clips, which used to law until it expired. Carolyn McCarthy, who has a painful personal story, her husband was killed and her son was grievously wounded on a subway by a mad man about 17 years ago, will introduce it here. And I will surely support it. I‘m betting that there will be more support for it now than there would have been last year.
O‘DONNELL: The real essence of control here is ammunition control. And that‘s what this magazine issue is all about. How many bullets do you really need to fire, how many bullets can you fire without reloading.
“The New York Post” editorial had a brilliant idea, in addition to government intervention. It is suggesting that the New York City Police Department, for example, simply refuse to buy any products from Glock unless Glock refuses to sell, just have Glock stop selling, make the commercial decision to stop selling those high-capacity magazines here in the United States. And get other police departments to boycott the purchases from Glock—a great market-oriented approach.
But in terms of limiting ammunition devices like that, is that the soft spot now? Is that the crack in the wall where we might be able to se progress in legislation?
HARMAN: Well, I think that‘s the easiest piece to do. That ban on extended clips was part of the 1994 ban on 19 kinds of assault weapons, which I voted for. But which in hindsight, I believe, and most people believe, caused a number of people to lose their re-elections in 1994 when the House shifted to Republican control, which it was under for a long time.
And so, I think a lot of Democrats looking back on that experience, not all of them are oldies like me, but some have learned about this, are scared to go near anything the NRA does not support. I need to tell you that I have an F-minus rating from the NRA. I‘m not sure that‘s the thing I‘m proudest of in my whole life but that is because I believe there are too many guns and too much ammunition in the hands of the wrong people—
283 million guns in civilian hands in America, almost one gun per person. And we know probably half the population doesn‘t own any guns, is way too many guns.
And starting with restraining the amount of ammunition, especially in these rapidly fired clips, is—it seems to me, a no-brainer. Every responsible law enforcement person in the country supports this. And law enforcement can be a good part of our leverage in this, what I would call, teachable moment after Congress has been shaken to the core with this wanton act of violence if Tucson last Saturday to move the McCarthy/Lautenberg legislation, which has yet to be reintroduced, but I think it will be next week, to move it at least forward. I sure hope so.
O‘DONNELL: And, quickly, Congresswoman, before you go—do you think the speaker of the House should have been in Tucson yesterday?
HARMAN: I think that was his call. I thought his decisions all of this week to postpone legislative action that would have been divisive was smart, to appear as he did on the House floor fairly moved about the situation, I was on the floor and saw him, to conduct as—to be a visible part of the bipartisan prayer service yesterday and to send the entire Arizona delegation, including both Republican senators out there—I don‘t know he caused that to happen. But they were all there in force. I saw them. I think there was a bipartisan grief on full display in Tucson.
And what was most impressive to me was: 14,500 people in Tucson clearly don‘t want their city to be known as the city of wanton gun violence. And that was huge.
And President Obama knocked it out of the park. Not only was he healer in chief, but he was father in chief. No one should miss the fact that he has a 9-year-old, and the things he was saying, the moving things about this child who came to learn about her government were things obviously that he would think about if his own daughter were murdered in this way.
And it moved me, it healed me. And more important than me, my staff, which has been grieving about this, was healed.
O‘DONNELL: Congresswoman Jane Harman of California—thank you for your time. And thank you for coming forward with the only rational response to this event.
HARMAN: Thank you, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Still ahead on THE LAST WORD: Sarah Palin has avoided facing her critics by using Facebook. But now, she‘s found a way to avoid them there, too. That gets tonight‘s “Rewrite.”
And next, Speaker of the House Boehner blames a scheduling conflict for not traveling to Tucson last night? He attended a cocktail party instead. What does that say about his leadership?
Former House Republican Tom DeLay will respond to that and to the jail sentence a judge has just handed him.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: President Obama invited congressional leaders to travel on Air Force One to the Arizona shooting memorial. Speaker John Boehner declined and then attended a Republican cocktail party. Former Republican leader Tom DeLay responds.
And later, Sarah Palin used the phrase “blood libel” against the media. What exactly does it mean? The man behind Jews for Palin responds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: “Before there were Republicans and Democrats, there was America. And what America is about is the rule of law. And there can be no more basic rule than those who write the laws should feel bound by them,” so said a judge on Monday when he sentenced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the Republican from Texas, to three years in prison following his conviction on money laundering charges.
Prosecutors argued he illegally funneled corporate campaign donations to Republicans running for the state legislature. Those lawmakers could then redraw congressional district boundaries more favorable to Republicans. Tom DeLay still denies any wrongdoing and plans an appeal.
And tonight, Tom DeLay joins me from Houston.
Thank you very much for joining me tonight, Mr. DeLay.
TOM DELAY ®, FORMER HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: It‘s great to be with you, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Well, the last time you were here, it was on the eve of your trial, which has turned out unfavorably for you. The judge basically said he agreed with the jury, that he found these contributions were passed through in such a way as to evade Texas‘ ban on corporate contributions.
What chances do you think you have for an appeal here?
DELAY: I have a great chance. And the judge said it. The rule of law will prevail here.
The judge is wrong. He‘s just—he‘s just wrong in his assessment of what‘s going on. I was charged and convicted of money laundering.
And without getting into all the details, it‘s the first time that a criminal code—first time in the United States that a criminal code has been used to enforce an election code.
And in this particular case, in order to have money laundering, you have to have proceeds from criminal activity. In other words, drug money or money from fraud or some way to—and—from criminal activity. And we admit that this money that I supposedly laundered was legally raised corporate funds in the state of Texas.
And those legally raised corporate funds went up to the Republican National Committee, who sent it on to states where it could be used legally. Then the Republican National Committee used legally raised individual contributions to go into elections in the state of Texas. No corporate funds ever made it to elections in the state of Texas.
So, you can‘t have money laundering. And that‘s the appeal. And I think—I think we‘ll win because if you look at the law, it‘s on my side.
O‘DONNELL: Well, I think the nub of your disagreement with the court, with the jury and the judge, is what happened to the money after it got to the RNC. What the jury and judge are saying is they believe that money went straight back to Texas. You guys are saying, no, no, it went to other places and it was a separate fund of money that came down to Texas.
DELAY: That‘s right.
O‘DONNELL: But you‘re right, the judge does say that this is a novel case. And because it‘s a novel case, there could easily be an outcome on appeal that is favorable to you and that reverses his findings.
And one of the reasons he says it‘s a novel case in his finding is he says, “I didn‘t find anybody else who‘s aware of any other situation in which a local state political action committee exchanged money with the RNC because everybody knew you could not.” He‘s basically saying, the reason it‘s a unique case is because everyone knew you couldn‘t do it.
But, Mr. Delay, I‘m happy to move on to the politics of the day—
(CROSSTALK)
DELAY: No, no, Lawrence. You got—you got to let me answer that.
O‘DONNELL: Go ahead.
DELAY: First of all—well, first of all, these monies were never commingled. Never were they put in the same pot. So you can‘t launder money if it‘s not put in the same pot.
Secondly, the judge is dead wrong. And if you just look at the testimony, we provided example after example of what—Democrats were doing it, Republicans were doing it, it was an accepted practice called money-swapping. It was even a market setup for this money swapping. And everybody was doing it.
And therefore, since nobody was being prosecuted for it, have ever been prosecuted for it, the lawyers for the RNC, the lawyers that advised me all said it was legal. So, we did it. It was legal. And it‘s still legal.
Well, it‘s not still legal because McCain-Feingold changed it. But this is very dangerous stuff. And this could happen to anybody.
O‘DONNELL: Let‘s get to the leadership issues that the Republican Party has faced this week, this shocking situation of a congresswoman being shot in the head, Speaker Boehner suspending legislative business this week, but not going to the memorial service in Tucson.
You‘ve been in leadership, Republican leadership in the House. In a situation like this, what would you have done?
DELAY: Well, first of all, Lawrence, I didn‘t—I‘m hearing this for the first time. I don‘t know why he didn‘t go. But he—
O‘DONNELL: He didn‘t go. Let me just tell you. He didn‘t go because he went to a Republican cocktail party at a Maryland resort instead. I mean, tell me you wouldn‘t have done that.
DELAY: That‘s what you said. Jane Harman, who‘s a wonderful woman, just explained it to you. The speaker of the House is the speaker for the entire House. And he—this whole week set up all kinds of ways so that members could grieve for the lost, and support those that are injured. Prayer services, resolutions on the floor, opportunities for members to speak out.
He did his job as speaker of the House. And I don‘t know why he didn‘t go. So, I can‘t comment on it.
But to even bring it up, I think, to—to be honest with you, I—this is a time we ought to be grieving. This is the time that we ought to be looking within ourselves. This is a time we ought to be supporting people out there, and this is not the time to take political pot shots.
O‘DONNELL: Do you think Sarah Palin took political pot shots yesterday in her statement?
DELAY: I don‘t know what you‘re talking about.
O‘DONNELL: Sarah Palin did a video statement online yesterday which was all very defensive about, you know, don‘t try to attribute any of the problems going on out there in the country to her use of gun sights and targeting sights like that on maps of Democrats that they were targeting. And she just went on for seven minutes basically saying, you know, you shouldn‘t be talking about me that way.
It seemed like, to me, to be a very self-obsessed reaction to what happened in Tucson.
DELAY: Well, Lawrence, I‘ve got to tell you, I had a nut come into my office and kill my security officer. So, I‘ve been around this kind of action.
And I‘m very disturbed by a lot of people that are trying to take an action by a nut, a horrible tragedy caused by a nut, and tie it to political discourse and tie it to—trying to figure out what does this mean and who is responsible and somebody might have said something years ago that might have ticked him off. I think that‘s just not useful at all.
And I—I‘ve got to tell you, we need to be focused on this guy, making sure that we do what comes to him, and separate this from the political discourse. This is a nut. And that‘s—that‘s the extent of it.
O‘DONNELL: We agree on who the nut is in this story.
Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, thank you very much for joining me tonight.
DELAY: My pleasure, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Still ahead: Sarah Palin has no idea how to respond to her critics, unless you criticize her online. Then she just deletes you. That‘s tonight‘s “Rewrite.”
And, how hard would it be to stop the sale of gun to the mentally unstable? That‘s ahead on THE LAST WORD.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC FULLER, SURVIVED ARIZONA SHOOTING: So, I thought I‘d come over here and try to forgive them. I know that sounds crazy. To forgive them and possibly their son.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Doesn‘t sound crazy. Eric Fuller is a survivor of Saturday‘s attack on Congresswoman Giffords. He was shot in the knee and the bullet was lodged in his thigh. He appeared at the home of Jared Loughner‘s parents today, saying he knew they were suffering and wanted to forgive them.
Eric Fuller, obviously a man of extraordinary grace and nobility, says he is doing fine. But like other survivors, his life will never be the same.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Palin has received a death threat at an unprecedented level.
PALIN: A blood libel that serves to only incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
MIKA BREZYNSKI, MSNBC ANCHOR: Every op-ed we have to choose from has to do with this story, one way or another.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC ANCHOR: A blood libel, does she know what she‘s talking about?
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE ®, NEW JERSEY: I don‘t know. I have no idea. But what I would say is I think that—you know, I don‘t think anybody really believes that, you know, Governor Palin was trying to make someone get hurt or bring violence on. And I think she should have said that and left it at that.
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: She‘s a fighter.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was winning that argument without having to use that phrase, blood libel.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She made yesterday about herself. It seemed just a little bit politically tone deaf to me.
REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D), SOUTH CAROLINA: You know, Sarah Palin just can‘t seem to get it, on any front.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Day two of fallout from Sarah Palin‘s use of the term blood libel in a video statement posted on her Facebook page in response to her critics, following Saturday‘s deadly shooting in Arizona. Joining me now, Dr. Karen Sutton, assistant professor of history at Touro College, and Benyamin Korn, director of Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin.
Doctor Sutton, can you explain the phrase blood libel?
DR. KAREN SUTTON, ASST. PROF. TOURO COLLEGE: Yes. The blood libel has a very specific term. It refers to—it‘s also called the ritual murder accusation. It refers to a term that started actually in 1144 in England—in Norwich, England, that accuses Jewish, particularly Jewish rabbi and other high-ranking Jewish figures, of using blood to—actually killing a Christian child, usually a male baby, and using their blood to make Passover Matzo.
Unfortunately, whenever a child turns up missing throughout the centuries, it has been used as an accusation to wipe out entire communities, throughout the century. Although the Pope in the 1200s had said that there‘s nothing to this, nonetheless, it is used to ferment hatred and bigotry. And it is an extremely, extremely deadly and very hurtful term to Jews.
Particularly even in our own century, as late as 1928, there was a blood libel accusations in Messina, New York, the state where I‘m living in now. And countless number of Jews have been burned at the stake, tortured and skinned—just killed in the most brutal way for this accusation, this obviously false accusation against Jews.
In the Arab world, they use that in their media to largely ferment anti-Semitism and hatred.
O‘DONNELL: If I recall correctly the case in Messina, New York, it was about a child who was missing and who knows what might have happened if the child hadn‘t just walked out of the woods.
SUTTON: Right.
O‘DONNELL: Having been lost and walked out of the woods.
SUTTON: That‘s exactly true. The whole community was fearful of—on the edge.
O‘DONNELL: Benyamin Korn, you‘re a fan of Sarah Palin. You had to be disappointed with her use of that term in that speech yesterday.
BENYAMIN KORN, DIR, JEWISH AMERICANS FOR PALIN: I wasn‘t disappointed. We are not fans of Sarah Palin. We are supporters of her and her policies. That‘s a bit different from being a fan.
We felt that the use of the term is appropriate because it—like the word crusade, it has a larger meaning than its specific historical use. And it refers to the false charge of committing violence or of fomenting violence in a general sense.
Everyone who has commented on it recognizes that it has not only the specific historic meaning, like a crusade, but also a more general usage in the English and other languages.
SUTTON: I disagree with you.
O‘DONNELL: Go ahead.
SUTTON: I disagree.
O‘DONNELL: Let me just get to this. I—my understanding is it is a unique term that has no other application, and has been applied to nothing else in history.
KORN: No, that‘s not true. I mean, Abe Foxman of the ADL said that he preferred that Governor Palin would have used a different phrase, but acknowledged in their statement that it‘s very widely used in our culture. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law defended Governor Palin‘s use and said basically the same thing.
SUTTON: I—I‘m sorry. I was going to say, that term is used—it is bantered about. But it always used in the totally wrong context, just like the Swastika was at one a Sanskrit peace sign, a sun worshipper sign. You cannot paint a Swastika on something or use that and say anything. It‘s irrevocably used as a term that has wiped out communities throughout the centuries, from the Medieval period to the present.
It entirely ferments evil and the actual murder of hundreds and thousands of people. And to use it—
KORN: Well, Professor Sutton is entitled to her opinion about this. But the Anti-Defamation League chairman and Professor Dershowitz, who have a lot of gravitas in the Jewish community, disagree. I think that there‘s room for disagreement about the appropriate use of the term blood libel. But clearly people who are mainstream people in the Jewish community are not offended by it.
SUTTON: I think I disagree with you. I‘m sure that Sarah Palin might not have had that intention to ignite more. I mean, this violence and the horror of the shootings themselves are enough. To elicit even more hatred as a result of using terminology is certainly something that she may not have had intended.
But it has come up as a result. I would disagree. I would think most Jews are—and others, anyone who can think, would really understand that that word blood libel is a specific term meaning, you know, what we stated throughout the centuries.
KORN: Yes. Look, I agree you‘re entitled to your opinion and your interpretation. I‘m just pointing out that in the current debate, very mainstream people in the Jewish community have acknowledged the term is used in the general discourse, not merely to refer to Jews.
In articles we have published in the last couple of days—I‘m talking about Jews for Sarah—in articles we have published about this, we have cited numerous examples from contemporary reference where people use the term blood libel not in a Jewish context.
O‘DONNELL: Mr. Korn, do you think that‘s a good thing?
KORN: The problem is when Sarah Palin uses it, people go ballistic.
O‘DONNELL: Do you think it was a good thing? Do you thinks it was a good idea for her to use it? That that was good word choice? And that the term blood libel is a good way for her to describe what she thinks she has experienced?
KORN: Well, I think it was not just expressing what she has experienced. But, yes, I think it was a very good choice because she is a brilliant political communicator. With two words here, she has ignited the debate over the whole question of the false charges against her, the conservative movement, talk radio, Fox television, the Republican party, that they are somehow responsible for what happened in Arizona.
There was a knee-jerk reaction from irresponsible people in the media and in the political establishment to apportion blame on conservatives for what happened in Arizona—
SUTTON: I totally, totally disagree.
O‘DONNELL: Dr. Sutton, just a second. Is it comparable? Is what Sarah Palin experienced—let‘s just take at face value what Mr. Korn just said. Let‘s pretend what he said is true, that in 24 hours after the shooting, that Sarah Palin suffered some horrible public commentary that was really quite nasty. Let‘s assume that‘s true, that in the comfort of her home in Alaska, she suffered negative commentary.
SUTTON: Right. Negative—
O‘DONNELL: Is that experience overnight in the comfort of her home in Alaska comparable to the centuries, centuries of Jewish suffering represented in the phrase blood libel?
SUTTON: Yes. I think by the way this question was poised and posed
that the answer is quite evident that it is not. That criticism, however -
you know, we‘re not even looking at it, whether it was warranted or not warranted, or—I‘m not even addressing that issue.
But her response, her discomfort and her negativity is in no way—it totally trivializes and demeans from the meaning of that word. And I would suggest that anybody who uses that word, particularly if they‘re in the public eye—I happen to be an historian, so I look at the context of history. Within the context of history, I can show you pages and pages of centuries of entire communities throughout—throughout three continents being wiped out in the most horrific ways.
Certainly, in light of the Holocaust, where words have been used analogies to Holocaust—and there are people using it. IT doesn‘t mean it‘s right. I would suggest that the fight be against using words that are not appropriate. For people in the public eye, who are supposedly role models, who are hopefully or not hopefully office-seekers, this is just atrocious.
O‘DONNELL: That‘s going to have to be THE LAST WORD on blood libel for tonight. Dr. Karen Sutton, Benyamin Korn, thank you both very much for your time tonight. I wish we had more time.
KORN: Thanks for having me.
O‘DONNELL: Thank you. Ahead in the Rewrite, when the negative comments to Sarah Palin‘s post started piling up, that‘s when Team Palin started deleting.
And a survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting is my special guest, ahead on THE LAST WORD.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Time for tonight‘s Rewrite. Yesterday, Sarah Palin posted the text of her speech as well as a link to the video on her Facebook page. There, Palin was free from reporters‘ questions and any criticism for, as I called it here last night, a self-involved, defensive, inappropriate ramble.
But what Sarah Palin is not free from on Facebook, the negative comments from other users. Team Palin allowed comments to be posted in response to the video. But as this Youtube video demonstrates, at times many of them just disappear as quickly as they‘re being posted.
So, what‘s happening? Team Palin is, in fact, rewriting the online reaction to the speech by deleting negative comments. The story was picked up by “The Atlantic,” “The Daily Beast,” “Gawker,” “AOL News” and assorted blogs.
The delightful Palinism of this story is that in the very speech people are responding to, Palin praised citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights and said vigorous and spirited debates are among our most cherished traditions.
Earlier today, producer Nick Ramsey, one of our many talented people who prop me up here at THE LAST WORD, put the following comment up on Sarah Palin‘s Facebook page. “Charles Krauthammer is right. Sarah Palin‘s speech was unnecessary. Lawrence O‘Donnell was also right. The speech was a self-involved, defensive, inappropriate ramble. The Reagan quote was as idiotic and untrue as it was when Reagan said it. We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. No one has ever had the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty not the lawbreaker. Sarah has proved once again that she has absolutely no chance of winning the presidency.”
Did I mention that Nick Ramsey works for me? That‘s why he had to put the Lawrence O‘Donnell quote in there. As of our deadline tonight, the comment was still there. One user did make fun of Nick for wearing a spider-man t-shirt. One liked his comment. A few others took the chance to try to provoke an argument.
Perhaps Team Palin didn‘t read beyond the first sentence, “Charles Krauthammer is right,” and figured it was a positive comment. Let‘s see how long it takes them to delete it now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: On April 16, 2007, 17 students were sitting in a French class at Virginia Tech when a student burst through the door and sprayed the classroom with bullets. The shooter, like Jared Loughner, was armed with a legally purchased nine millimeter Glock 19 and mentally ill. Of the 17 students in that classroom, only seven survived. One of them was Collin Goddard, who was shot four times.
Now Goddard is the subject of a documentary on gun violence entitled “Living For 32,” in reference to the 32 students and faculty who were killed at Virginia Tech. In this clip, Goddard goes to a gun show and shows just how easy it is to purchase a gun.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: See you‘re Maadi Egyptian. Been looking at that thing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pretty good?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, expanded stock, 30 round clip.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have to be over 18 and an Ohio resident. There‘s no tax and no paperwork. Oh, and I need to see your driver‘s license.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don‘t have one.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don‘t have it on me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have it in the car? Are you an Ohio resident? Have fun with it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now, the assistant director for legislative affairs for the Brady Campaign, Collin Goddard. Collin, you‘ve made gun and bullet control your life since what happened to you at Virginia Tech. Why?
COLLIN GODDARD, BRADY CAMPAIGN: Well, it was actually watching the shooting unfold at the immigration center, was the first time I had ever watched a shooting unfold as a third party. And it brought me right back to April 16th, 2007. I realized there are other family members now who are getting phone calls and getting to the hospital and going through the whole thing that I had just been through with my family.
I just wanted it to not happen to other people, to make it less likely to happen in the future. When I realized that there are things we can do about that, and we can make it harder for dangerous people to obtain weapons, you know, it made perfect sense for me.
O‘DONNELL: Collin, no one‘s talking about banning weapons. We know the Second Amendment is there. But there‘s plenty of restrictions that would be allowed within the Second Amendment, especially in items of access and licensing and control of the amount of ammunition you can buy at one time, the kind of bullets you can use, the amount you can fire in one clip, all that sort of thing.
Do you think that there‘s a possibility now, on Capitol Hill, for some kind of legislative progress in the wake of what we‘ve seen this week?
GODDARD: Yeah. I mean, the whole nation is listening. The whole nation is reeling in this. Now is the time that people are paying attention to this issue again. Unfortunately, it takes a horrible tragedy for the country to pay attention.
You know, the American people are there. The American people want some reasonable restrictions in place. But, unfortunately, it‘s a very powerful lobby that works on Washington that deters any progress from being made.
When I speak about the NRA, I usually like to make a distinction between the administration and their membership. The membership is a much more reasonable and pragmatic group that understands that there are things that can be done, while still respecting their Second Amendment right.
But it‘s unfortunately that the leadership prevents anything. They have a very absolutist and extremist view. And it doesn‘t allow for a safe America.
O‘DONNELL: Collin, you‘ve been through the emotions of what people are going through in Tucson now, especially the people who were at the Safeway, who were fired at, some of whom were hit. How long will it be before they sleep well, before they can go through their day without having this event surround them and surround their psyches?
GODDARD: Well, I mean, that depends. You know, my hearts go out to them and I hope that all of the survivors can move forward from this in a healthy way and put it behind them. You know, any time something tragic happens to your life, I wouldn‘t want that to let—to let that be the defining moment in their life.
For them, I‘d say, it‘s what they do after the fact. It‘s what they take from that and move forward with that‘s a more defining moment of their character and who they are.
O‘DONNELL: Collin Goddard, a great example of what to do after the fact. Colin Goddard of the Brady Campaign, thank you for your time tonight.
GODDARD: Thanks for having me.
O‘DONNELL: That‘s THE LAST WORD. “COUNTDOWN” is up next.
END
Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE, LEAVE THE LINK
