Guests: Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, David Frum, David Corn, Rep. Bob Filner
LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, HOST: On this first anniversary of last year‘s devastating earthquake in Haiti, before the memorial tonight at the University of Arizona, President Obama visited the hospital where more than a dozen victims of the Arizona shooting have been recovering. It was done in private with no media. The president visited Congresswoman Giffords, her husband and five other patients including two wounded congressional staffers. He also thanked doctors and nurses who cared for them as they arrived on Saturday.
All this on a day focused on the victims that began with a surprise from Sarah Palin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(MUSIC)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We add our faith to yours that Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other living victims of this tragedy will pull through.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, “HARDBALL” HOST: President Obama tonight faces a high moment of challenge.
KEITH OLBERMANN, “COUNTDOWN” HOST: A memorial called “Together We Thrive.”
O‘DONNELL (voice-over): The day reserved for the memorials for victims and prayers for the survivors—
CHRIS JANSING, NBC NEWS: Members of Congress come together to honor the victims—
O‘DONNELL: -- instead begins with Sarah Palin in defense of Sarah Palin?
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: Sarah Palin is speaking out.
CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS: She is feeding the beast.
ED SCHULTZ, “THE ED SHOW” HOST: Today? When there‘s a memorial service?
O‘DONNELL: Palin releases a scripted video statement with a clear message: Don‘t blame me.
SARAH PALIN ®, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. Not with those who listen to talk radio.
BILL MAHER, TV HOST: Have you seen what Sarah Palin says? You know, she talks about, don‘t retreat, reload, she says it like a pull toy that‘s broken.
PALIN: When we take up our arms, we‘re talking about our vote.
MATTHEWS: Why did?
SCHULTZ: She‘s also invoked a highly charged and offensive term to describe her own alleged victimhood.
MATTHEWS: Brace yourself, a blood libel.
PALIN: Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel.
REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D), ILLINOIS: To talk about Jews as killing Christian children to use their blood.
O‘DONNELL: But despite the Palin distraction, real focus remains:
stopping senseless gun violence.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Revisit sensible federal laws to control access to guns, promptly restore the expired federal ban on extended magazine clips.
MAHER: Nobody needs a gun that fires 31 rounds.
O‘DONNELL: And pondering what we‘ve lost.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In Washington today, an outpouring of emotion.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: We‘ll say many prayers for our country and for the victims of this horrific event.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We will have the last word. Our hearts are broken, but our spirit is not.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O‘DONNELL: Good evening from Los Angeles.
Today, President Obama flew to Arizona to visit Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the hospital, as well as the other victims of the shooting at her Congress on Your Corner event on Saturday.
Tonight, at the Tucson memorial service, the president began by updating Congresswoman Giffords‘ medical condition.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I want to tell you, her husband Mark is here, and he allows me to share this with you. Right after we went to visit, a few minutes after we left her room and some of her colleagues for Congress were in the room - - Gabby opened her eyes for the first time.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Gabby opened her eyes for the first time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: The president also asked about the other victims who didn‘t make it. How can we honor the fallen? How can we be true to their memory?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: 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 happen to think differently than we do, it‘s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we‘re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: The last time President Obama visited Arizona, a dozen protesters carrying guns including one man with an assault rifle stood outside the convention center while the president spoke to veterans. Tonight, he called for a fundamental shift in tone around political debate in this country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: 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 plain of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle. If, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember, it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, it did not, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation, in a way that would make them proud.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Also attending the service were family members of the victims, the heroes of Saturday‘s shooting, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the entire Arizona congressional delegation. Speaker of the House John Boehner turned down an offer to travel on Air Force One to the service. He attended an RNC cocktail party in Washington, D.C., instead.
Joining me now is NBC News special correspondent Tom Brokaw.
Tom, thanks for joining us tonight. You‘ve guided us, helped us frame these kinds of events many times in the past. What was your reaction to this speech tonight?
TOM BROKAW, NBC NEWS SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the president hit all the right notes and had exactly the right tone. This is always a test of a presidency. We‘ve been witness to it in our lifetime and through the course of American history.
This role is not defined in any fashion in the Constitution, Lawrence, nor is it codified in any legislation. And yet, presidents often are defined by their ability to rise to these occasions.
FDR, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, a day that will live in infamy; Ronald Reagan at the Challenger disaster memorial service; Bill Clinton at Oklahoma City saying we cannot do what God has—undue what God has done, but we‘ll be with you in America, we‘ll be with you today and all the tomorrows; and, of course, George W. Bush at Ground Zero with a mega phone in his hand saying, “I can hear you and the people who did this to us will soon hear from us.”
So, tonight, the president stepped into that role, and I thought he offered remarks that were tempered and memorable and comforting to those listening on television across the country but also in that hall. And he also did something that I think could help cool this passions. He said, “To behave otherwise in an other than civil and honest discourse will be not to honor the people who gave their lives on this occasion.”
It‘s also worth remembering, I think, on occasions like this, that one of the greatest speeches ever delivered by mankind was a speech just like this, delivered by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg. So, this is a long rich tradition and it continued tonight and it helps remind us that this powerful nation of immigrants really on these occasions is just a family.
O‘DONNELL: Tom, for each of those previous speeches that you referenced, it seems that the country had something of a reset, something of an emotional reset, and the aftermath, the political aftermath seemed to have a different tone after those presidential speeches that you‘ve identified. Do you think that we‘re finding that tonight? That as of Thursday, tomorrow, this will be a different story with a different tone?
BROKAW: I think it‘s very hard to say, Lawrence. I do think that one of the vast differences between then and now is that the mechanics of delivering these attacks now have been so greatly expanded, cable television, we‘re on it right now, and across the street at FOX News, they‘re having their own commentary tonight on the president‘s speeches. We have the Internet, which a lot of people now can have access to their own blogs or their Web sites and express their feelings. And very often to command attention they feel they have to take it to the outer limits.
So, I think it is different and not nearly as controllable as it once was. So, we‘ll see whether the fuse was extinguished tonight or whether it will be relit tomorrow.
O‘DONNELL: This kind of speech has a pulpit feel to it, it has a church-like feel to it sometimes. Let‘s listen to a piece of the speech where the president takes us in his form of spiritual guidance.
BROKAW: I did -
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I believe that we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved lives here, they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another—that‘s entirely up to us.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness. And that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Tom, it seems passages like that, both helped the president steer clear of politics and yet keep the speech relevant to an event that does involve politics?
BROKAW: You know, the last year and a half, Lawrence, I‘ve been all over this country, as I think you know, on Main Street, big cities. I was in California for the last two days. There‘s a great longing out there, not just for this kind of a speech, but for the fact of lowering our voices and finding a way to work together to try to meet the many challenges that are in this country.
We recently did a poll for USA, our sister cable channel here at NBC, and 79 percent of the country said they wanted this country to be more cooperative politically. They are not interested in the kind of polarization that we see across the aisle. So, I think the country is ready for it. The question is: Will the professionals, as they call them, the operatives on the rim of American politics, pundits, operatives, people in the halls of Congress, will they hear that as well?
The president said tonight, we can question each others ideas without questioning our love for this country. And that‘s the line I think that has been crossed again and again, and across the line.
O‘DONNELL: Tom, I want to get your reaction to something that Sarah Palin said today in her video. I‘d like to get your historical perspective on it. And she mentioned about how our dialogues used to be angry in the past.
Let‘s listen to what she had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged apparently apolitical criminal, and they claim political debate has gotten somewhat more heated just recently. When was it less heated? Back in those calm days when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Tom, she just skipped over the entire 20th century with that reference to dueling pistols, didn‘t she? What is your sense of where we are in the modern history of our political dialogue?
BROKAW: I was a little surprised that she waded back into it today, in the way that she did, because she became the subject of a lot of discussion, including on the entertainment shows tonight after the nightly news.
The fact is that we‘ve always had way robust debate in this country, and she‘s correct in the 19th century and the 18th century there were dueling pistols and a lot of outrage that would be expressed in the partisan newspapers at the time. The kind of description anti-Lincoln newspapers made of him would still make your blood boil to this day.
But then, in the late 20th century, when the challenges of the war, World War II, were first met and then dealing with the Russians and the Cold War, we still had great differences, even on the Civil Rights Act. But, at the end of the day, at Congress and at the White House, they had the ability to pick up the phone and talk to each other.
And the megaphone was not nearly as large or electrified or amplified as it is now. So, it reaches into every pore of your body 24 hours a day with all this modern means of communication. I think that has exacerbated it as well, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Tom Brokaw, thank you very much for your invaluable insight on a night like this.
BROKAW: All right. Thanks, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Tonight, President Obama walked the line between honoring the victims and addressing violent political speech and America‘s gun problem. Was it the right balance? MSNBC‘s Chris Matthews joins me next.
And Sarah Palin chooses the day of the Tucson memorial to defend her use of guns in political speeches. That gets tonight‘s “Rewrite.”
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Up next: the noticeable absence from tonight‘s memorial in Arizona. Chris Matthews weighs in on John Boehner‘s blunder.
Plus, Sarah Palin resurfaces by video to answer her critics.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: We want to live up to the example of public servants, like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each others ideas without questioning each other‘s love of country, and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern, so that we bequeath the American dream to future generations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Tonight, President Obama called upon the nation to follow the example of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, whose courageous dedication to public service is necessary, for the creation of a more perfect union. His words come at a time of growing intimidation toward government officials, including the recent arrest of a man who was making threatening phone calls to Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington state and Arizona, the only black Republican Party district chairman resigned his post, citing threats from the Tea Party and concerns of his family‘s safety.
And the new video released by Sarah Palin has only added to the controversy surrounding her use of violent imagery in her targeting of congressional Democrats in the last election, including Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
Joining me now is Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC‘s “HARDBALL” and “The Chris Matthews Show.”
Chris, to your assessment of this speech tonight, there was a fine line to walk here, he was getting a lot of advice from the pundit class about, don‘t make this too political. Yet it was given in a political setting. How do you think he struck the balance?
MATTHEWS: I think he had it right about—you know, I‘ve never told this story, Lawrence, give me a minute. We have a speaker of the House who is a Republican, you mentioned in the break there, in the tease, that he didn‘t attend tonight. I think it‘s an interesting time to remember—as you know, I worked for Tip O‘Neill when he was up against Ronald Reagan that half dozen years.
And I‘ve never told this story, but I think it‘s really apropos right now. When Reagan was shot and almost assassinated, he lost half of his blood supply. That bullet came very close to his heart. And if Jerry Parr, the head of Secret Service hadn‘t gotten him to George Washington Hospital in three minutes, he would have been gone.
Now, Tip O‘Neill was the first guy allowed to see Ronald Reagan after he was shot. That was the decision of Jim Baker. And no one knew what happened in the hospital room when they got together, these guys, about 70 years old, one a liberal, one a conservative; one a Hollywood guy, one a street corner guy.
And I‘ll never forget when I heard several years ago what had happened. I got the full picture last year. Tip goes into the room, there‘s no one else in the whole hospital in that room except Reagan who‘s barely alive, and there‘s one another guy in the corner of the room who told me what happened, Max Friedersdorf, head of congressional relations. Tip went into the room and he went over and kneeled down next to Ronald Reagan, this old man with this other old man almost dead, kissed him, held both his of hands, and together, they recited the 23rd Psalm together.
You know, when I think about that, I feel very good about my country and I remind myself that even when you disagree with someone at the other end of the football field, to use a nice reference than gun play, that that person is as American as you are, they have a different view of things. And have you to be, as Ronald Reagan once reminded me personally, “Tip always says we‘re friends after 6:00.”
And if you don‘t accept that common citizenship and common humanity, I don‘t think you should be on television, on radio or anywhere. If you think the other side is evil, you‘re part of the problem.
Now, I think we hear a lot of that today, and maybe that‘s going to bother some people. It‘s easier for me or for you—I think we‘re both somewhere between the 40-yard lines, it‘s easier for us to see things in perspective. I guess if you went into the field, it‘s harder to accept the humanity of someone at the other end, I don‘t know about that. But I know that Tip O‘Neill could see that Ronald Reagan was an American and other way around, and they were friends.
I really think we got to get back to that. I think if the president could have done anything tonight and I think he did it, was to remind us, that at a hospital bed, at the sight of the hospital bed, we‘re all equal, and we‘re all human, and we‘re all Americans certainly. I think he did that.
O‘DONNELL: Chris, I don‘t think you could work in Congress as we did, and rub elbows with the other party constantly everyday and come out of it thinking that there‘s evil in those buildings. But to the speaker, to the point of the speaker, especially after hearing that story about Tip O‘Neill that I‘ve never heard before from anyone else who was around there at that time—John Boehner, the speaker of the House, not going to this service today in Arizona with a member of his House lying in a hospital bed—
MATTHEWS: Yes, I know.
O‘DONNELL: -- with a bullet in her head. It‘s just inconceivable to me that he wouldn‘t go. Are you shock by that as I am?
MATTHEWS: You and I know. Well, not to judge morally, because it‘s about scheduling, but it‘s like, how many times have you not made it to somebody‘s funeral and wished you‘d made it. Or not made it to somebody‘s wedding and wished you‘d made it. It‘s always better—if you can afford it, go.
And, you know, I would have gone. But I mean, I don‘t think it‘s a day to knock the guy, but I think he‘ll probably wish within a few hours, he had gone because it is the place—John McCain was there today. He was, you know, not exactly up front but he was in the first couple rows, he went there and Sandra Day O‘Connor was there and Secretary Napolitano. I mean, there were a lot of people there. I thought it was a very good showing. I saw Justice Kennedy there. And I think a number of senators and Congress people.
So, he probably should have gone. I don‘t understand why you‘d stay back for a fundraiser that can always be—always be postponed to the next day. These lobbyists that show up to these things can show up last night.
O‘DONNELL: Yes, and there‘s plenty of last-minute scheduling changes that have to happen in those jobs—
MATTHEWS: Yes.
O‘DONNELL: -- including canceling attendance at a fundraiser. Chris, I want to get—
MATTHEWS: Can I get back to where you were—you were on something really important. And I think you and I grew up in Irish-American politics. And, you know, we used baseball—back in the days of (INAUDIBLE), I was thinking it was all horse race, you know, home stretch, front-runner, touting, handicapping the race, the whole thing. That was sort of a nice way of describing politics because it is about a race in some stance. And then we use baseball analogies, I used hardball people, this curveball. We used those references to baseball, the America‘s pastime.
But all of a sudden, in the last couple years, it‘s been ballistic. It‘s been bullets. It‘s been eyes and targets and reload and lock and load. And why?
I understand there‘s a Second Amendment, and if that comes up as a topic, defend it. But why are we talking about it as our standard means of political communication? Why is Sarah Palin sticking to her guns, if you will? Why does she keep talking like this, again today with this blood libel nonsense?
Why doesn‘t she say we should stop talking about guns, when it has nothing to do with guns? Unless we want to talk about guns, and that‘s the question—why do people bring guns to political events? Why does this Congressman Gohmert of Texas saying today he wants to be able to bring his gun to the floor of Congress. That‘s the problem. I think that is the problem, guns.
O‘DONNELL: Chris, let‘s listen to the most controversial thing Sarah Palin said today in that statement she made online.
MATTHEWS: Sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: If you don‘t like a person‘s vision for the country, you‘re free to debate that vision. If you don‘t like their ideas, you‘re free to propose better ideas. But especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(CROSSTALK)
O‘DONNELL: Go ahead.
MATTHEWS: It goes back to what Steve Schmidt said when he first met her, she doesn‘t know anything.
O‘DONNELL: Her speechwriters don‘t know anything.
MATTHEWS: Her best defense—and I do not mean any more intelligent than she is—her best defense is ignorance at this point. She never should have used that historic term.
It has to do with Jewish people, and an age-old horrible, horrible story telling about them. It has nothing to do with somebody from Alaska. It has nothing to do with American politics—thank God.
I don‘t know where she dredged it up from. But she shouldn‘t be talking about herself being some sort of victim in the horrible context of the way anti-Semitism has been in the ages, throughout the ages.
O‘DONNELL: Chris, have you ever seen a politician who has never once
never once made an attempt to speak to anyone other than her most fervent supporters? She‘s never—it seems to me she‘s never in any speech has she tried to reach beyond her own supporters?
MATTHEWS: Well, yes, because she has them. And she has them—she has them by the throngs. And I think that the more criticism of her, the more they like her.
I do understand anti-intellectualism. I did find it somewhat winning when George W. Bush exploited it back when he ran for president. I made a mistake back then in believing it.
There‘s nothing wrong with anti-elitism or anti-cultural elitism.
It‘s fine. We are a democratic country. We root for the political guy.
One of my favorite movies this year is “The Fighter.” I root for “Rocky.” I root for the uneducated guy. I‘m all for him.
Just don‘t tell me he‘s more educated than somebody else, or that she has some round about view of the universe that she‘s a victim.
She‘s not a victim. She said something that Gabrielle Giffords herself said would have consequences. We have the videotape of Gabrielle Giffords speaking in her own defense, when you put me in the crosshairs, that has consequences. I can only suppose that when she‘s recovered, I hope she‘s able to give us a fuller picture the way she looks it, because I do think that she saw the consequences, not in some sort of way of seeing things coming. But she understood how wrong it was to put a politician of the other side in the crosshairs. She got it.
O‘DONNELL: Chris Matthews, thank you very much for working late tonight and joining me. Thank you very much.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, Lawrence. You‘re worth it, buddy. Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: Thank you.
Even as President Obama‘s words are being carefully considered tonight, so are the words of Sarah Palin. Why did she choose today to release that video?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Immediately after Saturday‘s deadly shooting in Arizona, Sarah Palin entered the story because of her placement of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords on a list of 20 Democrats targeted behind cross hairs. Tonight, it‘s the response to her critics that she posted on Facebook that has pushed her back into the story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH PALIN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF ALASKA: Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now, former Bush speech writer and founder of FrumForum.com, David Frum, and Washington bureau chief of “Mother Jones,” and a columnist for “Politics Daily,” David Corn.
Well, David Frum, Sarah Palin did not take your advice to find her
way, possibly for the first time, to a high road. Could you explain her
reference to the blood issue that she‘s thrown out here, the blood libel,
and how she managed to work that into this?
DAVID FRUM, FRUMFORUM.COM: That‘s actually the part of the speech that bothered me least. It‘s an analogy. And it‘s maybe a disproportionate analogy, but I can see why she feels as strongly as she does.
What that speech reminded me of is you know the rule that when you apply for a job, you should dress for the job you want? When you—as a presidential candidate, when you make a speech to the country, you should speak to the job you want. If you‘d like to be president, you should be presidential.
She‘s mad. That showed. She‘s madder than she is sad. She‘s very wounded by what was done to her. And indeed what was done to her was hurtful and she has grounds for complaint.
It is not as hurtful as what was done to the people who are the actual victims here. It‘s not as painful as to the people who have lost. And you would think that this would be a moment where you could reach beyond your own personal feelings of hurt to something bigger. That was the challenge.
Dress for the job you want. She dressed for the job she has.
O‘DONNELL: Nor was it as hurtful as the persecution of the Jews, which is referenced in this blood libel. David Corn, is this a story of the worst speech writers currently employed by anyone in politics? She‘s got about three of them, Chris Winston (ph), Lindsay Hayes (ph), Rebecca Mansour.
Do we know who wrote this and who was the crazy one who stuck blood libel into the text?
DAVID CORN, “MOTHER JONES”: Well, first off, I think David Frum is being very generous to Sarah Palin.
O‘DONNELL: He‘s a very generous guy.
CORN: Perhaps it‘s a night for such generosity. I couldn‘t—when we saw that speech this morning, I couldn‘t believe that it could appear more petty, more narcissistic and more ignorant than it does now after President Obama‘s speech. I mean, I think David‘s point is really on target here, in that the president came out and he was wonderfully presidential, gave a marvelous speech, and spoke to really the better nature of our angels across the board.
And she came out and she tried to make this whole tragedy about her, and compared the criticism against her to the genocidal persecution of an entire people.
Now, who wrote the speech, I don‘t care. Because she was the one who I assume read it at least once before giving it. It did reflect what she thought was important and what was the most important thing to say on a day like today, which is, oh, people are picking on me and they‘re doing—
And to compare the criticism she‘s gotten to anything of the nature of blood libel shows that she really has lost a sense of proportion. And the thing that bothered me even most about the speech wasn‘t the blood libel line, but was that she had the chutzpa to come out and say, listen, we should respectfully disagree with each other in a positive manner when we have these vibrant discussions in our country.
Well, during the campaign, she said that Barack Obama, then a candidate, didn‘t like America, that he was anti-American, that‘s why he would pal around with terrorists. During the health care debate, she said there were death panels that did not exist. So she is really the last person in the world, and particularly on this day, to be preaching a sort of kumbaya approach to political discourse.
O‘DONNELL: Let‘s listen to more of what she had to say about our political debates.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: We know violence isn‘t the answer. When we take up our arms, we‘re talking about our vote. Yes, our debates are full of passion. But we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box, as we did just two months ago, and as our republic enables us to do again in the next election and the next.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: David Frum, she has a 22 percent favorability rating.
Does it go up to 23 with this speech or down to 10?
FRUM: No, she‘s like a big melting iceberg in warm water that—and I think a big bunch of ice just slid off the side. I think Republican leaders throughout the country, they look at this and the say, this is—it‘s hard to imagine the person who said that coping as president with a tragedy like this. There will be other tragedy‘s in the nation‘s future and the president will have to rise.
You mentioned—Chris Matthews I think mentioned at the beginning of the show, Ronald Reagan, Tom Brokaw in 1986. Other presidents have had to meet these challenges of speaking for the whole country. That‘s what she was unable to do this morning.
CORN: And she had the perfect opportunity to do so. She was drawn into this tragedy, fairly or unfairly. We don‘t even have to debate that tonight. So there was a moment where she could speak and people would look to her to see how she would react to this, particularly after the last few days.
So I don‘t think she was obligated to make that particular speech today. But she had a podium set up for her. It was all teed up for her to do exactly what David Frum just suggested she would do. But yet she couldn‘t find that in herself. She couldn‘t transcend the moment. She couldn‘t transcend her one speed, which is attack mode.
FRUM: It does have to be stressed again, that the thing—she is the target of some unfairness. And the suggestion that she was responsible in anyway, that was unfair. You can see why somebody would feel that.
And I don‘t blame—I think we can‘t blame her at all for feeling that way. The challenge here is not, did she behave badly. She behaved I think in a way that is normal and understandable. It‘s a question of rising, not a question of falling short.
O‘DONNELL: David Corn, what about the decision to do it today? She has political advisers. They got together. They said, OK, this is the day to do it?
CORN: You know, can we revoke their political strategist licenses? I don‘t know what to say to this. I mean, it was—someone who used to work in the Reagan White House was the first person to e-mail me about this today, and she was stunned, absolutely stunned by this. And—I mean, I thought it was at first almost a joke. You could not pick a worse day to be me, me, me, me, me, as she was, and to make the issue that a few journalists and pundits --
I mean, when she left the office of governor after serving half a term, she blamed it in part on media, that there was too much criticism. There were lawsuits against her. I mean, she is showing again and again that she‘s not really tough enough to do anything except be Sarah Palin. And I think this week just confirms it even more so.
If she wants to get into the public debate and have people take her seriously, she has to act like a serious person. And she did not do that today.
O‘DONNELL: Thank you to the two Davids, former Bush speech writer and founder of FrumForum, the generous David Frum, and David Corn of “Mother Jones” and PoliticsDaily.com. Thanks for joining us tonight, guys.
CORN: Thank you, Lawrence.
CORN: Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: Even if this weekend‘s violence isn‘t linked to hateful politics, at least one member of Congress says the danger still exists. Democrat Bob Filner is ahead.
And Sarah Palin wants us to know that the violence in Arizona is not her fault. The Rewrite is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Time for tonight‘s Rewrite. Today Sarah Palin said, “like many, I‘ve spent the last few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance.”
Her prayers were not answered, leaving her obviously without divine guidance about what to say today. Instead, she sunk into a self-involved, defensive, inappropriate ramble about—well, I guess it was supposed to be about the Tucson massacre.
Left to her own devices, she turned, where else, to Ronald Reagan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: President Reagan said we must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society‘s guilty rather than the law breaker.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: No one has ever told Sarah Palin that Ronald Reagan, like most politicians, said some very silly things. Among them the quite she cited. We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken—every time a law is broken, society is guilty, rather than the law breaker?
Every time? Who has ever had that idea? Who has ever said that every time a law is broken, society is guilty and not the law breaker? No one.
Reagan said this in his second year as governor, the year after he had raised taxes as governor. Something else Sarah Palin doesn‘t know about Ronald Reagan. In his second year as governor, Reagan was not yet a deeper thinker than Sarah Palin in her second year as governor.
But he didn‘t quit his governorship and matured as a politician to the point where he could do something that Sarah Palin never will: win the presidency. Sarah Palin‘s scripted performance today has been wisely criticized by everyone from Charles Krauthammer to Perez Hilton, two people who have never before found a single point of agreement.
Sarah Palin was echoed today by Sharron Angle, who issued her own self-involved statement about the Tucson massacre. Angle said, quote, “the despicable act in Tucson is a horrifying and senseless tragedy and should be condemned as a single act of violence by a single unstable individual.”
She apparently doesn‘t realize that we have all already condemned it as such. Palin leveled a cold-eyed outrage at, quote, “people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.” Palin‘s self-defense seems aimed at this woman—
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS (D), ARIZONA: We‘re on Sarah Palin‘s targeted list. But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun site over our district. When people do that, you have to realize there‘s consequences to that action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: On Saturday, she fell into the cross hairs of a gun that sent a 22 cent bullet into the back of her head, exiting over her left eye. She is, therefore, unable to respond to Sarah Palin tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Bob Filner saw this tragedy coming. During his 2010 re-election bid, Democratic Congressman Bob Filner of California faced the vitriolic political rhetoric many have blamed for Jared Loughner‘s actions on Saturday.
Here was the scene as Filner tried to exit Golden Hall, San Diego‘s election headquarters, just after he defeated Tea Party Republican Nick Popaditch by a 20 point margin. Popaditch led his supporters in a hate filled rant against Filner. You‘ll recognize Popaditch as the man with the eye patch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CROSS TALK)
NICK POPADITCH, FORMER TEA PARTY CANDIDATE: You‘re a damn liar. You should be ashamed of yourself. You‘re a damn liar.
(CROSS TALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don‘t tread on me, Bob. Don‘t tread on me.
(CROSS TALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jew.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Bob Filner, like Gabrielle Giffords, is Jewish. According to the “Southwestern College Sun,” one Popaditch supporter spat at Filner and another punched a member of Filner‘s camp in the face. Popaditch stood nearby smiling.
Joining me now, Congressman Bob Filner. Congressman, this weekend when you saw what happened to Gabrielle Giffords, who you know well, you also know to be Jewish like yourself, you discover as the evidence unfolds that “Mein Kampf” is one of the shooter‘s favorite books. There had to be a feeling of this was coming.
REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: To me, I thought this was inevitable, Lawrence. And to me, I had been active in the civil rights movements, the 50s and 60s. I have been in mobs. I‘ve been beaten up. These people were intent on violence. You didn‘t hear the words about anti-Semitic comments there.
But only the intervention of police rescued me at that point. And my son and my granddaughter were scared to death. They were in the audience there just trembling. I went back to my civil rights roots to figure out how I would lay down and curl up.
The next day, Lawrence, and also right after Gabby‘s shooting, there were blogs to say that clearly politics doesn‘t work for us because Filner the sneaky Jewish guy obviously defrauded us, and we have to go to violence. And here‘s some AK-47s; here‘s how you do sniper work. And that was repeated a couple days ago with—when they said this is the start of the revolution, the shooting of Gabby Giffords.
So this is not an isolated incident. Everybody who tries to put it off on a deranged individual I think is—that‘s a political statement in and of itself, because they are absolving themselves of the responsibility of their words and their actions.
O‘DONNELL: A white supremacist who was part of the crowd that you faced that election night posted online this comment about Jared Loughner.
“I‘m sure he was justified, and I am enjoying this moment because this is how a revolution begins, people. And it‘s funny. I‘m going to celebrate.”
Have you increased your security after this past weekend?
FILNER: Well, you know, over 500 of us in the Congress do not have any security. There‘s nothing to increase. Only the leadership of the House and the Senate in both parties have security. And I think that‘s the way we want it. We know that the incredible genius of American democracy is that we are able to be with our constituents, that we can talk to them, listen. They can literally touch us.
I don‘t think any of us want to be in fear of that. We will be more intelligent. We‘ve been in touch with our local police, who will be aware of our movements.
But, you know, I think we have to put the fear in the back of our mind. When I was involved in the civil rights movement, I said, I could get killed here, but that—you can‘t let that—you just can‘t let that paralyze you, because you would not do anything. As we say in another context, the terrorists would have won.
So we‘re going to go about our business a little bit more smarter, maybe a little more aware, with the authorities knowing where we are. But I think we have to keep our openness in this society, because that‘s what makes us so great.
O‘DONNELL: I have to get your reaction to Sarah Palin‘s use of the term blood libel today.
FILNER: Well, you know, it‘s all been said. She‘s trying to take herself as the victim. I recall, Lawrence, Chief Justice Holmes saying, I don‘t know, 50, 60 years ago, that there‘s a limit of free speech. You can not yell fire in a crowded theater.
I say to Ms. Palin, you cannot yell ready, aim, fire in a crowded political environment. She could have taken the advantage of this podium, as you described it tonight, and said, you know, I‘m going to ratchet down my rhetoric, and that‘s what I‘ve learned.
I think we all have to do that. I do. Sarah does. Everybody. We have to take a deep breath and back off a little bit.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman, that will be THE LAST WORD tonight.
Congressman Bob Filner of California, thanks for joining us.
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
