Live blogging the SOTU

10:20 Wrap up:

Good speech. Not on the level of his Philadelphia speech, but a solid effort that sets the stage for the months to come. It will be interesting to see what the GOP says about the investment. The problem with all our overspending the last 30 years is that most of it's been wasted. The roads, the bridges the rails have been falling apart.

I’m not all that thrilled by cuts in discretionary domestic spending, but Obama met the GOP on that one, but the pointed out that’s just 12 percent of the budget and will not get us anywhere near the goal.

Obama did not go into detail, but he did offer specific plans. Most importantly, he endorsed the debt commission's approach. The GOP cannot get away with shouting from the rooftops that things need to be cut, but fail to offer any specifics or offer the Ryan plan that will balance the budget by 2069. Obama is following the same model he did with health care. He's setting the target. How we hit that target is going to be up to Congress.

Will the GOP take that bait? They can either rise to the challenge and genuinely work with him to reach these goals, or they will refuse to work with him. If they choose the former, they're going to have a hard time running against Obama in two years. How can they do that if they've worked with him? If they choose the later then they are going to have to explain why they've pissed away another two years, when they had one house. Will voters continue to support a party that offers nothing but criticism?

Obama's approach of leaving the detail work to others has several advantages. One is that it gets everyone involved. The door is open for the GOP, just as it was for health care. If they refuse to walk through the door this time, they are going to have to explain it. The other advantage is that Obama maintains his leverage. By setting the target he becomes the parent. If things bog down he can step in if the opportunity is there. If not, the blame doesn't fall on him.

Bachmann gave him a huge boost. She offered nothing but cheerleading, a word I choose after giving careful though to the potential for sexist connotation. But Bachmann’s speech was nothing but “Yay America, Boo Obama.” She can’t even do basic math. She pointed out that Obama promised (he actually predicted, but let’s not get bogged down in facts, right Michelle?) unemployment would be capped at 8 percent by the stimulus. Then she claims that Obama said unemployment would actually go down from 2006 levels. Which is it?

Bachmann simply isn’t serious about governing, and neither is the tea party. Obama on the other hand has made the necessary pivot from staving off economic collapse to dealing with the issues that he ran for, namely the deficit. Tonight’s endorsement of the debt commission’s approach and his reach across the aisle on tort reform and spending freezes is a good start.

9:57 We had 110,000 Marines on Iwo. The Japanese had 23,000. Against all odds?

9:55 Did you know that Iwo Jima was a battle Americans won against all odds? Do these people have the first freaking clue about history? Are you kidding me?

9:54 Michelle Bachmann, who can't take her eyes off the teleprompter believes in American exceptionalism. So does Obama.

9:53 How is medical malpractice reform a free market solution?

9:51 Obama's added less to the deficit than Bush. She did say that Bush's spending was unacceptable. Don't recall her saying that at the time. I could be wrong. Continues to repeat the lie about health care reform increasing the deficit. Cap and trade? Isn't that dead?

9:49 Bachmann starts. Deficit was 10.6 trillion. How much lower would unemployment be without the stimulus? She doesn't mention that. Then she says Obama promised lower unemployment after saying he promised 8 percent. Which is it?

9:38 Thank God. A poll. I was worried we'd have to wait. CBS isn't running Bachmann.

9:36 Ryan is saying we want to work with the president. But he's pointing out that the GOP has cut the House budget is restoring "spending discipline" to the way it was in 2006. Great, more Bush spending. Ryan is doing a good job of explaining why the debt is a problem and framing it as a children's issue "no one person or party is to blame. Then goes right on attacking Obama on spending increases during a recession.

Ryan is blaming healthcare costs on a law that hasn't taken effect yet. Saying people are losing coverage under a plan that mandates coverage. Now I'm waiting to see what the GOP plan is to reduce health care costs and insure the uninsured. Nope he just repeats the lie that health care reform will increase the deficit. He ignores the fact that repeal will add to the deficit. Ryan offers no specifics whatsoever. So far, more of the same from the GOP.

Ryan: "We need to chart a new course." That's conservative? Is he promising that we won't have to impose painful austerity measures? He's calling for us to avoid the fate of Greece. How exactly can we avoid tax increases and painful austerity measures. He also bemoans the actions that broke our economy, just minutes after bemoaning the fixes that were required.

Now Bachmann. This should be fun.

9.18 SHELIA JUST GOT TOTALLY DISSED!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

9:15 I love Bob Schieffer and he's the reason why I'm on CBS. But he's gone a little soft on the reconciliation.

9:14 Before I forget. Shelia Jackson-Lee is a aisle hog and a camera whore (hat tip to Banjo Jones) and I love it that Obama blew her off on the way in. Now if he would just slap her on the way out, he'll lock up my vote. Katie Couric is calling him Reaganesque, that will be tomorrow's blog. Beaumont folks need to know that Ted Poe is kissing up to the president. Jeff Greenwald is saying Reagan was non-partisan. More on that in tomorrow's post as well.

9:13 "The state of our union is strong." Love it, from a style standpoint that he held that to the end.

9:07 "It will be harder, because we will argue about everything." Let's face it, we don't want to hear that. But he turns it into a national strength, which it should be, of course, then panders to American exceptionalism for some cheap applause. "We all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution." He is arguing that we all agree on the goals, just differ on the means. I'm not sure that's true anymore. (Boehner is about to cry). If we haven't crossed the Rubicon, there is a large faction of the body politic looking for a place to ford.

9:04 We stand with Tunisia and support hopes of democracy from all people. Egypt? Egypt? Anyone? Egypt?

8:59 Respect for the rule of law might carry more weight if he would not attempt to assassinate U.S. citizens with no judicial or congressional check. And actually use our Constitution to fight terror instead of trying to get around it.

8:56 Wants meetings with lobbyists on line. I'm laughing my ass off. Everyone in that room just shat themselves.

8:47 The debt. Deficit is "not sustainable." Freeze domestic spending for next five years. Gets a bogey clap. Reduction of 400 billion and lowers deficit to Ike levels in relation to GDP. Cuts to community action programs. 10s of billions in spending from defense. "I'm willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without. Let's make sure we're not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens." Decries any plan to cut deficit by cutting investments in education and innovation. Admits cuts are in 12 percent of our budget and here we go. "We have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending will be enough. It won't."

He just put the GOP in the corner. He has endorsed the methods of the debt commission and points out that repealing health care will add $250 million (or billion missed that). He is taking the first step across the aisle by offering to work on tort reform.

The GOP simply cannot brand him a tax and spender in response to this. He is willing to cut. But he also says it's more important to educate our kids than to give millionaires tax breaks. How, exactly, is one going to argue against this? He again comes back to tax code reform. This is the candidate who ran for president, who befuddled Hillary and destroyed McCain. Government must be more affordable and efficient. He's now listing inefficiencies in government, giving salmon as an example. Pretty good line.

8:44 So Boehner doesn't clap when the president talks about preventing insurance companies from exploiting patients. Is he pro-patient exploitation? Can't wait for Jon Stewart's take on this.

8:41 Tax code reform. Yes! He's calling for a simplified system that will lower the corporate rate without adding to deficit. Again, no specifics.

8:37 Immigration. Willing to take it on after a call for allowing children raised to be safe from deportation and pointing out it's idiotic to educate foreign students then kick them out to compete against us. But again, I have to point out there are no specifics. This is along the same lines as health care. He's setting the goal and leaving the means to reach that goal open.

Now he's on to infrastructure. This is an issue on which the GOP is vulnerable if it gets pressed. Private firms aren't going to build the new rail and new roads that we need.

8:31 Interesting note about Race to the Top. Texas is one of the 10 states that refused the money, citing the strings that would be attached. The strings, of course, are higher achievement standards. At least one school board and superintendent in my area asked that they be allowed to compete. Their explained to their (Republican) reps that they had no problem meeting the standards. They felt that they should have the option to go after the money, and that doing so would be consistent with Republican rhetoric about local control. They were turned down cold. There was no interest in leveraging federal money to help schools in Texas, even when it cost nothing because of the fear that it would help the other side. That it would help the children and the state was irrelevant.

8:29 Talking about importance of education. Wonder if Perry is listening? Points out that families and communities are responsible for their children's education. Gets standing O on science fair line. Wonder if those are the same folks ripping him for being an Ivy League elitist? No specific proposals at this point.

8:27 Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's. Calls for ending subsidies to oil companies. Got claps from the audience. Not sure they meant it. But that's one point for a specific proposal. Or semi-specific anyway.

8:24 "This is our sputnik moment." Calls for investments in things we desperately need. But no word on how we pay for them while heeding his call to reign in the deficit.

8:23 Nice golf clap. GOP seems to be waiting for the other shoe to drop. I think they like what they hear so far, and that scares them.

8:16 America is a "light to the world." So much for the lie that Obama rejects American exceptionalism.

Indications are the president will call for a five year freeze on discretionary spending. I don't see how that is possible with the infrastructure challenges that are facing us unless we're going to seriously rethink our military presence in the world.

He's starting out where he left off in Tuscon. I'm waiting to find out what's going to happen with the deficit. I'm hoping he'll take the commission's recommendations as a starting point. Let's see, shall we?

Boomer bust

It might help to read William Strauss and Neil Howe's book Generations: The History of America's Future, but it takes a while, so slog on.

Our political discourse is uglier than it has been in my memory (which stretches back to Watergate as a young lad). I don't know why it's popped up in the blogsphere today, but here is Glenn Beck's exhortation for the tea baggers to shoot in the head, anyone with whom they disagree because they are the enemy and trying to destroy this nation. Of course Palin claims that liberals are trying to bring this country to its knees.

So what the fuck is happening here? How did we get so far apart? Growing up in a Goldwater household I always thought that liberals were folks who wanted this country to be great, but were silly and ignorant about how to make it happen. I never realized they were bent on the destruction of everything we hold dear.

But now, I'm not so sure. Not about liberals, but about what Andrew Sullivan defines as the Christianist right. You have to ask yourself, which party has decided it's okay for the president to do as he damn well pleases, regardless of constitutional checks? Which party has run on a platform of imminent danger to this nation? Which party has decided it's okay to spy on citizens without a warrant? Which party has decided it's okay to torture? And most importantly, which party automatically vilifies as weak, dumb and un-American, anyone who dares oppose those positions.

But this isn't a left/right issue. The left is just as immobile, if not as dangerous at the moment. This is a generational thing. With credit to Mr. Strauss and Mr. Howe, let me explain. The boomers are an idealistic generation (much as FDR's generation, or Ben Franklin's generation was). Fueled by the type of religious awakening that occurs every 80 years or so in this country, they have come of age believe with religious fervor that they are right.

When we 13 genners were coming up (GenX is a term hung on us by a boomer that we learned to despise 25 years ago) we thought of our parents' generation as a bunch of hippies, weird, but harmless. Well, not harmless, but well meaning. They had Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. We got AIDS, crack and Madonna. We resigned ourselves early to cleaning up their mess. But we assumed the Boomers' dominant trait was a leftist outlook toward politics and society. That turned out to be a crucial mistake.

Boomers dominant trait (other than group narcissism) is idealism. They simply take it as an article of faith that they are correct. This explains the how rise in fundamentalism that started in religion 25 years ago has spilled over into politics, as Sullivan so eloquently explains. And if you believe you are right based on faith (and from Todd Willingham to global warming to levitating the Pentagon, we've seen Boomers constantly ignore empirical evidence in favor of what feels right), then any disagreement isn't opposition, it's heresy and must be destroyed.

So it doesn't matter if death panels or a lie or not. It doesn't matter that there is no government takeover of healthcare. It doesn't matter that they impeached a president for lying about a blow job. "We're right Goddamnit, it doesn't matter if we lie to save they country from evil."

Boomers cannot compromise. Look at health care. You've seen the extreme right and the extreme left go absolutely batshit over the bill that came out. Have you seen any room for compromise? Here in Texas, look at Voter ID, which the state senate is debating today. Every senator has seen the estimates of zero impact on turnout for either party, but it's a matter of life and death for both sides.

I think we are going to see something different tonight. President Obama is on the cusp of the Boomer/13Gen divide. In temperament he is certainly one of us. If you step back and look at what he's done, not what its said he's done, he's shown the ability to compromise over and over. He's been painted as a hardcore liberal (or sellout) by people who simply cannot understand any narrative but the one that's been going on for 40 years. The boomers got control of the media early and they continue to hold it. Obama isn't one of them. He understands the Boomers, but they don't understand him. And that's why I think he'll prevail in the end. That's why I think Gary Johnson is the GOP's best hope.

The Boomers are too old to change, and — as Strauss and Howe point out — they don't have the numbers every one assumes. They have become monolithic and predictable. Flexibility and pragmatism will always win that battle. We got a president long before anyone thought we would. That doesn't mean we won't bear the brunt of whatever cuts and reforms are necessary to fix things, just as The Lost Generation went and voted for medicaid and medicare even though they would never get it. It certainly doesn't mean the Boomers won't overtake the so-called Greatest Generation in enriching themselves off the public teat. But it does mean that doctrinaire solutions that place more value on orthodoxy than effectiveness will lose out to things that really work.

And we can go on to the next crisis.

Texas' war on science has a victim

Cameron Todd Willingham is dead and I doubt anybody misses him much. He was, by all accounts, a genuine piece of shit who beat his wife, ran around, used drugs and got tatted up. If Willingham had been shot in the street, it’s likely his assailant would have gotten off on the old Texas defense of “he needed shootin’.”

But Todd Willingham wasn’t killed by somebody in street. The State of Texas killed him, despite having no significant evidence he was guilty. In fact there is no significant evidence that a crime even occurred.

The short version is this. Willingham’s three children died Dec. 23, 1991 in a house fire at the Corsicana home he shared with them and his wife. A jury convicted him of killing them by arson based on testimony from the fire inspector — who had little formal training — that there was evidence of accelerants present and a burn trail that followed the path Willingham took out the door.

Prior to his execution numerous arson specialists, men with PhD’s who had actually done experiments, came forward and said there was no evidence of accelerants, no evidence, even, of arson. But the appeals court and our fine governors have all ignored the science and Willingham lies buried far from his children, his last wish — to have been buried next to them — denied by an ex-wife who first defended him, then claimed he confessed.

For the best account of the case, read David Grann’s piece in the New Yorker. I’m not here to debate guilt or innocence of Willingham. There is a darker force at work than just a bad verdict. Even after the New Yorker police brought the science to national attention, folks worked diligently to suppress it. Our fine governor applied a little extra mousse to his coif and pronounced Willingham a monster, as if he’d ever met the man. Then Governor Fonzerelli fired the head of the commission appointed to investigate forensic science in order to push back hearings till after the election, as though the news that Bush killed an innocent man would impact Fonzie’s re-election chances. Or surprise anyone. The commission did meet, the man sent to defend the science was a lawyer, a sure sign that you haven't a leg on which to stand. (
Correction. Willingham was executed in 2004, under Perry's governorship).

Now I’m against the death penalty. Forget all the arguments about how it fails to deter and is more expensive than life in prison and is racistly applied. Bottom line is this: State doesn’t give life. State shouldn’t take it.

But Willingham shouldn’t threaten death penalty supporters. Because the biggest threat to the death penalty in Texas isn’t my view. There are only about six of us in the state against the thing and we ain’t casting our votes on it. The biggest threat, the only threat is if the state executes innocent people, then turns around and says, so fucking what?

No, the darker side to this is the rejection of science. Texans, when confronted with a conflict between what we know and what the evidence shows, have long disregarded the evidence. When faced with 7,000 professional soldiers in San Antonio, the 187 volunteers said, “Fuck it. We can take them.” Faced with the chance to fill state coffers at the expense of 49 other states by taxing all oil that crosses the Sabine, Red or Rio Grande, Texans said, “Fuck it, we don’t need the money.”

And faced with evidence that what had traditionally been regarded as signs of arson, was in fact evidence of a flashover, evidence that had been demonstrated in actual fires designed to test the science, the state of Texas and most Texans said, “Fuck it.”

It was painful to watch the Frontline piece on Willingham. The investigators convicted him immediately. The lead investigator decided he was a loser. Who gives a shit what happens to a loser? They could tell he was guilty by the way he acted. Guilty, not of being a damn coward who let his children burn, but of setting the fire. So anything that didn’t fit with that theory was rejected. The prosecutor followed suit. Even his defense attorney piled on. It’s a sorry Cover Your Ass spectacle by all involved.

And where does that leave us? It leaves us with two public Tier One universities when California has nine. It leaves us with a woefully underfunded public school system that faces $5 billion more in cuts this session because lawmakers, evidently products of that failed system, couldn't do basic math when they were designing a new tax system and ignored those who could add and subtract. It leaves us with a school board that believes the earth is 6,000 years old and that brown people had no impact on the history of this state or this nation. It leaves us with a Legislature that thinks dropping Medicare might be a good idea.

We, as a state and as a people simply reject whatever facts don’t fit our prejudices. If we don’t learn to respect science and to respect intelligence, it’s not just Todd Willingham that will get tossed into an early grave. It’s the future of the state of Texas.

Trouble for Lance Armstrong

Sports Illustrated will hit the stands Wednesday with an investigative piece on Lance Armstrong and it doesn't look good for the 7-time Tour de France winner.

Armstrong has steadfastly denied any doping, but blood samples and witness testimony have contradicted his claims. He's the subject of a grand jury investigation looking into whether the $31 million he took from the Post Office was fraud. If they find he was doping, he's in big, big trouble.

My feeling on Armstrong is this: He was a middle of the packer. Then he got a disease that is caused by PED use. Then he was the best in the world. Too much smoke. He's also basically argued his it's not in his character to cheat. I'm guessing his first wife and Sheryl Crow might disagree with that.

Why not hire George Allen and get it over with

Jerry Jones's lack of respect for the traditions that made the Cowboys great is little secret. From his firing of Coach Landry (and that's really the fault of Bum Bright, who turned down a higher offer so Landry would get axed, Thanks Aggies) to letting Texas Stadium rot so he could get the taxpayers to build him a new stadium to his continual meddling in areas that Mr. Murchison didn't know existed, Jones has shown little respect for the old traditions.

As much as that pisses me off, it's fair. After all, Jones is little more than a yokel who got lucky on some gas leases. You shouldn't expect him to appreciate anything he didn't have a hand in. But Jerry doesn't respect his own legacy either. He's won with two coaches, Johnson and Parcells. He won by getting the hell out of Jimmy's way and letting him coach. But he'd rather lose than see someone else get the glory.

And then there is Owens. Jones signed him after this man practically took a shit in the star in Texas Stadium. But as long as he can give Jerry a quick tingle, doesn't matter. This week he might have hit rock bottom. Rob Ryan is not only a loud mouth braggart in the mold of his brother, he's the son of Buddy Ryan. Remember Buddy? Forget that he refused to call off the dogs in 1985 when the Bears were crucifying Dallas. Buddy was the one who put bounties on Cowboy players.

And this happened on Jerry's watch. But Jerry doesn't care. Ryan is a hot name. So Jerry will ride it for a while. I guess he plays a 3-4, since that's what the team is built for, though his daddy thought that defense was for powder puff games. And since George Allen is dead and his son is an idiot, I reckon we can look forward to Dick Vermeil's tenure as head coach.

Two quarterbacks

Cam Newton is going pro. Case Keenum is staying amateur. I've crossed the paths of both quarterbacks, indirectly with Newton, who has held my nephew at a team function my brother catered, directly and fairly often with Keenum, who quarterbacks my Alma mater and my wife's employer. I can't say I know him well, and I cannot say I know Newton at all.

But there is something about Newton that shines false, false as Hal Chase's charm. His announcement this week that he was turning pro after winning a meaningless exhibition game, er, national title, was no surprise. Newton has always seemed to me, even before the allegations of pay for play arose, to be the ultimate mercenary football player. Hotly recruited, he chose Florida then left when he realized Tebow was coming back and knowing he couldn't compete. He played at Blinn then, according to his own account, he allowed his father to pick Auburn for him. While none of that is endearing, it certainly doesn't make him the poster child for NCAA hypocrisy.

What bothers me is his preternatural smoothness in the face of all allegations. There was something about that smile that seemed so fake. It was a smile folks my age will remember on Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker in the 1980s as all was beginning to fall around them. It's a smile that seemed to say "you can't touch me. I did it, you know it and there is nothing you can do about it." (which isn't to say I think the NCAA treats its players with even a modicum of fairness). It was the smile of your daughter's suitor who says "I'll be sure and have her home by 11 because I'll be done by then."

I don't want to act as though Case Keenum is a saint. His public displays of piety are the type that have always grated on me, the more so because I know they are sincere. I know of instances in which he's acted less than perfect in dealing with some people. But I also know that no one was bidding for his services. Art Briles was the only coach in America who thought he could play at this level. I know that it was his dream to play college football, not to use it as stepping stone to something more lucrative.

Case isn't immune to the lures of the lucre. He's tested the waters to see where he would fall in the draft. If he had been advised he was a first round pick, there's a good chance he wouldn't have come back this year, much less next year. But there is a dignity surrounding Keenum's efforts to return, to finish what he started. I don't think he cares much for the records. He realizes that much of that is the system. I think he realizes that he's the second-best quarterback that UH has had since 2003. But that is what makes Case such a great role model and a great quarterback. He's not quarterbacking against Kevin Kolb, or Tim Tebow. He's quarterbacking against the defense in front of him.

He has a task to do and he knows damn well it can go bad. With a porous defense and the world's most delusional fan base, Houston has far bigger holes to fill than quarterback. Keenum could be great and they could still be a .500 team and the people posting with orgasmic joy on coogfans today will be calling him a choking dog. I don't know if Cam Newton could handle that (more on that in a moment) but I know that Case Keenum will be able to.

To me, the difference between the two quarterback was summed up before Newton's announcement that he was leaving the NCAA's that Keenum would not be. Newton did not have a good game Monday. Oregon hit him hard and hit him often. They determined they would not let him beat them with this feet and dared him to beat them with his arm. He could not do it. And that smile disappeared. His body seemed slumped every time he walked off the field. On the penultimate play, he should have scored. It was set up for the best player to make the best play. Instead, he got hit once then crumpled backwards unlike any other time I've seen him. I'm not sure anymore that he's a great prospect. I wouldn't take him in the first round. I think there is equal chance he'll be great or he'll be Vince Young.

I've seen Keenum fail in that situation too. Against Alabama, Oregon, Colorado State, ECU. I've seen him get his ass kicked against Air Force. Somehow he came out of those games with his dignity enhanced, rather than diminished. He did not slump off the field. He had not been beaten, he just ran out of time. I put Case's chances of success in the NFL with Newton's. But Case's chance of failure is nil. If he doesn't make a roster, he'll still be in the game coaching, at some level. And if he's carrying a clipboard, he'll still be learning, still be preparing, still be surviving, extending the play as he has done so often, just waiting for the slightest chance, then feathering a pass, a taking off to keep the drive going. Two quarterbacks. One, out of time on the college level, one getting that most precious gift back.

Good luck to them both.

Two statements

We saw two visions of leadership yesterday and taken together they were extremely instructive of where we are as a nation.

In the morning, Sarah Palin offered her statement, her defense, really, on the Giffords shooting and the fears that it sprang from the violent political rhetoric she and her ilk have employed so liberally. Not surprisingly, Palin rejected the notion that martial imagery might lead to violent actions. As one wag put it, "Today has been set aside to honor the victims of the Tucson massacre. And Sarah Palin has apparently decided she's one of them." Palin issued all the platitudes about the criminal bearing responsibility for his actions, not society. She quoted Reagan, and threw up some straw men about her own persecution.

But one must wonder why Bill Ayers' crimes didn't end with him. One must wonder why the books we read and the movies we see do so much to promote violence, while the words that are spoken on the campaign trail and the images posted from there, words and images that are about real people doing things that directly touch our lives, do so little.

"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," Palin writes on her facebook page.

Reprehensible (and we'll leave the reprehensibility of her use of the term "blood libel" for to others). A strong word. A very strong word coming from a woman who has decided that large swathes of this nation are not "real America." Palin clearly has no problem with the violence used in political rhetoric, as long as it's directed outward, at the "other," which is a disturbingly large group for the erstwhile governor of Alaska.

"We certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good." I wonder, just who does Palin believe is embracing evil and calling it good? Loughlen? Gifford? Obama? The media?

"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 somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated?"

That question was answered last night when Palin's great nemesis spoke. Unlike Palin, the president's choice of adverbs was not limited to "they" and "those." Instead he used "we," "us," and "our." And therein lies the difference between the two visions for this nation that have been put forward in the past decade. One vision refers to the days when politicians settled their arguments with duels. The second refers to scripture, to unity and, through Lincoln, to the better angels of our nature.

The president, aging faster than any president I can remember in my lifetime, did not point fingers. He did not defend anything, but instead tried to lift up this nation, tried to get it to see that through tragedy lies the path to a slightly better world. While the organized right focuses on ensuring that government does nothing to better the world, Obama wants all of us to better the world. While Palin threw blame, Obama sought unity.

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

"But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together"

I suspect that Palin will simply fade away in the wake of the two statements. I believe that Americans will embrace bitterness for a time, but I don't believe Americans are willing to permanently embrace her dark vision of division for the long term. In the end, we are a nation of optimists and we will buy the vision of the candidate who can best tap shine the light on the city on the hill. As he showed in 2008, and reminded us last night, no one does this better than Obama

Scattershooting on othering ...

While wondering whatever happened to Blackie Sherrod?

I'm going to leave the Palin bashing to Andrew Sullivan. He seems to have a better read on her than just about anyone else and you can click on his blog to the right.

But the idea that the rhetoric we've seen the past few years doesn't contribute to a culture of violence and of othering of those with whom we disagree is, at best naive, and at worst just a continuation of the incitement. There was a time when we realized the political opposition sought the same end for this country as we did, they just believed in a different mean to get there. There was a time when you could have friends of different political persuasions and as long as they weren't communists or Redskin fans it was okay.

But we don't merely disagree with our opponents anymore, we disavow them. The opponent isn't refuted (and by the way, refute doesn't mean to disagree, it means to prove wrong so stop using it copy editors). He must be othered. We see parts of this country labeled "Real America" we see some of it's people labeled patriots. Well if you are a patriot and I disagree with you, what does that make me? It makes me a traitor, a lesser American, a lesser human and it's not far from subhuman.

And I am not optimistic that Congresswoman Giffords' shooting will be the end of it. We've seen the right leap to defend it's choice of martial rhetoric. Jack Shafer claimed that violent language is healthy. Limbaugh claimed that the shooter was working for the Democrats. All have railed against the idea that anyone has committed a crime by placing cross hairs over an opponents district or claiming the president is a foreigner not fit to hold office.

But the fact is, no one has called for any of these people to be charged with any crime. There is no attack on the First Amendment. There is no doubt that the rhetoric is heating up the reality in the political arena. Conservatives, who claim to stand for personal responsibility, are, in this matter, attempting to wash their hands of any responsibility. Just as they have nothing to do with the budget deficit, the economy or the war in Iraq.

No one is asking anybody to give up any rights. We're just asking for the leaders of the debate to act like adults.