Dana Loesch is among those suggesting the president dropped politics into his speech at the vigil for the victims of Friday’s horrific massacre in Connecticut. The left has viscously attacked her in return. (Caution: Strong language.)

What’s your take?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


  • Cordeiro

    Were Obama as wise as he and his followers allege, he would have taken a page from the Reagan playbook and delivered an address similar to the speech Reagan gave after the Challenger disaster. Sadly,The One is unable to simply mourn with those who mourn and comfort those in need of comfort. His inability to separate his role as leader from that of opportunistic politician is why he will never attain the greatness to which he aspires.

    • Steve M.

      As there was some limited call to end manned space flight (and even greater call to end civilian/volunteer space flight) following the Challenger disaster, President Reagan’s statements about going forward taking chances, continuing to explore with more shuttle flights and more crews and more volunteers could have been portrayed as political.
      While I think it’s important to take an apolitical step in honoring the victims of tragedies like these, I think to pretend that the President is ever outside of politics in our world dominated by politicized 24/7 media is naive.

  • Anonymous

    He was never one to let a crisis go to waste and he isn’t wasting this one.

    • Steve M.

      This is a line of argument I simply can’t understand. If the President sees a lack of gun control as a reason for this crisis, as one factor that allowed this tragedy to occur, wouldn’t it be irresponsible of him to not call for change? If a lawmaker believes that a policy could prevent future or further tragedy, shouldn’t they feel compelled to champion that policy?
      Yes, often times action in close proximity to a crisis ends up emotionally charged and logically misguided — but other times it takes crisis to enact the necessary change.

      • Anonymous

        Steve. You are correct that “If a lawmaker believes that a policy could prevent future or further tragedy”, they feel compelled to champion that policy. The critiques are not about his legitimacy of policy advocation but the time and forum for which he chose to begin championing it.

        As a viewer who was watching the President deliver what I believed to be a tremendously appropriate speech I was a little taken back by some of the rhetoric in the middle of the speech. I was pleased with how he finished and brought the topic back to the families and victims.

        To be honest, I am a bit torn on the speech. A part of me recognizes that the President had just met with families and his sentiments may have been a reflection of what they were saying to him and his desire to reassure them their deaths will not go in vain. On the other hand, this President absolutely LOVES to lecture Americans and hold himself up above the fray whenever the opportunity arises. Lecturer & Chief is a skill he strives at.

        All in all, I will give the President the benefit of the doubt on this one. He is the President. With that title some level of personal responsibility exists to assure the safety of his subjects. He may have been expressing those feelings.

        • Anonymous

          He never mentioned Fort Hood. 13 people were killed and 29 wounded and yet it didn’t get mentioned. Why?

          • Anonymous

            Great point.