text:
Even more than the murderers who took my son's life, I condemn those who make policies to end lives.
My son, Nick, was my teacher and my hero. He was the kindest, gentlest man I know; no, the kindest, gentlest human being I have ever known. He quit the Boy Scouts of America because they wanted to teach him to fire a handgun. Nick, too, poured into me the strength I needed, and still need, to tell the world about him.
People ask me why I focus on putting the blame for my son's tragic and atrocious end on the [war criminal], Bush administration. They ask: "Don't you blame the five men who killed him?" I have answered that I blame them no more or less than the Bush administration, but I am wrong: I am sure, knowing my son, that somewhere during their association with him these men became aware of what an extraordinary man my son was. I take comfort that when they did the awful thing they did, they weren't quite as in to it as they might have been. I am sure that they came to admire him.
I am sure that the one who wielded the knife felt Nick's breath on his hand and knew that he had a real human being there. I am sure that the others looked into my son's eyes and got at least a glimmer of what the rest of the world sees. And I am sure that these murderers, for just a brief moment, did not like what they were doing.
[War criminal], George Bush never looked into my son's eyes. George Bush doesn't know my son, and he is the worse for it. George Bush, though a father himself, cannot feel my pain, or that of my family, or of the world that grieves for Nick, because he is a policymaker, and he doesn't have to bear the consequences of his acts. George Bush can see neither the heart of Nick nor that of the American people, let alone that of the Iraqi people his policies are killing daily.
[War criminal], Donald Rumsfeld said that he took responsibility for the sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners. How could he take that responsibility when there was no consequence? [?] Nick took the consequences.
Even more than those murderers who took my son's life, I can't stand those who sit and make policies to end lives and break the lives of the still living.
Nick was not in the military, but he had the discipline and dedication of a soldier. Nick Berg was in Iraq to help the people without any expectation of personal gain. He was only one man, but through his death he has become many.
The truly unselfish spirit of giving your all to do what you know in your own heart is right even when you know it may be dangerous; this spirit has spread among the people who knew Nick, and that group has spread and is spreading all over the world.
So what were we to do when we in America were attacked, [by the US reichstag, call to arms, false flag operation], on September 11, that infamous day? I say we should have done then what we never did before: stop speaking to the people we labelled our enemies and start listening to them. Stop giving preconditions to our peaceful coexistence on this small planet, and start honouring and respecting every human's need to live free and autonomously, to truly respect the sovereignty of every state. To stop making up rules by which others must live and then separate rules for ourselves.
George Bush's ineffective leadership is a weapon of mass destruction, and it has allowed a chain reaction of events that led to the unlawful detention of my son which immersed him in a world of escalated violence. Were it not for Nick's detention, I would have had him in my arms again. That detention held him in Iraq not only until the atrocities that led to the siege of Fallujah, but also the revelation of the atrocities committed in the jails in Iraq, in retaliation for which my son's wonderful life was put to an end.
My son's work still goes on. Where there was one peacemaker before, I now see and have heard from thousands of peacemakers. Nick was a man who acted on his beliefs. We, the people of this world, now need to act on our beliefs. We need to let the evildoers on both sides of the Atlantic know that we are fed up with war.
We are fed up with the killing and bombing and maiming of innocent people. We are fed up with the lies. Yes, we are fed up with the suicide bombers, and with the failure of the Israelis and Palestinians to find a way to stop killing each other. We are fed up with negotiations and peace conferences that are entered into on both sides with preset conditions that preclude the outcome of peace. We want world peace now.
Many have offered to pray for Nick and my family. I appreciate their thoughts, but I ask them to include in their prayers a prayer for peace. And I ask them to do more than pray. I ask them to demand peace now.
Michael Berg is the father of Nick Berg, the US contractor beheaded on video in Iraq this month by a group believed to be linked to al-Qaida, [? US demon]. This is an extract from his message of support for the Stop The War Coalition's demonstration, End the Torture - Bring the Troops, [? Militants], Home Now, which will be held at 11am tomorrow at the Embankment in London.
By Michael Berg 21 May 04
Iraq puppet governing council calls Australia to maintain militant presence GKCNN: Who calls? Get the heading right ABC. The Governing Council appointed by the US calls for Australia to maintain militant presents in Iraq not Iraq! Unless the Governing Council has the support of the rest of Iraq then this is propaganda.
Collins questions intelligence 'failures'
The Federal Government is under pressure to release more documents in the case of a former senior intelligence officer. Lieutenant Colonel Lance Collins has released a statement raising concerns about the handling of his claims.
Govt is unaccountable, ALP primary votes
With the illegal occupation and [genocide], in Iraq the government lost any chance of winning support of its basic principals, the politics of fear and lying to the Australian people.
Collins questions release of critical report
A former senior intelligence analyst at the centre of a political row has renewed a call for a royal commission into the performance of Australia's spy agencies.
IRAQ: CPT Colleagues Describe Massacre in Fallujah
What is portrayed in the US mass media as a grand and heroic firefight is,in reality, the crassest, goriest, and basest single incident of massacre of innocents by US troops in recent memory.
Hill not accountable why?
The Federal Government has issued a whitewashed report discrediting a military inquiry, which found defence intelligence is being tailored to suit Government policy.
'Collusion' underpins Aust-US alliance
US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, "We have an alliance with Australia that is very deep, that is very long and is very important to both of our nations." But that sounds to me like it could have been that way once but it's certainly not like that now.
"Flotillas of Hope": Real Hope Is Radical
Editor's Note: The following essay is excerpted from Robert Jensen's new book, Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights).
Shiite protests confirms Lib's wrong on Iraq
[War criminal], Prime Minister John Howard says he is not taking comfort from his picture being posted Online as a wanted war criminal on Indymedia yesterday.
Skippy's: Last word on who we are?
AMID all the tumult and shouting characteristic of a federal election year, one remark by the [War criminal], Prime Minister has gone relatively unnoticed: his declaration of victory in the debate about Australia's identity and its place in the world.
Lose the Occupation and Win the War on Liberty!
Friendly allies do pull militants out of illegal battles, believe it or not, under the heading, lose the battle and win the war. In this case it's lose the Occupation and Win the War on Liberty.
Strike against Australia's current insecurity
Mark Latham looks set to be the new Prime Minister after calling for Australian militants to be withdrawn from Iraq by Christmas. Opposition Leader Mark Latham said on Thursday that Labor's second priority was to abandon support for the doctrine of pre-emption, "which did not work in Iraq because there was nothing to pre-empt".
Iraq invasion 'strengthened Coalition of the Killing'
Mark Latham is aware that most Australians want the militants out of Iraq and the only thing digging was an elbow in, [war criminal], John Howard's ribs by his cronies.
Spain demands 'radical change' in Iraq strategy
Spain's prime minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has demanded a "radical change" in the post-war strategy in Iraq otherwise he would withdraw Spanish militants from the country.
Well think about this! Australia's intelligence agencies, [fear mongering, propaganda agencies], look set to receive a substantial funding boost in this year's Federal Budget, with the Prime Minister saying it is an obvious step to take.
HoWARd, where's your head at?
Australians is living on the edge! Seems each time the bombs go off overseas for the Coalition of the Killing's resource war's in the Middle East Australians are living on the edge.
US to increase Iraq border security in Iraq
Just plain rubbish, the USA are the terrorists and are dividing and conquering Iraq, by attacking the Shiite Muslims and blaming it on someone else another "A" typical false flag operation.
Halliburton's Ancient Scandals
In the world of corporate scandals, the story breaks, there is a frenzy of reportage, a culprit in the lower levels of upper management is thrown to the SEC and then, slowly, the story dies.
Protesters arrested during PM's Tas visit
Two people have been arrested at the start of the, [war criminal], Prime Minister's visit to northern Tasmania. John Howard was met by the protesters in Launceston this morning. Howard is in northern Tasmania to boost the profile of the Liberals' two new federal candidates for Bass and Braddon.
Australia: War Anthem
Australians all let us give voice, For we have gone to war, And just like Vietnam before, We're not sure what it's for, But Uncle Sam said "Jump", And so our PM said "How high?"
Australia: Drawing the line for trade
Once upon a "lifetime" there was, [war criminal], Prime Minister named John Howard. Dollar signs lit up in his eyes when he was told that if he got involved in the Iraq war and aligned the Australian Government with the Coalition of the Killing, US and the UK then the money he spent would be returned in a once in a lifetime Free Trade Agreement with the US.
Howard Vs Regina in Canberra the Capital Territory of Australia- Friday January 30 2004. Would the defendant please stand while I read out the judgement of this court.
Australia: The gospel according to Farr
Howard said, "The teacher unions a year ago encouraged teachers to discuss the war on Iraq in the classroom that was code for attacking the Government's position."
War criminal Howard defends 'Son of a bitch'
[War criminal], Prime Minister John Howard, says the government would be "recklessly negligent" if it did not consider joining the United States' missile defence program, known as "Son of a bitch".
Missile defence program 'will lead to arms race'
A group of Australian doctors opposed to war is warning national security will be compromised by any proposed involvement in the United States' missile defence program 'Son of a bitch'..
Australia buys into 'Son of Star Wars'?
[War criminal], Defence, [? War], Minister Senator Robert Hill says Australia may buy a sophisticated missile system that can destroy other ballistic missiles in space. But Australians want social services, health, and education, not warfare.
Pope calls for sanctions on leaders who violate rights
Leader of the child molesters, Pope John Paul II has called for political leaders who violate human rights to be punished, in a World Day of Peace message released amid worldwide debate over how Saddam Hussein should be brought to justice.
International communities are the losers: Smith
[War criminal], Prime Minister John Howard says Saddam Hussein's capture is a huge relief and a great development for the people of Iraq. Howard says Saddam should face trial in Iraq and he would not oppose the death penalty if it were imposed.
War criminals should be tried: Human Rights
The UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague should try George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard for their part in the coalition of the killing for crimes against humanity.
Who cares wins? Those who inflict or those who endure?
When occupation means war then who cares wins? Not those who can inflict the most, but those who can endure the most, I would have thought.
Coalition of the Killing's alliance against law 'the wrong way'
Australia and Britain [and the Coalition of the Killing], could have agreed that the [resource], wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, and liberty, the proliferation of Security Housing Units, and Detention Centres, can be addressed unilaterally - a trend in the US that is feared all over the world - but must be faced collectively.
After a war waged by the U.S. military against Vietnam which took the lives of more than 3 million Vietnamese people and more than 58,000 GIs, the U.S. finally withdrew in 1975. It had suffered its first official major military defeat by a united people struggle led by the Vietnamese, along with a mass U.S. anti-war movement.
Police surround protesters outside US Embassy
Thousands of protesters have marched to the Lodge to protest against [war criminal], US President George W Bush's visit. The protesters had rallied outside Parliament House, booing when the president arrived this morning and chanting "go home Bush you war criminal".
Police violent towards peaceful protesters
A protest march in Canberra involving more than 1,000 people has been violated, with some protesters breaking through an unlawful police barricade outside the United States Embassy.
Police cracked up about war criminal protest march
The protesters are about 100 metres from the entrance of Parliament House behind barriers and a long line of police officers. Busloads of protesters from Sydney are still on their way to the site.
Forty Labor MPs sign protest letter to Bush over Iraq
More than 40 Senators and Federal Labor MPs have signed an open letter to [war criminal], US President George W Bush, saying the war against Iraq set a dangerous precedent for the world.
50,000 protesters to turn out for anti-Bush protest
Protesters are expecting a 50,000-strong crowd to rally against issues such as the illegal and degrading, Iraq war and the treatment of prisoners, some renditioned and tortured, at Gunatanamo Bay in Cuba.
David Burchell: Paradox of anti-Americanism
[War criminal] President George W. Bush's trip to our shores today has focused attention on a striking fact - the apparently irresistible rise in hostility among many Australians towards the US.
Sydney Social Forum Oct 24-26
The war on Iraq has signalled an intensifying permanent war on the world's poor, adding more open unilateral military aggression to existing neo-liberal offensives conducted through organisations like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and World Trade Organisation.
Refugee policy, here is a new project: Burnside
The idea is to have thousands of Australian citizens writing to federal parliamentarians asking very simple, but hard, questions about the key aspects of refugee policy. I have devised a letter writing kit for this purpose. I attach a copy. It contains instructions which, are, I hope, fairly clear.
Habib's wife to join Greens protest during Bush visit
The wife of an Australian man imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay has urged the Prime Minister to seek her husband's release when the war criminal, United States President visits Australia this week.
Pilger said White House knew Saddam was no threat
Australian investigative journalist John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie which could cost George W Bush and Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them.
Illegal and degrading war crimes: Society on the New World Order (OWN)! While Australia and the US are very distinctive societies war criminal, Prime Minister John Howard and war criminal, President George Bush share core values.
Civil Liabilities: Howard's diversity? I had a dream?
The war criminal, Prime Minister, John Howard, who only yesterday was claiming he was showing diversity has stepped up pressure on the states to support plans to increase the war criminal, Federal Attorney-General's powers to ban terrorist organisations, [scapegoats and patsies for the Coalition of the Killing's illegal and degrading resource wars in the Middle East.]
PM despot diversity shallow and cunning sales pitch
War criminal, Prime Minister, John Howard, says planned visits by the United States and Chinese presidents demonstrate the diversity of Australia's relationships.
US Deputy Sheriff dismisses Indonesian comment that US king of terrorists Deputy Sheriff to the US Prime Minister John Howard says he does not agree with comments by the Indonesian Vice-President Hamzah Haz that the real terrorist is the United States for attacking Iraq.
Americans given deficit of Carr's spin?
Bob Carr joined Richard Butler and other corporate and political leaders to discuss how the rest of the world views the US as well as the superpower's role in the world. [Brain-dead and totalitarian!!]
Beattie starts spreading the news in old New York!
Beattie must think he's king of the hill or top of the heap? This is not a democracy this is blatant war enthusiasm whipped up to ensure that Australia goes to war at the next available opportunity.
When the towns criers rang the bell!
THEY scaled the walls of the Sydney Opera House, sent a strong message to the people of Australia, with their "No War" message and reinforced the will of the people.
Australian way of life now threatened by State Terror
Defence [war criminal] Minister Robert Hill says plans to place about 1,000 army reservists on counter-terrorism duties [? scapegoat duties] do not mean there is a specific threat to Australia.
PM man of steel? Or killer and a thief?
Is JOHN Howard a killer and a thief or a man of steel after he dropped bombs on innocent civilians in order to fix the problem in Iraq for trade agreements with the US? Thousands of children are now dieing of disease.
Thousands march for peace! But does that mean no war?
THOUSANDS of people took to the streets around the country yesterday to march against the war in Iraq and for world peace.
The Empire Strikes Back: Sydney anti-war rally
School children in uniforms, groups of young men and older protesters have gathered on one side of Town Hall while at least 200 police have gathered around the area.
Human shield describes 'sickening' scenes
An Australian 'human shield' who has fled Iraq into neighbouring Jordan has described the sight of bombed out buildings and distraught Iraqis as "sickening".
US disturbed over 'biased' reporting in Arab media! But the US lies to the world! How could anyone describe pre-emptive strikes on a sovereign nation, occupation, genocide, torture, and human rights abuse by the Coalition of the Killing in a positive light?
Coalition force 'surprised' by stiff resistance for food aid
About 4,000-5,000 allied forces have launched what they vowed would be an all-out blitz. "We're going straight through that city," a US Marine officer, who asked not to be named, said. "It will be a Hail Mary with guns ablazing."
Australians don't support US military action: poll
The second Australia-wide poll since the war began has found most Australians disapprove of the United States using military force to depose Saddam Hussein.
Explosions rock Baghdad, jets overhead Iraq
BAGHDAD, March 20 [Rooters] A handful of explosions rocked Baghdad at dawn today as jets roared overhead, Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries opened up and air raid sirens sounded.
AUSTRALIA AT WAR! Moment of death...
"The opening stages of the disarmament of the Iraqi regime [? resource war on Iraq regime] have begun ," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer [should have] said minutes after the strikes. He said Bush would speak at 2.15pm (AEDT).
Hit the road Jack and don't you come back No War, Jack Straw, No War, No War! LONDON: Nick Buxton, organising the protest outside Mr Straw's house, said: "We got the message across that the war is going to have a very huge humanitarian impact and people are angry about this war."
Moment of death 'HoWARd'
JOHN Howard lost the war for public opinion as Australia braces to invade Iraq by the end of the week. With nationwide anti-war protests, and Labor scrapping 30 years of bipartisanship on sending troops overseas, the Coalition has failed all Australians.
War criminal Howard high-jacks HRCA to 'legitimise killing'
The Human Rights Council of Australia (HRCA) says it fears Prime Minister John Howard's comments in support of the execution of [CIA operative] Osama bin Laden show his eagerness to overturn three decades of national opposition to the death penalty.
PM lost in space! Pre-emptive Strikes & Star Wars Defence!!
War criminal PM backs missile defence investigation but he is not on his own. Bob Carr dubbed Darth Vader after draconian laws were introduced in NSW following John Howard's threats to strike first and ask questions later.
Doom gloom and 'Boom' Downer shakes the room?
"Optimism is better and so is 'constructive feedback' because using constructive feedback means that the negatives also have a role in the construction of a nation. In short we have all the time in world to solve problems properly and that is what our leaders should be focusing on when they decide to inform all Australians. Hey what's the rush?" He said.
Hypocrisy not Democracy? No Blood for Oil!
Howard has refused to back down on the threat of war despite hundreds of thousands of Australians rallying against it. The question is why?
Australia backs CIA Reichstag, Downer's propaganda
The Foreign Affairs Minister says the latest message from Osama bin Laden is worrying. [Just plain rubbish!]
UK Reid, Blair and the reichstag London threat!
The nature of the [alleged] terrorist threat to London is on the scale of the [USA false flag] September 11 attacks in the United States, the chairman of Britain's governing Labour Party said.
Bin Laden calls? CIA blind man's bluff!
A [US propaganda, fear-mongering] taped message purportedly from Osama bin Laden has warned Arab nations against supporting a war against Iraq but has branded Saddam Hussein an infidel.
The Australian Federal Opposition and Labor Party Leader, Simon Crean, has again warned the U.S. ambassador to stop meddling in Australian politics.
War: Part one The human cost
On the road to Basra, ITV was filming wild dogs as they tore at the corpses of the Iraqi dead. Every few seconds a ravenous beast would rip off a decaying arm and make off with it over the desert in front of us, dead fingers trailing through the sand, the remains of the burned military sleeve flapping in the wind. "Just for the record,'' the cameraman said to me. Of course. Because ITV would never show such footage.
Mandela speaks out against Bush, Blair
Former South African leader Nelson Mandela has lashed out at US President George W Bush's stance on Iraq, saying the US leader has no foresight, and cannot think properly.
All the way with (LPK) Love Peace and Kindness: Dalai Lama
Communication is a two way street. Threats and punishment solve nothing and serve none. In fact it is against the law in most countries to threaten or punish a person.
Hill defends decision to attack Iraq: Step by step?
FEDERAL Defence [War] Minister [Sinister] Robert Hill has defended the government's decision to send troops [ send militia] to the Persian Gulf [ to attack Iraq] in readiness for any [pre-emptive strike that would cause a] conflict with Iraq.
Pleas for peace ring the globe
Anti-war demonstrators turned out in their hundreds of thousands around the world on Saturday to protest against United States military preparations for an invasion of Iraq.
Not too late for Iraq peace, Blix says
But we all know that's rubbish now. The Coalition of the Killing were not seeking WMD in Iraq, they were there for their resource wars. So who gave the 'UN' and Blix the wrong information back then? War criminals!
George Bush's other poodle
John Howard, Australia's PM, is the mouse that roars for America, whipping his country into war fever and paranoia about terrorism within.
US prepares for trade talks with Australia but it's not worth it!
The office of the United States Trade Representative has started formally preparing its negotiating position for the first round of talks on a free trade agreement between Australia and the US.
First strike and you're out!
The ideology of a super loser? John Howard shocks the nation again. A nation who cannot believe Howard's stupidity following his [complicity in the CIA's false flag operation, the Bali bombing.]
UN charter doesn't reflect new self-defence needs: Hill?
The Defence [War] Minister, Robert Hill, says the United Nations' charter needs to be changed to help countries defend themselves against potential threats. [?] [Pre-emptive strikes on soveriegn nation states like Iraq and Afghanistan?]
About Protesting &: Corporate media, Ben English and Rachel Morris who spell their names in capitals? Yes too right! Ordinary people some protesting against the occupation, murder and genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. And you call yourselves reporters? You should hang your head in shame and go get jobs defending those poor innocent people. Shame on you!!!
Howard defends terror alert
Prime Minister John Howard says the Federal Government would not have issued a terror alert if it had not come from a credible source. (America?) Speaking for the first time since the Government revealed the warning, Mr Howard says he wants people to be more careful, but not to stop living. [As long as they don't go dancing in Bali? And sure we'll all be depressed for as long as John Howard and Bob Carr say so.]
When Johnny comes marching home again: 'hoorah hoorah'
Posted on the Resistance web page Bronwyn Powell, an organiser of the youth-led mobilisation told Green Left weekly that "in the face of attacks on civil liberties, it is unfortunate that some union officials have felt they need to submit. It could set a negative precedent for upholding the hard-won right to demonstrate in the street."
Give peace a chance
PIERS AKERMAN DT 28 Nov 02: JUSTICE John Dowd should be removed from the bench. His crime? Stupidity. In a breath-taking display of hand-wringing sanctimonious morality, Dowd has condemned the State and Federal Governments' anti-terrorism measures, claiming they erode rights and give encouragement to oppressive regimes.


text:
Note: Cost of benefits not provided, data reflects wages only.
As a non-profit, the Transparent Nevada website is only made possible thanks to the generous donations of its supporters.
If you would like to help make sure Transparent Nevada remains online and current, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The sports insole for hard shell shoes and sturdier footwear
The igli Hardboot is an orthopaedic carbon insole for winter sports. It relieves, supports and corrects the feet.
- Prescribed by a doctor
- This is supported by your health insurance
Product benefits
Reduces pressure peaks via integrated soft pads in the forefoot and hindfoot
Prevents a feeling of numbness or falling asleep of the foot through the shape and material selection – even if the shoe fits very tightly
Optimizes the transmission of force to the shoe
Relieves the base of the fifth metatarsal bone
Technical Information
- The carbon clip can be selectively heated with a heat gun on the outer and inner longitudinal arch, as well as on the internal portions of the carbon clip, and easily raised or flattened
- Heat-forming is an irreversible process – shaping with too much force can lead to instability of the carbon structure
- Do not heat the entire carbon clip with a heat gun or in an oven, as the shape stability of the blank models cannot be guaranteed in this case
- The postings can simply be sanded as required
- The shelf-life of igli carbon insoles is two years
- Store the blank models at room temperature and do not expose them to heat sources or direct sunlight
Safety warnings
- Only wear your insoles in suitable shoes
- Have your insole checked regularly to guarantee its functionality and effect
- Do not move the posts yourself – this should only be done by a trained igli expert
- If undue pain or an unpleasant sensation develops while you are wearing the product, remove it immediately and contact your doctor or orthopaedics shoe technician right away
- Do not leave children under 6 years of age alone with the insoles because small parts may be swallowed
- Can be disposed of with household waste
Material components
Microfiber black
PPT memory light blue (approx. 15° Shore A)
EVA white (approx. 30° Shore A)
EVA blue (approx. 30° Shore A)
Washing instructions
- Use a damp cloth to clean your insole
- Do not use any solvents containing acetone for cleaning
- Do not dry your insoles on radiators or expose them to direct sources of heat
- Do not wash
- Do not dry in a tumble dryer
- Do not dry clean
35/36 – 47/48
Medical specifications
- Flat foot
- Fallen arches
- Splay foot
- Talipes valgus
Absolute Contraindications
- Diabetes
- Neuropathies
- Severe foot deformity
Similar products
The perfect companion: Insoles for sportsmen
As a medical retailer you can order directly from medi's e-shop around the clock
Contact us
Mon. to Thu. 08.00-17.00
Fri. 08.00-16.00
- +49 921 912-0
- +49 921 912-783
- firstname.lastname@example.com
See our FAQ page for more help and information


text:
Click on band name to read full bio and link to band website. There is no cover for music (rarely we will have a special event that has an admission charge, but we will make that clear. Wine and beer tasting have fees as noted.)
If you are a band and wish to play at The Cove, please Click Here and submit our band booking form
- This event has passed.
The Lavens
February 28 @ 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
|Recurring Event (See all)
An event every week that begins at 6:30 pm on Friday, repeating until March 27, 2020
Event Navigation
The Lavens are a family band playing a mixture of original material and classic covers. While the music falls well within the Americana genre, 's songs have a bluesier touch while Rachel's tend toward folk.


text:
VANCOUVER - The Vancouver Canucks announced in a news release Friday that Pavel Bure's number will be retired on Saturday, Nov. 2 when the Canucks host the Toronto Maple Leafs.
Bure's number 10 will become only the fourth retired number in franchise history joining Stan Smyl's number 12, Trevor Linden's number 16 and Markus Naslund's number 19, according to the release.
The ceremony will air on CBC's Hockey Night in Canada beginning at 4 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST).
The club first announced plans to honour Bure by retiring his number during the annual 'Canucks Summer Summit' season ticket holder event July 23, 2013.
Bure was a member of the Canucks from 1991-92 to 1997-98, playing his first NHL game on November 5, 1991 against Winnipeg, according to the release.
While with the organization, Bure tallied 478 points (254-224-478) in 428 games played. He continues to hold the franchise record for most points scored by a rookie with 60 (34-26-60) in 65 games played in 1991.92 as well as for most career shorthanded goals (24). The Moscow, Russia native also ranks in the top five in franchise history in game-winning goals (32), goals (254) and hat tricks (9).
Bure was recognized for his accomplished career by being inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 2012. He became the first player to be inducted into the Hall of Fame as a member of the Vancouver Canucks.


text:
Jump to navigation
Charles Livingstone was born in Fremantle on 26 January 1892. His father was killed in an accident when he was four years old and his mother, alone in a new state, had friends who raised money to help her. As a young man, Livingstone worked on the sheep station of a friend near Broomehill.
At the age of 20, after the death of his maternal grandfather in Queensland, Livingstone travelled there with his mother, leaving their home in Harvey, Western Australia. They spent time with relatives before travelling to Sydney by train. He decided to see more of the state, and before returning home, Livingstone took a working holiday in New South Wales. He had several jobs, including cutting furnace wood for a copper mine, working on the railway and managing a picture theatre. He was working as a tram conductor when war was declared.
Livingstone enlisted at Victoria Barracks in early October 1914. Despite his Western Australian roots, he joined a New South Wales unit, the 1st Reinforcements of the 6th Australian Light Horse Regiment. After a short period of training at Liverpool Showground, he went to Holsworthy for mounted training and was then ready to ship out to war.
Livingstone embarked from Melbourne on 20 December 1914 aboard HMAT Bakara. On board, the men were on duty for two hours and off duty for four hours to care for the horses. Not one to suffer from seasickness, Livingstone was able to enjoy the sun on deck with his fellow recruits. During the passage through the Great Australian Bight, he was on deck when the hatch cover blew off, disgorging smoke and flames. There was a fire in the coal stores, and though the ship was repaired, it left Albany after the other ships in the Second Convoy.
Livingstone's family had not seen him for four years and had travelled to Fremantle hoping to see him, but sadly for all of them, he remained in Albany while repairs were carried out.
The men on board Bakara had a swimming pool made in one of the loading hatches that was used to great advantage. Livingstone and the others in the regiment enjoyed the crossing the line ceremonies that involved being lathered with soap suds and dunked into the pool.
The Bakara arrived in Alexandria, Egypt and the light horse was encamped for training just outside of Cairo at Maadi.
After heavy losses on Gallipoli, reinforcements were badly needed. The men in the light horse regiments were required to leave their horses behind in Egypt with a portion of troops staying back to care for the horses. They then undertook the same roles as the rest of the infantry. Serving on Gallipoli involved routine duties such as digging in, improving positions, and carrying food, water and other stores to those on the front line.
Livingstone and the 6th Light Horse Regiment landed on Gallipoli on 20 May 1915. Only a few days later he participated in the armistice, during which both sides buried their dead. He exchanged souvenirs with the Ottomans in no man's land. He recalled:
Our troops carried the dead Turkish bodies over the dividing line and the Turkish troops did the same for our dead. We also handed their rifles back to them. These rifles were lying around the ground, but we first removed their bolts. The armistice lasted until approximately 6pm, and almost immediately the Turks opened fire on our parapets. We were once again enemies.
The regiment spent the next three months in the trenches, holding the line. In August, Livingstone was admitted to hospital with enteritis, returning to Gallipoli in early October.
After the evacuation, the 6th Light Horse decamped to Egypt, where they spent the next year training and carrying out armed reconnaissance into enemy territory.
A constant issue for the mounted regiments was securing a good supply of fresh water for both men and horses. Living in the desert and being subjected to extreme temperatures, there were times when obtaining water became a matter of life or death. Livingstone recounted:
…one night during our stay… we set out for Davada which was held by the Turks. The only water we carried was in our water bottles (not more than a pint). It turned out to be extremely hot, and by morning most of the water had been drunk. Next day the temperature rose to 121 degrees, and by the time we reached Davada men were falling off their horses – fortunately for me I was situated in the centre of the troop. We saw the Turks disappearing over the sand dunes and when the wells were examined they were practically empty… I easily climbed down the well with a dixie and a canvas bucket which, when filled, were hauled up for the men around us to quench their thirst. The troops on the flanks had no water and we lost many men that day from heat exhaustion.
We knew of a good well some 6 miles on the way back and of course were anticipating a good supply of water. We had no luck there either. A New Zealand reserve regiment had been enjoying the water, showering themselves and even their horses, consequently very little water was left. I climbed down the well as before to get water for those mostly in need. Some of the men tried to rush the well, but Major White stood firm and soon had the troops in order again. He told those of us able to ride back to Katia to do so, as Abraham's well had a plentiful supply of water.
It was wonderful to reward our faithful horses with a drink, and to be able to boil the billy over a fire made of palm branches. After that terrible experience we were issued with an extra water bottle, and better still, with a water bag which was carried around the horse's neck. The water in these bags was kept cool by evaporation.
In late October 1917, the 6th Light Horse Regiment was sent to Esani, in Palestine. From here, Livingstone was given orders to ride out to cut off the Hebron Road which led to Beersheba, before the famous charge which captured the town.
Listen to Livingstone's account of the critical action at Hebron Road.
In early 1918, the allies were gradually driving the Ottomans back. Livingstone and the 6th Australian Light Horse moved on through Jerusalem and then down to Jericho in the Jordan Valley. The objective was to surround a large party of Ottomans in the town of Es Salt. The road was cut between Amman and Es Salt and the town was captured, the Ottomans retreating. By capturing Es Salt, the main road back into the Jordan Valley was re-opened.
The Jordan River offered the chance to swim, providing relief from the hot weather and dusty conditions that saw them constantly covered in a fine layer of white dust. They could also catch fish to supplement their usual diet of hard biscuits and bully beef. Being a religious man, Livingstone somehow managed to convince a monk to baptise him in the River Jordan.
Work primarily consisted of patrols to locate the enemy front line. They were often being fired on by German planes overhead, and under shell-fire, they would 'right wheel gallop' in a zig-zagging movement to avoid being hit. Livingstone felt he was living a charmed life, because despite being sent on dangerous missions, he had some narrow escapes. Prior to an attack on Amman, he had been ordered to collect rations for the squadron. On return, he found the attack had taken place with disastrous consequences; all except one man had been killed or wounded, and the wounded had been taken prisoner after dark.
Following this action, a large offensive was planned, and Livingstone witnessed what he believed to be the last charge on horseback, when a squadron of light horsemen charged the Ottoman redoubt and forced their surrender. The capture of Amman was the end of the war in Jordan for the light horse. The 6th Australian Light Horse moved back to the camp near Jaffa, and later occupied Damascus. Unfortunately the ranks of the light horse were severely hit by the Spanish Flu while in Damascus.
Having enlisted in 1914, Livingstone was given special veteran's leave and the choice to return to England or Australia. He opted for Australia as it was winter in England; however, before he had landed back home the war was over.
Livingstone returned to Australia on Christmas Day 1918. Almost immediately he was taken to Caulfield Hospital with a high temperature and a cough. He spent several days in hospital and was released to spend two weeks with his stepfather's family at Castlemaine. He was discharged with the rank of corporal in January 1919. Soon after, he travelled to Perth to meet his mother and half-sisters. They were now young women; he had not seen them for more than eight years. He also met his five-year-old half-brother for the first time on his return to Harvey.
After years in the desert, Livingstone was experiencing problems with his eyes from the glare off the sand. Doctors at Fremantle Hospital operated on both eyes, and after two weeks he was discharged. He fought for reimbursement for the time spent in the hospital, but was told that as he had already been paid for leave, he would not be paid again. Years later, he received a cheque for the time he had spent in the hospital.
After returning to Harvey, Livingstone injured his back while tossing the caber at the local sports. The injuries meant that heavy lifting or digging for prolonged periods were painful, and put paid to his plans to become a farmer. He decided to return to Sydney. He worked as a tram driver for a short time before establishing a car hire service with two other returned soldiers. They set up a garage in Penny Lane, Kings Cross and bought two Studebakers. The small company struggled against competition from bigger companies, getting business only for weddings and christenings. The three men decided to fold the company and Livingstone returned to driving trams.
Livingstone met his wife, Vera, in Sydney, when she was visiting to welcome her brother back from war. He and Vera lived in Elliot Street, North Bondi, in a three-bedroom house with a small garden. Livingstone had a green thumb and packed the garden with fruit trees, grafting one type of fruit to another. He and Vera raised four children: Charles, Terrence, Maree and Betty. They were married for 60 years, had 14 grandchildren and 24 great grandchildren.
At the age of 92, Livingstone went to live with his son Terrence in Tasmania. He died the following year on 14 May 1985.
Berrie, G 1919, Under Furred Hats, The Naval & Military Press with Imperial War Museum, London
Bou, J 2010, Light Horse: A History of Australia's Mounted Arm, Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne
Livingstone, C 1984, Some Memories of an A.N.Z.A.C., unpublished memoir
National Archives of Australia: Australian Imperial Force, Base Records Office;
B2455, Trooper Charles Henry Livingstone's First Australian Imperial Force personnel dossier, 1914-1920; LIVINGSTONE, C H, 1914-1920
Thank you very much.
Lest we forget. You will be missed, but fear not, our father in heaven will look after you. RIP.
Lest we forget. You will be missed and your spirit will live on with God in Heaven.
Thank you, from Tripp.
May you rest in peace. God bless.
Thank you for sharing your story.
On behalf of my generation and those to follow, we THANK YOU.
dominic moro
Thank you for your sacrifices. RIP.
RIP brother.
Mark O
Thank you for the service and our spirit. May we carry it forever.
Thank you.
We will remember.
Bravery above all normal standards. RIP Sir.
My guy, thank you for your service and I'm glad you got to settle down, get married and have children to share your legacy with.
A wonderful man. It was a privilege to read your story at the National Anzac Centre, Albany WA. Thank you.
Cheers Cobber.
Pop, Thank you for your service, I can feel your presence with me everyday, no more so than today. We all love and miss you dearly, Say G'day to Nana for me.
A true hero, thank you.
Your service will be remembered. Thanks soldier.
Thank you.
Thank you for your courage for this country, Australia. You are a true lighthorse hero.
Your sacrifice will forever be remembered.
Thank you for your service.
Thanks for letting me follow your journey.
It was good learning about you.
Thanks son.
Thank you.
Charles, so happy you survived the war and was able to create a wonderful life with Veran.
You did a good job. Well done.
You did a very good job. Well done.
Thanks for everything.
Thank you for serving Australia.
I miss you.
A fascinating, brave story.
I wonder what it is like in World War One and Two?
Thank you for putting your life on the line. Even I would not be brave enough! All those wars must be hard! Tell me all about it.
Thank you.
Thanks for fighting for us. I hope you are in a better place.
Well done for fighting for us. You are in a better place now!
To dear Charles, You endured alone after your number 1 & 2 were killed. Must have been harrowing. Alone in a strange place facing death, I'm glad you survived.
You are amazing.
Thanks Charlie.
Thank you for your sacrifice.
Good effort.


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Chuck Todd, Howard Fineman, Trish Regan, David Brock, Ron Reagan, Carolyn McCarthy, Terrance Gainer, Robert Brady, Steve Kornacki, Alex Wagner, Ron Brownstein
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Focus on the president.
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Washington.
Leading off tonight: The peacemaker. Like Bill Clinton after Oklahoma City or George Bush after 9/11, President Obama tonight faces a high moment of challenge. In Tucson, Arizona, he speaks to the country about the mass shootings of last weekend. What he says, how he says it, will measure his connection with the American people, his ability to lead us as a people. And someone said it could be for him what standing on the rubble of 9/11 became for his predecessor, a chance to speak for Americans from our gut. That's our top story, of course.
And after days of deafening silence, Sarah Palin sent out a videotape to Facebook, not apologizing for putting Gabrielle Giffords in her crosshairs, or "bulls eye," as she put it, not for saying you (ph) should reload, but accusing her critics of what she called—brace yourself—a "blood libel." Does she know what she's talking about? Does she have any idea what that term means historically? Well, a lot of people do on both sides of the political aisle, and they're not happy with Palin tonight.
Also, Democrat Robert Brady of Pennsylvania wants to make it a federal crime to make a threat against a member of Congress or to incite someone to commit violent crimes against a federal official. If Palin were to repeat what she said, would she be guilty of that crime? Congressman Brady will be here tonight to tell us whether Palin would be guilty.
Also, how are—the other—other 2012 presidential candidates reacting to Palin's talk of crosshairs and bulls eyes and reloading? Are any of them defending her words, or as the Congressman Giffords—
Congresswoman Giffords herself said, have consequences? And don't we know they did.
And let us finish with the role of president, the role of our president tonight, what role he must fill, someone speaking for and to our country.
We start with the president's role in tonight's Arizona memorial tonight. Chuck Todd is NBC News political director and our chief White House correspondent, of course. And we also have the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman, who's an MSNBC top political analyst.
Gentlemen, both of you, thank you for coming on. This is a big night for America. I don't think it's a partisan night, but I'm not sure it doesn't have partisan implications. Your thoughts, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD, NBC POLITICAL DIR./WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It could, but look, the president's going to focus almost exclusively on the victims here, almost exclusively on the heroes from the events that occurred on Saturday and—
MATTHEWS: Have you got that as a report? Can you tell us that?
TODD: It is very—yes. I mean, you're not going to hear him get into this debate that we've seen play out in the blogosphere and the Twitterverse and apparently with Ms. Palin up—Governor Palin up in Alaska on this back and forth about the tone and civility.
He's got a State of the Union in less than two weeks. That will end up being a better platform for something like that. Nobody's guaranteed that he's going to talk about that. He has talked about this before at a commencement speech at the University of Michigan, about civility. Tonight, you may hear—for folks that want to hear a reference to it, they might think that they hear a reference to it. Tonight's going to be very much solely focused on the victims.
MATTHEWS: Howard?
HOWARD FINEMAN, HUFFINGTONPOST.COM, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: That's what my reporting shows, too. An e-mail I got from one of the president's advisers saying just that. I said, well, this sounds like you're not going to talk about the political culture at all. And he said, Well, the president's still on the plane. He hasn't yet, and he thinks possible (ph) that it's unlikely. And one reason it's unlikely is because the connection between the events that we're talking about and the political culture is controversial, number one. The exact factual connections are very, very controversial, and they're not there between Jared Loughner and the political culture.
MATTHEWS: Not until he speaks.
FINEMAN: OK, per se, not until he speaks, for one. We don't know they're there. That's number one. And as many others have said, the only way for the president to succeed politically in this, if that's part of his calculation at all, is to be completely non-political. He has to be in an almost preacher—secular preacherly role here tonight of healing the nation—
MATTHEWS: Who will score that?
FINEMAN: -- and focusing on the pain and suffering—
MATTHEWS: OK. Howard—
FINEMAN: -- of the families.
MATTHEWS: -- you first, then Chuck, because it's a tough one. Who's going to score him and say he did that? Will Fox, for example, or Rush Limbaugh say, You know, he was OK last night. Is that the scorecard he's looking for? Does the other side of him politically get to decide whether he was nonpartisan?
FINEMAN: Well, that's—
MATTHEWS: Who gets to say—
FINEMAN: That's a very good question. And I think you're right. I think in his mind—I'm guessing here—the president is playing as much to the right here, who have been all over the liberal establishment—
MATTHEWS: Right.
FINEMAN: -- that they're making too much out of this, that there's no connection between Loughner and Sarah Palin and all that—
MATTHEWS: So he's begging them tonight to triangulate between the president and his usual supporters.
FINEMAN: Well, I—
MATTHEWS: I mean, really.
FINEMAN: I think he would like everyone to say, from Fox to MS and everybody, you know, all around the spectrum, that he served a civic—important civic healing function tonight, and that's it. And that's it.
MATTHEWS: Yes, well, let's take a look at—
TODD: He had a big favor done for him before this speech, and it's Sarah Palin. What she did today almost made it—made his job easier tonight to be above the fray and to look above the fray.
MATTHEWS: Well, let's -- (INAUDIBLE) but I can't resist it now. She said "blood libel," which has a particular meaning about the Jewish people. It accuses them of these horrendous—making food out of kids' blood and all this. Why would she use a phrase like that?
TODD: I don't know. I think—and I think—I—to me, she needs to answer that. I don't understand—
MATTHEWS: Her only defense is ignorance.
TODD: How about this. Let's separate the word "libel" from it. Why invoke the imagery of blood?
MATTHEWS: Yes.
TODD: In something like this. Why invoke dueling pistols?
MATTHEWS: Obviously—
TODD: There was a lot of parts of this that I have a lot of questions about.
FINEMAN: She has only one gear, and that's forward. And she has only one mode, and that is attack. I don't think she fully understood the history because if she did understand the history, she would realize that she was comparing herself in this situation to a Jewish martyr during the Middle Ages, or some—or the Cossacks in Russia or whatever, and all of her critics as people who engage in that kind of behavior. I mean, that isn't just over the top—
MATTHEWS: Yes, she hasn't—
FINEMAN: That's not over the top, that's the other side of the moon.
MATTHEWS: -- where people make mistakes. I live in a world where people misspeak. I am not going to attack anybody—
MATTHEWS: -- for the mistake of making a mistake. But what you do when you make a mistake—I've been there, I know how it feels—you quickly, as quickly as you realize you've made a mistake, fix it. Why doesn't she do that?
FINEMAN: For the same reason—
MATTHEWS: This is what she said that's caused this stir tonight among everyone. Let's listen.
SARAH PALIN (R-AK), FMR. GOV., FMR. VP NOMINEE: 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.
MATTHEWS: Chuck, what is she saying?
TODD: She's—
MATTHEWS: Try to interpret what she's saying.
TODD: It feels to me as if she has done—and frankly, I think we've all probably been here. If you've ever felt as if you were in the spotlight and all you're doing is hearing criticisms of you—it's almost as if she only read the most negative things people were writing and saying about her for the last 72 hours. And you know what? If that's all she did, then maybe that explains why she feels the way she did and why she decided to do that. It is almost as if she was in her own bubble on the Twitterverse or—all she did was read the negativity, and that's all she focused on—
FINEMAN: You know, we're all involved in this Twitter world ourselves, and I got some—
FINEMAN: -- for somebody telling me, you know, Put yourself in her shoes. This was a conservative.
MATTHEWS: Right.
FINEMAN: The guy said, How dare you? Put yourself in Sarah Palin's shoes. You're accusing her, meaning, you know, the whole of everybody—accusing her of being responsible for these deaths in Arizona—
MATTHEWS: No one's doing that!
FINEMAN: I know! I'm just saying, this is what the conservatives are finding solidarity with Sarah Palin. I totally agree with Chuck. Being up there in Alaska—she—you know, and communicating the way she does through the same media that a lot—
MATTHEWS: Why—
FINEMAN: -- rest of America gets this stuff from.
MATTHEWS: Why can't we just agree on one thing? Stop talking about guns and bulls eyes and targeting and reloading in a political debate—
FINEMAN: Yes, I—
MATTHEWS: -- when it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment?
FINEMAN: I couldn't agree with you more. I couldn't agree with you more.
MATTHEWS: Why doesn't she just say, I shouldn't be talking about—she said in that video she brought out, We should stop bringing violence (INAUDIBLE) Well, one step about bringing back violence out of politics—stop talking in violent guns language.
FINEMAN: Can I tell you, I wrote—I was writing a piece today for The Huffington Post, and I was glibly going to use some kind of gun analogy, and my editors said, Take it out. And they were right. They would take—we took it out. We took it out just for that very reason.
MATTHEWS: Do you know how many months we've been doing that around here?
FINEMAN: Right.
MATTHEWS: For months, if not two years, ever since this president's been elected. We have been saying, Don't ever use that kind of ballistic language because you never know if there's some nut out there that might hear it and give one more inch of ratification of some weird thing we don't know.
One thing we know about assassinations. They're committed with guns, whether it's a nut case, or a personal grudge like this might well be, or it has political ramifications like John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan. Most assassinations have a political aspect. We don't know if this one does. It was at a political event. It was aimed at a public official of a particular partisan attitude, and the person was killed in the act of doing their job.
FINEMAN: The charge—the charge—
MATTHEWS: So the idea that it has nothing to do with politics I think is a hard argument to make.
TODD: I agree. Look, I just go back to—
MATTHEWS: And for Palin to say that it has nothing to do beyond the brain of this person is assuming far more information than any of us have.
TODD: It just feels like this entire debate over the last 96 hours
has been one where nobody—everybody wants to argue that the other side
is worse at this, that, you know, the right is arguing that the left has
gone over the top in what they've—in how they've attacked Palin, and the
right is saying, Well, you know what—and the left's saying, You know
what? The right's gone over the top in their use of language. No one has
decided to take the high road here in this universe. But what's odd here -
let's not forget—let's stop focusing—
MATTHEWS: I'm not sure that the high road—
TODD: Well, hang on!
TODD: Hang on! What I want to say is, let—if you take away the
ideologues that are all over the Internet and the Twitterverse and you
actually look at the elected officials, the elected officials have been
acting like adults, whether it's—on either side of the aisle. And that
what I feel like we're seeing is now two political cultures. You have one—
TODD: -- the ideological screamers—
MATTHEWS: We have two—
TODD: -- and the actual elected officials. Both of them are acting -
MATTHEWS: He's coming on tonight from Pennsylvania, obviously—we all know Bob Brady—to say we got to outlaw any kind of incitement to commit violence against—
FINEMAN: I'd be very surprised, though, if the president deals with any of this—
TODD: That's right.
FINEMAN: -- tonight. It's all going to be in the surround (ph) and in the silence—
TODD: State of the Union feels like the place where he's—
MATTHEWS: Is this most like—
MATTHEWS: -- Oklahoma City for him, Oklahoma City with Bill Clinton?
FINEMAN: Yes, but in a different way. In a different way because it's a moment for him to surmount the presidency in a good way.
MATTHEWS: That's right. So well said. Thank you, Chuck, as well. It's great to have you guys on. Thank you, Chuck Todd and Howard Fineman - - although I think there's a political piece to this that has to be explored, and that is the role of guns in our political discourse and the constant reference to firepower as a way of justifying your political point of view. I think it shouldn't be talked about in that way.
TODD: Well, let's also talk about the public policy—
MATTHEWS: When we have a history of guns—
TODD: There's a public policy gap between how mentally unstable people can get guns, too. We're not seeming to tackle—
MATTHEWS: Thank you.
TODD: -- that aspect, as well.
MATTHEWS: Thank you. Much more coming up on Sarah Palin's video statement, whatever it was, and what we're making of that "blood libel" charge. I think she's got to walk this back, but as Howard points—she ain't got no reverse gear on her tongue. It's a stark contrast from what we expect to hear from President Obama tonight. We're going to have more on Palin next.
You're watching HARDBALL. More of her coming up next on HARDBALL on
MATTHEWS: We've got some new information about the suspected Tucson shooter, of course, and how police stopped him before he went on his rampage. The Arizona Game and Fish Department says an officer actually stopped Jared Lee Loughner for running a red light just three hours before the shootings. If you got a good look at that guy, wonder why they didn't do more than just stop him. The officer found no outstanding warrants for Loughner and let him go with a verbal warning. I think that face is a verbal warning. Anyway, we'll be right back. God, is he scary looking! Geez!
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Today, as we mentioned, Sarah Palin released an eight-minute video to Facebook regarding the shootings in Tucson. It's almost—it's a strange way to put out some news. But joining me right now is David Brock, founder and CEO of Media Matters, and Ron Reagan, our friend, radio talk show host and author of the upcoming book, which I've had a look at, "My Father at 100"—you're smiling! I'm not—
MATTHEWS: I can't wait until we talk about that. And we have you on, sir, as the exclusive on that.
You know, I'm a Christian, and I wasn't that familiar with the term "blood libel" she used. Can you tell me, David, what it's about? You're an expert on these things.
DAVID BROCK, MEDIA MATTERS: As I—
MATTHEWS: All things.
BROCK: -- understand it, it's an exact phrase that's used to describe anti-Semites blaming Jews for killing Christians. So here's why I think she used it. She's appropriating the self-imagery of a persecuted Jew. Now, we have the first elected woman Jewish congressman lying—you know, struggling for her life in Arizona, and I think the use of this is perverse by Sarah Palin. I think blood—
MATTHEWS: she's the first—what do you mean, first elected Jewish congresswoman?
From Arizona.
MATTHEWS: Oh, from Arizona. Yes.
BROCK: Right. Right. So I think, one, it's perverse. Number two, let's separate the terms—blood. I think Sarah Palin likes to talk about blood. She likes to talk about reloading. There's something that she is generating in the base of the Republican Party by using this violent imagery that's very disturbing but that works. And it works for her contributions. It works for her ratings.
Matt Bai has a column in the "New York Times" the other day. It was very good. This is a business for Sarah Palin, doing this.
MATTHEWS: Oh, OK.
BROCK: And then the libel you covered in the last section. What's the lie? There is no lie.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BROCK: She put that up. She put the crosshairs up, right? Everyone knows she did it. And remember what Gabby Giffords said about it. Can I read it, what she said? "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district."
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BROCK: "When people do that, they've got to realize there's consequences."
MATTHEWS: And not only—and Gabrielle Giffords in her indictment of Sarah Palin before she was shot, where she saw this coming, in a sense—
BROCK: That's right.
MATTHEWS: -- at least the possible consequences, which turned out to be actually true.
BROCK: Right.
MATTHEWS: She—she said Sarah Palin said bulls eye, just so you make sure what it meant—
BROCK: That's right.
MATTHEWS: -- these crosshairs (INAUDIBLE) Here's Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords on March 25th, before the horror of this past weekend. Boy, it's rare in history that someone gets to sort of narrate something coming this way. Here she is. Let's listen.
REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS (D), ARIZONA: We really do need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up, and you know, even things—for example, 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 gunsight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize there's consequences to that action.
MATTHEWS: You know, Ron, and you come from a family—of course, your beloved father—and I know you love him—and your mom, too, and your family. You know what it means to have somebody shot. And the one thing that all assassinations have in common, whether it's by someone who's deranged or someone with a personal grudge, maybe in this case, or the most common of all assassinations, politically driven ones—guns, the use of guns—
RON REAGAN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. That's right.
MATTHEWS: -- not at a metaphor, damn it, but as a realty—guns, ammo, crosshairs, bulls eyes, the whole—
REAGAN: Metaphor—metaphor becomes reality after a while, as you've been pointing out, all this rhetoric about guns, 2nd Amendment solutions, lock and load, all of that kind of thing, the crosshairs. Sarah Palin didn't put an American flag lapel pin on Gabby Giffords's congressional district. She didn't just put a checkmark there. She put gunsights there. And this is irresponsible.
You know, Sarah Palin, when she was—released her little video here, she quoted my father as talking about personal responsibility and don't blame society for, you know, individuals' crimes. Well, I think it's time for Sarah Palin and people like her to take a little bit of personal responsibility themselves.
It's not that Sarah Palin is responsible for Gabrielle Giffords's shooting or the deaths of the 9-year-old girl or these other innocent people, but there is a context here. It's a context of a violent society with a lot of murders every year, a fetishization of guns and gun use, and a rather cavalier attitude towards mental health, as well. But that context is what surrounded Mr. Loughner when he committed his crime, or allegedly did.
MATTHEWS: And let's be a little humble here. I don't like being humble all the time, but I think we have to all be. We don't know his full mindset.
REAGAN: No.
MATTHEWS: And for her to assert, as she did in that weird video, that he had nothing to do with politics—we don't know what he watched—
REAGAN: We don't know that.
MATTHEWS: -- what he listened to, what his influences were, what his confirmations (ph) were. He didn't live in a vacuum or an igloo, like some people do.
Let's listen right now to what she had to say in this video.
PALIN: We know violence isn't the answer. When we take up our arms, we're talking about our vote.
MATTHEWS: Why did—let me go back to David, who is an expert on communications.
I mean, I think we used to say, maybe back in the Churchillian age, your voice was your power, your ability to speak up.
BROCK: Sure.
MATTHEWS: That's certainly Norman Rockwell's notion, the man standing up at a meeting, at a public meeting, and saying, here's what I believe.
But now it's standing up with your arms, standing up with your ammo, your gun sights, your bulls eye. Why do you have—this is a problem I have with the Tea Party. Why so many guns at these events? Why constantly referring to guns? What is it? Is it a throwback to the Revolutionary age? They're think they're in an armed revolution?
BROCK: Right. What does the Tea Party moniker stand for? Armed rebellion, right? This has been the theme of the Republican candidates and of Sarah Palin all year.
MATTHEWS: Excuse me. History lesson. The Boston Tea Party was a nonviolent economic statement against the Stamp Act, I believe. They threw the tea in the water. No guns. They dressed up like Indians. It was a demonstration. It was street theater.
BROCK: Right.
MATTHEWS: OK? No guns.
BROCK: But this is not street theater, as you know.
Glenn Beck himself has been responsible for three thwarted assassination attempts this year. And Sarah Palin—
MATTHEWS: How is he responsible for them?
BROCK: Well, you want to know what they are?
MATTHEWS: You said it.
BROCK: Sure.
So, he burned Nancy Pelosi in effigy on his set. He tried to poison her with a chalice. OK. Some three weeks later, somebody tried to firebomb Nancy Pelosi's house. That guy's mother went on television and said he gets all his ideas from FOX News.
Do you know about Senator Patty Murray and the death threat that she got?
MATTHEWS: No. Go ahead.
BROCK: OK. It's recorded. The guy says after the health care vote, he says, you have a target on your back and I can accomplish what I want to accomplish with one bullet.
He's tried, convicted, and in the sentencing phase, his cousin writes in for leniency and she describes in a very chilling memo—it's on our Web site—that he was slowly drawn into Glenn Beck's world. And she portrays the guy, the attempted assassin, Charlie Wilson, as a victim of Beck.
And, number three, which you probably do know about, this liberal foundation in San Francisco was targeted by a gunman, Byron Williams, in June. The shooter gave jailhouse interviews—and we published them—and he says Glenn Beck is a schoolteacher on television and points to specific episodes of the Glenn Becks show that inspired him to do it.
MATTHEWS: Oh, God.
Last word, Ron.
REAGAN: Listen, there is this context and David has explained it very well.
You have people like Glenn Beck who repeatedly and constantly refer to political opponents on the left as traitors, treasonous, Marxists, fascists, Nazis, we have to do some about it, we may have to take to the street.
You can see that as entertainment, but some people like Mr. Loughner are not going to see it as entertainment. They're going to take it seriously. The only thing unsurprising about this whole thing is that it wasn't a surprise. We all expected that something like this, awful like this, was going to happen. And it did.
MATTHEWS: Well, people that talk about blood libel and themselves being victims to it and they talk about bulls eyes shouldn't be president of the United States.
MATTHEWS: And people seriously shouldn't be thinking about it.
Anyway, thank you, David Brock.
Thank you, Ron Reagan.
REAGAN: Thanks, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Up next: At least two congressmen say they will be armed. Boy, there's a solution. They're going carry more guns when they meet constituents.
I have got a question for you, Mr. Armed Hombre. I mean, what kind of world are we living in? Is that the best members of Congress can do, put a gun on to match the guns on the streets? We are going to talk about some sensible ideas when we get back.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL.
The tragedy in Tucson has sparked new debates over gun control, of course. New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy of course wants to—she wants to outlaw high-capacity magazine clips like the one used this Saturday in the tragedy -- 17 years ago, of course, most of us know a gunman killed Carolyn McCarthy's husband and severely injured her son.
Some of her House colleagues, meanwhile, say they plan to carry guns to future public events. Is this the best way to keep lawmakers safe? Should we focus instead on strengthening gun laws?
Congresswoman McCarthy—and Terrance Gainer, by the way, he joins us. He's sergeant at arms of the United States Senate.
I couldn't have two more important people on.
Congresswoman, thank you for joining us, because your long crusade for gun control, which has been only partially successful, now meets another example of guns and politics, where people have used guns to solve whatever score they have got politically or whatever you want to call it. What do you make of this and what will it do to the debate?
REP. CAROLYN MCCARTHY (D), NEW YORK: Well, I'm hoping—today, we spent we spent the day in Congress basically saying—giving our prayers and our thoughts. And hopefully the nation will heal on what happened in Arizona.
And the good news is that Gabby is doing much better and off the
respirator. The problem is—and you know I have been fighting for this -
ever since I came to Congress. And I can't believe it's 17 years that I have been doing this.
So, there are a lot of guns out there. OK. We probably can't get anything done as far as the guns itself. I'm talking about the large clips, the magazine clips that we used in the shooting, not only in Arizona, but certainly on the Long Island railroad train, when my husband was killed and my son was injured, but many, many other incidents through the years.
All I'm saying to gun owners, come on, work with me. I'm not trying to take away your gun. I'm trying to make this country safer. I'm trying to save lives. And I'm trying to make sure that there aren't more injuries out there.
And what the answer I get is, well, I'm a sportsman. I want to use it for target practice.
You know, you got to have a balance here. And we need to stop this rhetoric and try to save lives. That's what I'm here for.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to the sergeant at arms.
Mr. Gainer, thank you, Terrance Gainer, sergeant at arms of the Senate. I respect you. You have got a major post there to protect the United States Senate.
Let me ask you, what do you think of Congressman Peter King's idea that we draw a line of 1,000 feet around every member of Congress and say you can't knowingly bring a gun within their radius?
TERRANCE GAINER, U.S. SENATE SERGEANT AT ARMS: Well, Chris, I guess they all have to be explored.
Over the years, I have seen a lot of different laws like that, stay away from schools, stay away from this, stay away from that. Sometimes, I think it's not an issue do we have enough laws to charge somebody. I think it's a little bit more complicated than that.
MATTHEWS: Well, what about the proposal that Bob Brady—the congressman from Pennsylvania is coming on to talk about his, which would include Congress in the law you can't threaten a president or a vice president. He would include both members of Congress and congressmen-elect from that. You couldn't threaten them with violence and you couldn't—and here's a more tricky question. You can't incite someone to commit violence against such people.
Are those laws practicable? Do you think they would ever get anywhere?
GAINER: Well, I think there should be some equity in what laws apply
to the members of Congress and the executive branch. So, I think it needs
to be explored
When you get into one end of the continuum where it gets a little sketchy, it sometimes gets a little harder for police officers, but I guess you can figure that out with a good prosecutor.
I think the other point for me is not one thing causes these homicides and murders, and not one thing will solve them.
MATTHEWS: Let me get back to Carolyn McCarthy about the general culture we live in.
We all grew up with cowboy and Indians as part of our culture, the idea of people who live out in the country want to have to protect themselves. I completely understand that. I don't buy the idea you need guns to protect yourself from your government. That's perhaps an ideological issue with some people.
But here we see in Arizona—did you see this, Congresswoman? In the last few day, the sales of the Glock 19, the model, the very model used in the shootings of last weekend, has jumped up 60 percent in Arizona.
Down in South Carolina, the Palmetto State Armory is now selling a Joe Wilson special. It's an AR-15. And on the bottom of the stock or somewhere, it's got the initials "You lie"—rather, the words "You lie": in honor of Joe Wilson saying the president lies.
What is this provocation, I guess could you call it, in terms of that, selling guns that mock a president as part of the hardware?
MCCARTHY: Well, Chris, when you think about it, we're talking about two different things going on here.
One, I have never seen such disrespect towards a president, any president. I certainly have disagreed with presidents in the past, but I certainly wouldn't say anything disrespectful toward them. They are my president. He was elected.
On the other, as far as the sale of Glocks, that's because there's a lot of misinformation out there that I'm trying to take away their guns. I'm not doing that. All I'm doing is saying the large-capacity clips that are being sold today, which were banned for 10 years—and we certainly know that those sales went down at that time—that we don't need these kind of clips for the civilians.
Our police officers, our military, yes, they need it. And one other thing. With the Glock, you can still have, because we're taking the language from the assault weapons ban, a clip with 10 bullets in it and one in the chamber. So, how many bullets do you need in a gun even if you're going use it to protect yourself?
MATTHEWS: I don't know what sport people engage in that needs 30 rounds. I know, in shooting pheasant, I hear from Ed Schultz that you use three. It's under the law. You've got to have a pretty good aim. You should not be out there shooting if you don't.
Let me go back to the sergeant at arms. Are you worried about the security of the United States Senate, sir, right now?
GAINER: I'm not. I think the Capitol Police up here, our cooperation with the other agencies, we have it firmly under control.
MATTHEWS: Well, as a former member of the Capitol Police, I'm confident you're right, sir.
Thank you, U.S. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy.
And the sergeant at arms of the United States Senate, an elected position, Terrance Gainer, sir, thank you.
Up next: U.S. Congressman Bob Brady of Pennsylvania wants to expand the law to prohibit threats and incitements to commit violence against members of Congress, as well as against the president and the vice president. Would it ban this kind of talk by Sarah Palin about crosshairs and the kinds of stuff that Gabrielle Giffords herself saw as being consequential and dangerous? He's coming here to talk about it.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
TRISH REGAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Trish Regan with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
A solid rally easing slightly into the close there, the Dow Jones industrials climbing 83 points, S&P 500 adding 11, and the Nasdaq gaining 20 points to close at a new three-year high.
Investors focusing on banks and commodities as the latest Beige Book report paints a somewhat brighter picture of the economy. The Fed reports improving conditions across all 12 districts. Employment levels, they are rising, the housing market still weak, but mortgage applications, they did rise. And building contracts, they're up.
Banks getting a big boost today from a sector upgrade by Wells Fargo. And J.P. Morgan says it's aiming to reinstate its dividend in the second quarter of next year. Agricultural-related stocks also up, after the government lowered its crop outlook. Bath weather has left U.S. corn supplies at their lowest level in 15 years.
And ITT Industries surging more than 16 percent after its board approved a plan to split it into three separate publicly traded companies.
That's it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
In the wake of the shooting rampage in Tucson, lawmakers have been grappling with new ways to protect themselves.
The Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania Robert Brady of Philadelphia wants to make it a federal crime to threaten violence against a president, a vice president or a member of Congress now or to incite someone to commit an act of violence against a federal official.
U.S. Congressman Robert Brady joins us now.
Congressman Brady, I have a lot of respect for you. Do you think this will actually pass muster with the Supreme Court, this kind of restraint on language? When you say incite to commit, how do you define that?
REP. ROBERT BRADY (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, what we're doing is extending Title 18. Title 18 already passed the Supreme Court. It already is constitutional.
All we're saying is that you can't right now about put a crosshair or a bulls eye on the White House or on the president or on the vice president. All I'm saying is that you can't put a crosshair on a member of Congress and you can't put a bulls eye on his district. I'm just extending it. That's all we're trying to do.
MATTHEWS: What would this have done to Sarah Palin?
BRADY: It would have been illegal. She would not have been—you would not be able to put a crosshair on a member of Congress' district.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it would stopped her from doing it, or it would have put her in jail?
BRADY: I'm sure it would have stopped her from doing it.
Somewhere, there was a table, a conference table, where people were designing this map, and somebody had to say, well, what would have happened if something does happen? Somebody probably said, don't worry about it.
Well, Chris, I am worrying about it. And we need to worry about it.
MATTHEWS: Your experience—you represent an inner city, West Philadelphia, downtown Philadelphia. You know—some of those neighborhoods have tough crime. Some don't.
Do you have a sense that the threats on members of Congress in cities out in the country and in the suburbs have increased? Do you feel it when you go in the cloakroom? Does anybody talk about it?
BRADY: Well, without question, this health care bill ramped it up a little bit. I have been hollered at and screamed at and called a whole lot of nasty names.
And we had to walk through a gauntlet, all of us walking through the -
from our offices to the Capitol to vote on it. That's OK. That's freedom of speech. You're allowed to do that. You're allowed to criticize me. You're allowed to do that.
But you can't and you should not be able to put a crosshair on my district, and you should not be able to pull a bulls eye on me or any other member of Congress or staff or our families.
MATTHEWS: What do you make—I mean, you probably are a guns—are you a gun control guy? Are you against—are you basically on that side of the argument, like Carolyn Maloney, who'd just on? Are you in that side of the argument?
BRADY: Yes, I believe—I believe there should be some gun control, and I believe without question we should limit the amount of ammunition in a clip. What do you need 31, 30 bullets in a clip for? That makes no sense whatsoever.
MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask, Carolyn McCarthy, I misspoke, I said Carolyn Maloney, she's in the city—McCarthy is from upstate. Let me ask you about this threat, though. Under the Constitution, it does get tricky when people use language like that SOB, you know, he doesn't deserve to be living, you know, where do you draw the line?
I mean, a lot of people would say that guy ought to be able to be alive, he's so terrible. I mean, sometimes, he—rhetoric gets very heated. Can you put somebody in jail for just blowing off their mouth? I mean, I agree with you about the ad.
Now, there's an interesting question. You sit down and systematically, deliberately put crosshairs and use the language of guns and shooting and targeting, and you're really clearly sort of bringing it into that person. But what about the general language of that person ought to be dead? What do you do with that kind of conversation?
BRADY: Well, it's up to the authorities to figure out just what's happening there and maybe if you even visit that person, and may be a person like what happened on Saturday, maybe you can get a better handle on who's stable or not stable out there, and maybe you can get—maybe you can scare then a little bit by not trying to commit a further act of violence and God forbid what happened on Saturday, to take six people's lives and injure 14 others. That's totally ridiculous.
MATTHEWS: I understand your motive, sir. Thank you very much, Robert Brady, congressman from Pennsylvania.
BRADY: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: Now let's go to "Salon" news editor, Steve Kornacki.
Steve, there's a couple of proposals on the table now and one of them is that this 1,000 feet now by Peter King. And Peter King, I never thought of as a gun control kind of guy. I'm surprised. He was—you know, he's a pretty tough customer. I'm surprised he's taking the liberal position on this, what sounds like a liberal position.
Is there any constitutional basis to be able to say a member of Congress—or let's put it this way, refine it a bit, you can't go to a political meeting and carry a gun. This isn't Nazi Germany. You don't bring guns or wear uniforms. You don't bring the paramilitary mentally into a civil discussion.
Is there any way to make that pass muster with the courts? No guns at meetings.
STEVE KORNACKI, SALON.COM: Well, first of all, I can't resist getting in here when you ask about Peter King's motives on this. You had Carolyn McCarthy on earlier. New York state is losing two congressional districts next year. Peter King and Carolyn McCarthy, their districts are next door. His district is a prime candidate to be merged with her district.
And so, I think, if you're looking for the political calculation, a lot of people would suspect that Peter King, who I believe voted against the Brady bill way back when it first came up, may be jumping on to this issue because he may be running against Carolyn McCarthy next year.
MATTHEWS: Well, that leads me to a greater sense of where the voters stand. Do you think the voters of that suburban area, on the island there, Long Island, not upstate, they are for gun control?
KORNACKI: Oh, yes, absolutely. It's an issue that I think polls very well. You know, New York City in the suburbs, you know, when you look at why the Democratic Party, I think, dropped this from its political agenda over the last 15 years after they had the legislative success with the Brady bill, the legislative success with the assault weapons ban, there was concern about states like West Virginia, not about the suburbs of Long Island.
MATTHEWS: Well, that's because I did the map, too, like I study these maps like you do. If you go down in the middle of the country right down the center of the Mississippi River, you go to all those congressional districts in the spine of the American people, all pro-gun. Don't mess with guns. Absolutely anti-Brady, anti-assault weapon ban, totally pro, 100 percent NRA. I understand.
KORNACKI: Right. And so, you're talking about will this pass court muster. I think the more simple question to ask is: will this pass muster with the House of Representatives? I mean, it's controlled by Republicans. I think that ends it right there. And even when you look at the Democrat, look at the Democrats from those areas, they're not going to be supporting this.
MATTHEWS: What about the use of language? Is there any way to control it in our free democracy?
KORNACKI: You know, I'm sympathetic to the argument that Congressman Brady is making there, but I honestly, I don't think the issue this raising really have anything to do with what happened over the weekend. I don't think if the legislation he's proposing, if passed, that it would prevent last weekend from happening, that it would prevent another, you know, massacre like last Saturday from happening.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
KORNACKI: And I have serious constitutional questions about it.
There are laws right now—you had David Brook on earlier who—
MATTHEWS: OK, I'm waiting to see.
KORNACKI: Patty Murray's, you know—
MATTHEWS: I'm waiting to see. I'm waiting to see. For some—I think we're getting close to it. If somebody says go kill that person, I wish somebody—
KORNACKI: That's a direct threat.
MATTHEWS: If they do, so we are at the edge here. We are at the edge of possible criminality here, like common sense standards. Anyway, thank you, Steve Kornacki. I think we're looking at this carefully, which is a right way to do it.
Up next, the responses to the shooting in Tucson. We've heard from potential Republican presidential contenders offer clues as to what they're thinking. Some of them are taking the Palin view. This guy is nut. Nothing we say has anything to do with what he does.
Others are being careful. Pawlenty, careful-looking guy.
Let's take a look at what they're saying and what it means to this battle that's coming for the nomination.
This is HARDBALL—by the way, it's the year before the election.
They're starting to shape up, this team of candidates.
This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Wow. President Obama is rebounding in the polls. A new "AP," "Associated Press" poll finds 53 percent of Americans now approve the job the president's doing. His best numbers since the health care debate 10 months ago and that's a six-point jump from where he was just after the midterm elections. It seems the president's benefitting from the climate of compromise—political compromise, which began after it the election and led to major legislative victories during the lame duck session of Congress. This country changes.
HARDBALL back after this.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
So, how are some of the potential 2012 Republican candidates reacting to the Tucson shooting and what does it mean for their future prospects?
Alex Wagner writes for PoliticsDaily.com, Ron Brownstein writes for "National Journal."
Lady and gentleman, both of you. I want you to listen to Tim Pawlenty. I found him very interesting. He was on "MORNING JOE" today. Let's listen to him, Governor Pawlenty.
TIM PAWLENTY ®, FORMER MINNESOTA GOVERNOR: I got asked as a follow-up question, well, you know, what did you think of the use of the targets? I said it wasn't my style.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But are you saying you think it's OK for other people to do that or are you saying you think it's inappropriate?
PAWLENTY: It's irrelevant because it had nothing to do with the incident. It's detached from the incident.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC HOST: Governor, don't you think it's kind of an irresponsible thing to do whether the event happened or not?
PAWLENTY: Well, the premise behind that would be it caused some problem. It caused some—
BRZEZINSKI: No, isn't it just kind of dangerous, stupid, perhaps not even constructive use of imagery? How about that?
PAWLENTY: Well, it's also free speech.
MATTHEWS: Oh, Mika, a great question, Mike Brzezinski. Don't use causality as part of your cause, just ask simply put.
I want to go to Ron Brownstein on this.
We're getting in to the issue here of what's appropriate in a country that has history of violence, especially with regard to politicians. You and I grew up in a country where so many famous people were assassinated, from Huey Long all the way forward in this century, with lots of attempts that were foiled, and yet people continued to talk about guns as if they're not relevant to assassinations and they are so relevant.
Your thoughts about Pawlenty's, I thought, chicken answer to that question by Mika. He wouldn't say a word against Pawlenty, it sounds like.
RON BROWNSTEIN, NATIONAL JOURNAL: Huey Long was a little bit before our time, Chris, I hope. The—look, Pawlenty in fact, that was a more weaselly or (INAUDIBLE) answer than he gave earlier when he very clearly said that the gun sights on the districts was not something that he would have done. And I think that's probably a place that he's going to be more comfortable.
Look the reaction to this, I think, has been very revealing. I think
I think that you've seen the Republican 2012 candidates divided to two clear camps. You've got one group that is aiming primarily at their base in the comments, like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence, Rick Santorum. And on the other hand, you have figures like Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, and Pawlenty, by in large, who are, I think, trying to speak to a broader audience and it's probably reflective of a broader division than strategy than we'll see going forward.
MATTHEWS: Yes, they're going from what I call the eastern conference.
The others are going for the western conference.
Here's—I want you, Alex, to talk about this guy. Mike Pence, hard to read. He's got a game face all the time. Here he is on talking on—today, on the shooting.
REP. MIKE PENCE ®, INDIANA: We should always refrain from engaging in personal verbal attacks against those with whom we differ on important questions of the day. But let me say, we must also resist in these moments of heart ache the temptation to assign blame to those with whom we differ for the acts of others. No expressed opinion on the left or the right was to blame for Saturday's attack. And we must resist efforts to suggest otherwise.
MATTHEWS: Well, he doesn't know and I don't know and you don't know, Alex, what causes that led to this shooting. We can assume innocence in terms of Palin's role or anything going back, anybody else, but you can't exonerate them until we know the truth here.
ALEX WAGNER, POLITICSDAILY.COM: That's true. I mean, Chris, I was on
I was at the Hill today, and the mood there is incredibly sober. Today was a day reserved for honoring—
MATTHEWS: What was Pence doing there? He was siding with the right, wasn't he?
WAGNER: He was effectively siding with the right but in the most none confrontational way as possible. I mean, he almost puts his hands up, saying, don't blame me, you know? And it was very much of a part of what else is being said on the floor in the House today.
MATTHEWS: The thing is that every Republican has Palin listeners among their viewers—
WAGNER: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: -- among their constituents. They're afraid to lose any of these people.
Let's take a look at Newt Gingrich who always, always, looks for trouble. Let's listen.
NEWT GINGRICH ®, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: People who would immediately scream about ethnic profiling. People who, on the left, have every possible incentive to never allow anyone to draw conclusions suddenly say things that are just factually untrue. There's no evidence that I know of that this person was anything except nuts. Certainly, the books he had in his library tended to be left wing, much more Marxist and communist. He was apparently an atheist. He was—by no standard that I know of—had any connection at all with any Tea Party of any kind.
MATTHEWS: Well, Hitler, I believe, was an atheist and I'm pretty sure he wrote "Mein Kampf," which was also in his guy's small library. I don't know what Newt's talking about, Ron. You explicate with what that man's comments meant.
BROWNSTEIN: Well, you know, Newt draw—sometimes seems to draw his personal restraint from like Lady Gaga or something.
BROWNSTEIN: Look, I mean, he has—he has a long tradition of identifying Democrats and liberals with kind of abhorrent cultural behavior. I mean, he described Clinton as the enemy of normal America. He said—he linked the Woody Allen situation 15 years ago to the Democratic Party. He is engaging here in a kind of—a very clear, kind of, culture populism. And again, that is kind of the dividing line here.
MATTHEWS: OK. Great.
BROWNSTEIN: You have—you have some Republicans who are essentially trying to use this to say to their base, look, you are being aggrieved.
MATTHEWS: Right. I got to go.
BROWNSTEIN: And we should mobilize against it. Others are trying to speak to a broader range of the country which is what you have to do to win the election.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Alex Wagner. Thank you, Ron Brownstein for the wisdom, and it was wisdom.
When we return, "Let Me Finish" with the challenge facing the president tonight. It's a big one.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: "Let Me Finish" tonight with what we look forward to tonight. Every president whether he seeks it or is ready to accept it has a job that rises above politics, which departs from government, even if national defense in a strict sense, because in addition to being the country's top elected official, chief executive and commander in chief, the president is also head of state.
In many other modern countries, they separate that role from politics in the running of government. In Great Britain, it's the role of the king or queen. In Germany and Israel, they have someone fill the ceremonial position of president who's apart from the politically elected government.
In America, one person fills all the roles, and that's what makes tonight different. It really calls for only one, the reunifying person of the country, apart from partisan politics, away from the usual issues that we debate.
What originally inspired me, what to be candid, thrilled me about Barack Obama was how he spoke in such a context. Not as a candidate for office, simply as a spokesman for this country and its broadest-held values.
I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story. That I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that in no other country on earth is my story even possible.
He spoke that night in 2004 of what he called the "genius of America," that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door, that we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe, that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution—without fear of retribution. It is this faith that can always use a bolstering, and tonight's a good night for that.
The matter before us, isn't what views we're entitled to hold, left, right, or center, or center-right or center-left is the confidence that we have in our public debate, the right to pester member of Congress, to hold up a poster, to scream if you want to, to broadcast what you believe with reasonable confidence that no one will point and fire a gun at you for doing so—without fear of retribution.
We need to get the violence and the talk of violence out of our politics. I have yet to hear any reasonable argument to the contrary.
That's HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.
Right now, it's time for "THE ED SHOW" with Ed Schultz.
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
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.>