Erick The Red Erickson? He's one of the Squirrely Brained TeaPers HE-rows. They must hold contests to see who can be the craziest of the crazies. Erick The Red Erickson wins!
The symbolism of this is far more apt than Erickson himself can possibly realize. He who cannot address the work of the mind, as embodied in the printed page, responds by destroying it with violence. It's the same thing as book-burning.(I'm not addressing the substance of the NYT's argument here -- but the symbolism is too perfect to overlook.)
Off topic but relatvent methinks.Listened to the President's address to the nation tonight, which was, im my opinion, a good one with specifics.Immediately turned to FOX. Precisely as expected all but Juan Williams were highly critical of the President.FOX's panel of pundits were tightly scripted and stayed with rightwings agenda and howling points.
What Infidel said!
FAUX NOOZ highly critical of the president? Nooooo! Mr. Obama said all the right things and in appealing to our better angels, he made the short-fingered vulgarian who's leading the polls for the Gooper presidential nomination look like a race-baiting, demagogic maniac.
PM Carpenter said it better than I:"The Times story quoted above had this, too: "For weeks, the president has sought to reassure Americans that they remain secure at home, while chiding politicians and others for giving in to fears stoked by the terrorists." But that's not quite right, is it. Those chided politicians — Trump, Cruz, Rubio, the whole godawful gang of swindling GOP scapegraces — aren't "giving into fears stoked by the terrorists. They are stoking the fears; they are political terrorists, as they issue preposterous claims of ISIS as an "existential threat" to the United States.And tomorrow those chided, chattering chimps of hysteria will be screeching louder than ever. But why do I bother noting this? Who doesn't know that?"
Guess you didn't watch the MSM's this morning. They all said obama said nothing except we need gun control. He wasted a moment to make a difference and reassure people. Trump has no specifics yet you criticize him, obama has no specifics and you anoint him. A politician he is, a leader he is not.
So skudrunner, you didn't think Obama was effective or said anything worthwhile?I'm shocked! SHOCKED!President Obama spoke to the American people as though he were talking to grown ups. Apparently you, the people bitching about the address, and the Donald Trump supporters were insulted.Maybe if he promised to kill families of suspected terrorists or anyone who even LOOKS suspicious, or promised to deport ALL Muslims (or "vermin" as your fellow travelers call them) you and they would have popped your collective vessels with joy. President Obama didn't call for a "final solution" as another of your fellow travelers has. So no wonder you and they think Obama is "weak".Here's an idea: Vote for Trump, he's promised the American people he'll "bomb the shit" out of ISIS and their oil fields, he'll waterboard Muslims, and too bad if they're innocent, ya gotta do it, and he's all for killing families of suspicious Muslims (y'know, pregnant women, babies, the elderly) to stop TERR-ism. He's just a gigantic bag of American values, isn't he?Perhaps you'll get a chance to vote for Trump, and all your and your fellow Goopers' proto-fascist dreams will come true.Meanwhile, I'll stick with the guy who tries to appeal to our better angels. Y'know the Christ-like ideas that the Jesus-loving Tea Party phonies talk about but do not support, because WEAK!Thanks for coming by with your predictable whine.
BTW, skud, PM Carpenter is waaaaaaaaay ahead of you and your Obama-hating crowd:PM Carpenter on December 6: "And tomorrow those chided, chattering chimps of hysteria will be screeching louder than ever. But why do I bother noting this? Who doesn't know that?"
Shaw... it seems as if this is the place for thoughts on "The Speech" last night.Unlike many conservatives, I was looking forward to what President Obama would have to say. To say I was disappointed would be an understatement. Why he chose to stand in front of his desk, I'll never know, because it looked weird to me. I wonder if any other of our presidents have done that.Here was his chance to grab the American people, reassure us, point us collectively in a specific direction, and he whiffed.Time and time again, when America needs a president to symbolically stand with us, "feel our pain" ala President Clinton, he is just functionally unable to do that. It simply is not who he is, or how he is wired. He can inspire with his at times soaring rhetoric, but when the chips are down, he frequently falls flat. Like he did last night, at least in my opinion.As Richard Engel pointed out, every method he advanced to deal with the terrorism coming from Islamic Fundamentalists, is already, to some degree, being done. I wanted to ask him whether he felt we needed to do what we are already doing, just better, or perhaps we should change course.I felt like his answer would be the same, only better, which begs the question why are we not already doing that?This was a rally the troops moment, and he left us wanting.My fear is that President Obama's dislike of cheerleading, for that is what I believe the nation needed last night, will ultimately spell doom for the Dems in 2016.Just my thoughts...
Dave,As I said to skudrunner, Mr Obama spoke to the nation as though he were talking to grown-ups. I don't see his sober talk as ineffective; I see it as realistic in what we can do.I see these words, his words, as reassuring: "The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won't depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That's what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power."After those statements, he went on to say how this would be done.He told us that we will win this battle, however long it takes and even if we have to suffer and endure more attacks here. We are better and stronger than the enemy. We will win. No, he wasn't Churchillian in pronouncing those words, that isn't his style. But he was, IMO, steely sure of what he was saying.When this nation suffers attacks from domestic terrorists and Mr. Obama addresses the nation on how we should solve these problems (i.e., not selling guns to mentally ill people or people on the terrorist watch list), the Professional Right cries out that he's doing TOO MUCH! "Leave our gun rights ALONE! We don't want your action!"Now we hear from reporters and others that he's not doing enough! What do they propose? Sending thousands more combat troops back to the M.E. in numbers we saw during the Bush Administration? Another protracted war? "Bomb the shit" [Trump] out of their oil fields?You and more than a few others see Mr. Obama as "falling flat." Others see him as dealing with an almost insurmountably volatile situation in a prudent, unemotional but measured way, making sure we don't lose more blood and treasure in order to extract revenge. When George W. Bush dragged us into Iraq as a response to the 9/11 attacks, it made many in this country feel that hot, satisfying emotion of "revenge" for what happened to us. Look at where we are today as a result of "rallying the troops." Make no mistake, it was that itch TO DO SOMETHING! that got us where we are today. Maybe I've lived through too many wars and promises of "going in there with all we have" and annihilating the bad guys only to live to see us fight more bad guys somewhere else. Maybe that's why I see Mr. Obama as someone who is very careful about committing our young men and women in the military to another conflagration only to repeat our mistakes again and again.
Wow! Dave, I didn't read this before I answered your comment. This is a PERFECT example of what I was talking about. And it comes from a military guy, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, talking on FAUX NOOZ:RALPH PETERS: Well, first of all he keeps speaking about “we can’t give in to our fears.” You know, “don’t be afraid.” Look, Mr. President we’re not afraid we’re angry, we’re pissed off, we’re furious. We want you to react, we want you to do something. You’re afraid. I mean this guy is such a total pussy, its stunning. And, you know, we want — we the people, the American people, whom he does not know in any intimate sort of manner, we want action. We want action against Islamic State and then — then, when the president is telling us he is going to destroy ISIS. This is a president who has done more harm to American police departments than he has done to Islamic State. This is a president who restrains our military. He uses it not to defeat ISIS, but for political purposes for political cover. This is a president who doesn’t want to hurt our enemies. This is a president who cares more about thugs in Guantanamo, or thugs in Ferguson, Missouri, than he does about law-abiding American citizens and their right to live in safety and peace.This Lt. Col. is obviously a maniac and is a disgrace to his uniform. But he's exactly the sort of maniac that would plunge this country into another endless bloody war just so we're DOING SOMETHING.The rest of his rant is more than disgusting, it's vomitous.I am thankful Mr. Obama doesn't think like this maniac.
Shaw... I am totally in agreement with you about Peters and people like him. I am 100% glad he doesn't go off willy nilly, but, and this is big, the job of the presidency is political.He has got to figure out a way to communicate with us in a way that makes us feel better. I felt, and I voted for him and walked precincts in both elections, that he was condescending. If I am feeling that way, is it any wonder others who are not generally supportive, do so as well?There has got to be some middle ground between bellicose and super cool.
There has got to be some middle ground between bellicose and super cool.Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton... Maybe he should have studied them.
Interesting Anon... The Dems would gladly accept JFK and Clinton... Reagan could not get the GOP nomination as he believed in compromise with and working alongside the Dems...
Dave, I didn't see this piece by Charlie Pierce when I answered you, but he echos what I said in my response to you.I'd like to ask you and the other commenters who come here, what is it about this passage that they have a problem with? IMO, this is the embodiment of everything our country stands for, and President Obama expressed it eloquently and with conviction because it is true:My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity—that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law. Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let's make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let's not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges—whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks—by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail.What, may I ask, in that passage is not "pulling us together?" True, it doesn't have the bombast of a Trump speech, but it does have the deeply ethical ethos that this country was supposedly founded on (except for the slavery issue). This is, to me, an affirmation of what this country aspires to, not the cheap, crass, vulgar appeal to the worst in human nature.Why this has escaped people who think optics (standing at a lectern, for example) mean more than substance in the speech, puzzles me. IMO Mr. Obama gave a talk that appealed to our better natures, and not like the fear-mongering of the TGOPers.
What, may I ask, in that passage is not "pulling us together?" Hm, methinks the answer is found in the 2008 national election results.
Shaw, re the Fox News Lt. Col Peters and another Fx News commentator:Two regular Fox News contributors were suspended Monday for their heated on-air commentary about President Obama, the network confirmed to TPM.Ralph Peters, a Fox News analyst and retired Army officer, called the President "such a total pussy, it's stunning" on Fox Business Monday morning, eventually prompting host Stuart Varney to demand Peters apologize.Not long after, Stacey Dash, a contributor on the Fox talk show "Outnumbered," was also incensed by Obama's Sunday primetime address on terrorism, and said it seemed the President "could give a shit" during the Oval Office speech.Maybe Peters and Dash can get jobs at the Smut Hut, they're potty mouth enough.
Post a Comment