Obama has already set the tone for demeaning the presidency

Progressives have taken two approaches to challenging Clint Eastwood’s brilliant performance art.  The first is to claim that it perfectly represents the Republicans’ failure to appreciate the true Obama, as demonstrated by their years’ long invention of an imaginary Obama.  The other approach, which Ann Althouse highlights, is to claim that it was incredibly demeaning to pretend that the president is a mean-spirited empty chair:

“Clint Eastwood was a disaster,” Lawrence O’Donnell said.

“I thought Clint Eastwood was bizarre,” Ed Schultz said. “It was demeaning to the presidency.”

Schultz is late to the game.  Assuming for the sake of argument that Eastwood’s shtick really did demean the presidency, Eastwood was neither the first nor the worst.  The first and worst was Obama himself, who did a comedy shtick that had the American people listen to him as he (supposedly) urinated:

I don’t see how you can get much lower that — and the president did it to himself. Apparently while the seat in the Oval Office is empty, the one in the presidential restroom is in use.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Mike Devx says

    It takes  a lot of chutzpah for the lefty media to discuss dishonoring the Presidency.  They’ve been in full rhetorical assault mode, viciously assaulting every Republican candidate since Reagan, at least, whether or not that candidate currently sat in the Oval Office.

    On the ground, their activists have engaged in violence.  In the last few elections, that trend toward leftist violence is peaking alarmingly.  It is actually getting scary out there.

    The key is that they are used to conservatives/Republicans just tut-tutting about it, and staying on the high road.

    THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.

    More and more, we’re ready to fight now, and we’re not going to back down any longer.  The pot cannot call the kettle black; and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  We’ve put up with it for decades, and now it appears that there is a big shift on, and we are going to fight on the same playing field they’ve already been on for decades.

    I’d like to say that here on the right we won’t engage in the kinds of violence the left has been using against us for the last ten years – and using with more and more frequency lately.  But I think we’re tired of being pushed around, as a group.  If the leftist violence keeps up – or even gets worse – what’s going to happen.

    All of this is regrettable, but it should come as no surprise.  The Bully is shocked when the nice kids suddenly start righting back.  Too bad.
     

  2. Charles Martel says

    I would hate for us to resort to the violence that the left so routinely uses. My biggest concern is that thugs like Obama and his Chicago cohort would use it as an excuse to suspend the Constitution and repress dissent.
     
    But, as Mike points out, you can only push decent people so far before they fight back. I really don’t think the left understands the fire it is playing with. When you’ve owned a delusional media for two generations, you unfortunately begin to believe your lackey’s delusions. There simply aren’t enough Black Panthers, gangbangers, ex-cons, corrupt police, or physically fit union members to overcome the sheer number of armed conservatives and a military that in its ranks and files is still dedicated to defending the Constitution.
     
    A civil war, which can only be brought on by the left, would be an ugly thing. But it is something the left cannot win. Play with fire, get burned.

  3. Duchess of Austin says

    You know…I’ve always wondered that myself.  Why is it that the Black Panthers want to foment some sort of race war that they should, by dint of the population numbers alone…lose?  I don’t get that.  If blacks comprise, generously, 20% of the general population…that means 80% of the population is not black, and therefore, wouldn’t be sympathetic to their cause, right?  Also, out of that 20%, how many of them are women, children and old people who couldn’t or wouldn’t participate?  I don’t even see how that would destabilize the local governments either….that 20% of the population is spread across the entire united states, too.  It might be effective in largely black populated areas and maybe large urban areas, i.e., East St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit etc., but how much damage would flyover country actually see?
     
    Historically, blacks and latinos compete for the same slice of the job market so in the event of a race war, are they expecting latinos to fight it with them?  Would they expect poor whites to fight with them? I mean…seems to me that poor whites fighting a race war with the blacks would be somewhat ironic.
     
    Am I getting something wrong?

  4. says

    Duchess:  You’re definitely getting something wrong.  You’re trying to apply reason, logic, and common sense to ideological nonsense.  You’ll never get far if you continue with that kind of attitude.  ;)

  5. says

    It’s because the Black Panthers serve as the front line cannon fodder of organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, rich white billionaires like Soros, etc. It was never intended that they win. Only that they stir up enough trouble so that someone like Castro could come to power. Which is exactly what was done in Cuba and Iran. The guys fighting on the front lines, were never actually the ones that ended up in power once the bodies were cleared. Because they became those bodies. And if they didn’t die as a sacrifice to the Living Cause, their comrades would kill them after the fact, just to boost their own power and glory.

    Malcom X, killed by the Islamic Black Panther crowd, ostensibly because Malcom X was starting to see MLK’s side of things. Coincidentally, MLK also got killed…

     One of the things I can never forget is how the Left continues to talk about rich greedy corporatist capitalists, yet at the same time the RIAA, Soros, and the MPAA back Democrats 110% in terms of war funding and logistics. You don’t see the Left saying SOPA is an evil Hollywood capitalist plan to leech money off the freeborn, now do you. So yet again we see a glaring level of “fairness” as presented by the Left. This is their justice that they will impose on all of us, sooner or later. If their back is not broken that is.

  6. says

    Martel, they are using very reasonable analysis models. They control 93+% of the voting population in DC. 95+% of the voting population of blacks. 75+% of the voting block of Jews. They have maintained this control for generations. By their analysis methods, making most of Americans into their private slaves is very doable without a civil war. Since when did blacks or Jews last fight a civil war against the Left or Democrats? If people can’t even free one demographic group from the shackles of Leftist tyranny, what makes anyone think the rest of the country, a whole order of complexity greater in difficulty, is going to get done.

     

  7. Charles Martel says

    I ran into the Panthers beaucoup times in Los Angeles in the late 60s. I used to follow Eldridge Cleaver around Southern California because I loved watching him speak. He was an intelligent, often charismatic man who was quite entertaining. Besides, the Panthers then did not preach racial hatred, so a white boy like me was relatively safe even in the bowels of South Central.
     
    Panther psychology was very simple: Rule by force and intimidation. A small group of ruthless armed men can control—or at least neutralize—a much larger population if that population is convinced that the alternative is even worse. This was before the Crips and Bloods showed poor black Americans what real wanton brutality was like. The LAPD, which was pretty racist back in the day, was never seriously considered by ghetto residents as a counterbalance to the Panthers.
     
    Remember, too, the attractiveness of lost and forlorn causes. A lot of people who join radical movements secretly hope for martyrdom. They have this continuously looping Les Miserables crowd scene in their heads where they bravely resist tyranny and go on to live in the form of pigeon-proof statues erected in People’s Squares. 
     
    Marxists do not realize the irony that they are in love with the Middle Ages. An earth divided among all-powerful rulers (the 1%) who control everybody else (the 99%)—think of Cuba or the old USSR—is paradise to them. The Panthers don’t care that they are numerically insignificant or could not hope to hold off a determined assault by organized free men. They would be content to see the present order fall and then hold sway over one of the small principalities that would emerge from the chaos, much as the old Roman latifundias became the cores around which medieval duchies and feudal lords would coalesce.  
     
    A final observation: the Panthers are physically brave in the sense that most members are willing to risk their lives by engaging in firefights they could well lose. Their problem is that, like primitive fighters anywhere, they are not disciplined or well organized. Against a smaller, but well-trained, cohesive force versed in tactics and obedient to a hierarchy that’s based based on competence, not brute power, they would succumb quickly, like the Incas and the Zulus—brave men who were not astute enough to organize for real warfare.

  8. Mike Devx says

    Charles Martel says: A civil war, which can only be brought on by the left, would be an ugly thing. But it is something the left cannot win. Play with fire, get burned.

     I totally agree, Charles.  But the problem is, how do you define the start of such a civil War (started by the left).   Some would say it has already started.  Where do you draw the line in the sand, and say, “Here is where it began”?

    The left already has the 100% habit of tactic, of shutting down conservative speakers via violence.  If you are a conservative speaker, and you GET the chance to speak at any event, it is only because the left has CHOSEN at this point not to shut you down via violence.  Every single person they want to shut down, they do shut down, via violence.  Sometimes the university or forum simply cancels the event in advance, citing “concerns for public safety” due to the leftist threats.  Yet every time they proceed, the proceedings are violated by shouting, screaming mobs who rush the stage, throw things, and force the speaker to be hustled off the stage amidst security.

    In the last six years we have seen violence increasing in the streets.  We have seen throngs endanger families in their own homes, threatening them and putting them in dire fear, because the father holds a political position or has made a statement that THEY DON’T LIKE.  Violence and the threat of violence looms ever nearer.  How long before we hear of the Molotov cocktail thrown through the dining room window, and the house burned down – and the four children escaping out second story bedroom windows with Mom and Dad’s help, suffering “minor smoke inhalation damage”, a broken wrist, and one broken leg?  And how many of us won’t even blink at the story, let alone feel a sense of total outrage at the violation?

    Leftist violence has been steadily increasing.  It is like the frog in the pot of water brought slowly to a boil.  You get used to worse, and worse, and WORSE.  Some people will wake up and start fighting back.  At that point, some conservatives will go after THEM for fighting back.  They would rather “tut-tut” and “tsk-tsk” while their own like-minded citizens fall ever more under the sway of the fear of violence and of violence itself.  You are supposed to be able to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your property from such violence.  Yet there are conservatives who would not allow other conservatives to defend themselves.

     To which I would say, FOR SHAME  FOR SHAME.  How dare you criticize them for defending their freedom and liberty?   What in the name of hell is wrong with YOU?  If you want to go down without a fight – if you want to go out quietly and meekly and without even the slightest whimper of protest –  that’s your choice; but don’t take others down with you.

    For me personally, I don’t think we’ve reached that line in the sand yet, where we could say a civil war has begun.  For me, the violence remains too focused on silencing speech to be called a civil war; the actual acts of violence not against speech remain too diffuse and sporadic.  Yet the acts of leftist violence *are* increasing each and every year.  And it is clear it will only continue to increase, as their leadership urges them on with escalating rhetoric of violence, as they become more and more used to engaging in the acts of violence themselves.  When will each of us find our own personal line crossed, to say “Enough”?
     

Leave a Reply