About two weeks ago, Senator Obama was on Hardball and told the audience that he believed that marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. There was little or no reaction to this comment, the "liberal" media did not cover it wall to wall for two days, and the gay community did not go ape shit. In addition, there was no faux concern over Obama's electability.But in this day and age, when you make a comment like this:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow those communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.And it's not surprising to me then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti immigrant sentiment or anti trade sentiment as to way to explain their frustrations."
well, you are God Damned all to hell!!
And Tinkerbell's light goes out and she dies.
Because as all good Americans know when you make any kind of remark that even is slightly negative about guns or religion (even if it is true), you are the pure embodiment of evil and are against all that is wholesome and good. One need only look at fellow blogger Kevin Baker's site to see the all too predictable reaction. I wonder if any of them will compare the reaction of Senator Obama's comments on gay marriage with the most recent ones and see a difference.
Probably not.
Anyway, I think when you look at the reaction to his statement on small towns, it becomes quite obvious that it is accurate. This reaction is typical of the "rock granite" stubborn refusal of some people to look at who is actually fucking them over and continually blame the "other" which, ironically, is what Obama is describing. It's a distraction from the serious issues of the day and it puts energy into something that will ultimately solve no problems--which works out perfectly for the people (Bush, Cheney and pundit machine) who supposedly are on their side. The people they should really be pissed off at are laughing all the way to the bank.....the people that have manipulated their bitterness and their honesty into votes.
Some people that post here lament long and hard about how liberals are "sheeple" who follow along with whatever their side says. To a certain extent and with certain liberals, this is true. However, the art of getting people to become sheeple has never been more perfected than it has with the "stupid rednecks in flyover country who believe in God, guns and country, " as Kevin describes on his blog. This recent flap is an excellent example.
It illustrates how the "fake outrage machine" works in this country. A bunch of people will now get angry at Obama for being "condescending" or the terribly false belief that he actually looks at people as Kevin says he does So, by all means, let's continue to debate, ad nauseaum, how Senator Obama is an "elitist" or a hater of Meanwhile, Bush Co will dance with glee as it continues to pull several layers of wool over millions of eyes and the real problems out there...the ones that Senator Obama is best equipped to face....continue to get worse.
A while back, a friend of mine told me that she didn't think we were ready for BarackObama..that our country was too petty and stupid to want a real leader who would actually take this country to the next level. If this bullshit continues on into next week, I fear she might be right. In which case, we deserve people like John McCain or Hillary Clinton, who most assuredly will be business as usual and definitely make the majority of our country's problems even worse.
Perhaps now is not the time for change because I'm not sure if we deserve it.
19 comments:
I'm not sure we deserve it either. The barbarians are at the gate...
And the big deal about his comments are...?
Stop me please if I am missing something but aren't people on the right generally against "victim" culture? And isn't that exactly how they are behaving right now?
Because at the end of the day, how is Senator Obama's comment "wrong" exactly?
Yeah, Sara, that's what I want to know. I would like a conservative who posts here to answer this question: does the Republican Party use issues like gun control, rights for homosexuals, abortion, immigration, trade, and religion to distract voters from the issues that are truly affecting them in an adverse way?
"truth girl," the barbarians are inside the gate. The barbarians are us. Some of us, anyway. The question here is, which group is which?
How is Obama's comment wrong? I'll let Marc Danziger answer that one:
Obama believes that the people he's discussing - poorer, gun-owning, church-going economic left-behinds in rural America are bitter and negative toward government because it hasn't delivered.
There's an alternate hypothesis, which is that they don't think it's supposed to. That there are(sic) a solid body of Americans who believe - with whatever justification or historical validity - that government's role is to leave them alone. I'll bet that people who believe those things tend to migrate away from major cities or never move to them, tend to go to church a lot, believe in guns, and in American culture. They are - wait for it - culturally conservative."
And he just offended every single one of them.
Markadelphia, you keep saying that it's a "terribly false belief" that Obama looks down on the rural people in flyover country, yet you state yourself that the "stupid rednecks in flyover country" are dumb sheeple led around by our political masters. Your first two commenters agree. One considers us "barbarians at the gate," the other asks "how is Senator Obama's comment 'wrong' exactly?" And your third commenter agrees. They all believe it to be true - but we stupid rednecks are supposed to believe that Obama doesn't?
Fish really don't notice the water they swim in.
As for us "deserving change," I'll let Henry Louis Mencken say it:
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
The issue here is that me made a comment that will no doubt piss off a lot of people. In terms of politics, whether Obamas views are accurate or inaccurate really is irrelevant.
When I say barbarians I mean people that can't seem to focus on the issues and play with petty baloney like Obama's remarks last week in SF. Both sides do it but it seems more obvious to me that the right would rather rant and rave about stuff like this than address the real issues.
Of course, some of them don't consider issues like climate change to be real. They think this, not because they honestly don't agree with findings, but because they always have to be against or fighting someone. It is in their nature. Not surprising that this party is run primarily by men. In fact, I had a female conservative associate of mine that a woman should not be allowed to be president because they are too emotional. I could barely restrain myself.
Oh, and Mark, again I must say that your columns would be much easier to read without the foul language.
I'm really not sure why folks here are asking question of conservatives who post here because your minds are already made up on the subject at hand just as much as theirs is.
Actually, that's not true, hf. You can ask me any question you like. I really do want an answer to mine.
i really like the conversation comments & chemistry above :) it's intelligent & hopeful. i also like the way mark says : "i'm not sure we deserve it" becase that is true and profound. nothing further to post at this time.! :) jt
"And he just offended every single one of them."
Kevin, how do you know this? Do you know every single one of them and are now their official spokesperson?
"but we stupid rednecks are supposed to believe that Obama doesn't?"
Kevin, remember, those were your words, not mine. I also do not think you are a stupid redneck. But I do think that conservatives are much more successful than liberals at manipulating their base, which is exactly what this whole flap is really about.
I think it is really important to keep perspective here. Obama is an interesting figure on the political landscape, but he should not be put up on a pedestal. This is the easiest way to find tremendous fault in any human being…set them up to god-hood status and then when the slightest mistake is made, they take this tremendous fall. Let’s be clear about one thing, should Obama make it to the Big Dance, he WILL make mistakes. There will be issues. Get used to it. The problem with this culture is that there is this concept that we should not be subject to imperfection nor should we have to suffer the consequences of our decisions or actions, especially if the short-term effects are beneficial to us.
As for deserving or not deserving Obama…we deserve the best candidate in the field. We are all good, hard-working people who want the best for our country whether we are conservative or liberal. The process should provide us the best candidate running (not necessarily the best choice in the world), if it is not tampered with by biased Supreme Court judges or the manufacturers of black box voting machines. Are there going to be things we don’t like about our future president? I wouldn’t doubt it for a second. But isn’t that the whole point of this thing? We have seen what happens when a single ideology dominates the political decision-making process. We got Iraq out of this, a failing economy, upwards-spiraling gas prices, gigantic leaps in homeless people, etc. etc. We may not like the idea of compromising, but that is the essence of politics. In fact politics cannot exist outside of the context of compromise and as is true in all compromises, there is some level of discontent. We need balance right now….not a complete reversal of ideology to further the societal rift in this country.
I am really not sure where all the speculation about Obama’s attitude comes from. Furthermore, I find it disheartening to see peoples future, unrealized, performance judged based on very limited information and highly subjective interpretation of a couple of sentences. The message seems clear from some arenas of our society that they think that government is a bad thing and that somehow there should be no government. The funny thing is, they are a product of our society, our government, our educational system and the very skills they use to communicate their disgust were provided them by the very system they are railing against. They seem to think that somehow, they will be protected from the bad guys (criminals) simply because they have guns. They think that their drinking water will be miraculously purified through some undefined individuals purely idealistic drive, or that given a completely free capitalistic system, those same individuals wouldn’t gouge them for the services provided. They think that the mega-corporations really don’t own and control huge chunks of the commercial market. Sure they can demonize the government and praise the illusion of free-market, but they cannot speak from the perspective of what would happen if there was no government to monitor or regulate the system. After all, the Great Depression, price-fixing, environmental disasters that are the result of negligence…these are all things that either a. didn’t happen, b. did happen, but have been distorted by the evil empire that is education, c. are so far in the past…they could never happen again.
I find it terribly hypocritical to enjoy the benefits of this society and at the same time criticize the manner in which they obtained those benefits. As if they don’t enjoy the benefits of clean water, police and fire departments, Armed Forces, government controls on air and water pollution. Yeah. Right. Perhaps if we all lived in the mythical Wild West of the 19th century we could settle all our problems with Dr.’s Smith and Wesson or Mr. Colt, but that is a long ways from where we are today. There are mega-corps, there are societal forces much larger then the individual and we simply can’t fight our problems in this way (although I agree we should all have the right to own guns). Could the system be better…without a doubt. We should all work towards making it better by voting based not on a single issue, but on a suite of issues and being educated about those issues. Is government flawed….yes. Accept it for what it is and see the sentence above for correcting the problems. Apathy is killing this country along with the amount of whining about not getting things EXACTLY the way we want them. Is there such a thing then as throwing the baby out with the bathwater…that seems to be the order of the day for that loud minority that likes to sit in an ivory tower and revel in their own thoughts, never thoroughly considering the other side of an argument or the potential flaws in their own.
Part of growing up is admitting that any person (including themselves) are capable of making mistakes and bad decisions. The mark of being an adult is when a person stops wallowing in self-indulgent, biased fantasy and finds a way to make amends or correct the situation. Unfortunately, our society tends to favor childishness at the present time. I think we could all stand to grow up a little.
John, you blame the current failing economy on the last 7 years of GWB? Curious.
I think it's funny (in a ha-ha way) that your statement about never thoroughly considering the other side... is exactly the thing that I say about Markadelphia, et al, and it's exactly the thing they say about "conservatives".
And, in my opinion, it's the essence of what is "wrong" with what Obama said. He says something like he did and he gets a pass from a great many people because it's "true" or "not a big deal". (Your words...not mine.) Yet I would argue that it clearly is judgmental, and no less problematic than a blanket statement about "Jews" or "Blacks", which would be something for which nobody reading this board would likely give a free pass. Does it mean Obama would be a terrible President? Of course not. Unless, of course, it reveals him to be a man who possesses significant prejudices of his own that will adversely influence policy decisions. Are you (that's a general "you") telling me it's not possible that's the case?
In answer to Elizabeth's question - Yes, they do. And I'm OK with that. It's a means to an end. If you don't possess an idealistic view of what it means to be President of this country than such a concept is much easier to swallow.
John, your entire premis seems to hinge on your belief that the right wants absolutely no gov't, as opposed to limited gov't. Could you produce a quote from any conservative espousing the wild-west, anarchy system that you attribute to them?
...didn't think so.
Define limited government. Then we can talk about quotes.
No need to. I’m not making blanket statements such as…
1) “The message seems clear from some arenas of our society that they think that government is a bad thing and that somehow there should be no government.”
2) “They seem to think that somehow, they will be protected from the bad guys (criminals) simply because they have guns. They think that their drinking water will be miraculously purified through some undefined individuals purely idealistic drive, or that given a completely free capitalistic system, those same individuals wouldn’t gouge them for the services provided.”
3) “Sure they can demonize the government and praise the illusion of free-market, but they cannot speak from the perspective of what would happen if there was no government to monitor or regulate the system.”
4) “As if they don’t enjoy the benefits of clean water, police and fire departments, Armed Forces, government controls on air and water pollution.”
5) “Perhaps if we all lived in the mythical Wild West of the 19th century we could settle all our problems with Dr.’s Smith and Wesson or Mr. Colt, but that is a long ways from where we are today.”
That’s a awful lot of pontificating about us conservatives; a group you speak as if you know a lot about. So, surely you’ve some researchable information to back up your commentary? Or is this just a bit of artistic license? (Before your retort, remember, being an adult is being able to admit when you’re wrong….)
"being an adult is being able to admit when you’re wrong"
I have yet to see an admission of being wrong from you, dave, in regards to the colossal policy errors of the last eight years in just about every possible area. Even last in line has done that in regards to health care.
Hey Sara, don't get me wrong. I'm a great arm-chair quarterback...I can bash this administration with the best of them. But there has to be a certain logic behind it; and there's precious little of that here. One can't lead w/ Bush is a nazi or conservatives want a old west styled anarchy and expect rational discussion to follow.
And in this case, I'm also not making the kind of unsupportable blanket accusations against the left that John is doing. ...if he actually believes such things, there must have been some conservative who said it that drove him to that opinion...I'm just curious who/what it was. Because, you see, I'm very open minded and if John were to produce a few quotes from notable conservatives stating how they'd like to abolish "all" gov't, well, then I could see where he's coming from. But, alas, he cannot. Very similar to other accusations tossed about here (the administration putting porn or other disreptuable material on people's PCs, comes to mind...). If people cannot support what they say, what am I left to believe other than that they are a complete dolt.
Actually Sara, what I did was put forth my ideal model for a partial universal healthcare plan for this nation in order to bait a couple keyboard bitches into posting their well thought-out healthcare plans that I was sure they no doubt had. I was so convinced they had a plan of their own because they only come on this blog to insult people, leaving plenty of time for them to actually think about the issue at hand and to construct and put forth a detailed plan of their own including specific numbers as I did.
I told them to Nut up or Shut up. They chose the Shut up option. Go look - it's the comment section of the Mitt Romney presidential profile from May of 2007 on this blog. When reading it all, remember that I'm the one with low level socio-political knowledge about healthcare. I've only worked in the healthcare field for a combined 10 years but they don't care about all that - they've figured it all out by surfing the internet.
In case they are still constructing their plans I want to help them out some. Perhaps they can tell everyone which country is leading the way in 2008 in innovations in the healthcare industry. Hint - it isn't the UK or any of those eastern European welfare states. Pretty much all the innovations are taking place in a country whose initials are U.S.A.
Post a Comment