Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Message sent: there is a heavy and very personal price to pay for criticizing Barack

John Nolte at Big Hollywood:
Had Cramer not hammered Obama, does anyone believe Stewart would have given him the attention he did? The same is true with Rick Santelli. How long has Santelli been doing what he does on CNBC? But it’s only after Santelli criticized Obama that Stewart found something about Santelli (and CNBC) to get morally indignant over. There was only one dynamic that changed here, and that wasn’t how CNBC, Santelli or Cramer do business, it was that they criticized Barack Obama.

But Stewart employs a sleight of hand to keep the rules of the game below the radar. He can’t thrash and humiliate these men for criticizing Obama, that would give the game away, so he finds something else. But the pop culture rules of the game are clear: Stay in line or we will humiliate you. And “we” is Stewart and all those who participate in the viral aspect of Stewart’s game of humiliation.
Stewart didn’t appear to give much of a damn about “the rubes” until Cramer dared stray from the liberal talking points.
It’s a nice feint on Stewart’s part, a disingenuous shot at humility, a way to hide behind the “I’m just a comedian” card he’s been pulling for years, but Stewart and Co. take themselves very seriously and a flag has been planted and a message sent that there will be a heavy price to pay for criticizing President Obama.
Barack possesses the softest underbelly of illogical beliefs. You could gut him open with a mere fingernail.   However, to reach the soft underbelly, you must first pass through the kicking hooves of 
  • entertainment mafia:  Hollywood, Stewart, Maher, SNL, Colbert, et al
  • traditional media
  • new media:  Kos, Huffington Post, activist internet champions of Barack
  • Barack/Robert Gibbs/Schumer Dems/Carville spokesultants


Happy conservative babes Cassy Fiano and Dr. Melissa Clouthier enjoy an Astros game. Happy conservative babes are some of my favorite persons.

End Intermission.

In keeping with the "criticize Barack and you will be attacked" meme, look at civilians which the last group - sometimes including Barack himself - have gone after:
  • A CIVILIAN plumber with the TEMERITY to ask a question. Come on.
  • Civilian Sean Hannity (It's not that Hannity deserves protection, but rather that he is not in government and is not in Republican leadership).
  • Civilian Rush Limbaugh
  • Civilian Rick Santelli
  • Civilian Jim Cramer 
Rep. Eric Cantor is the new target.  At least Cantor is a leader amongst Repubs.

It's not that - in the interest of gracefulness - any of these (excepting, initially, Joe the Plumber) deserve protection from sharp elbows. It is, rather, Dems fail to respond to substance, and instead unleash attacks on personal characteristics. Dems proactively promote flawed logic flim flam:
If the messenger is invalidated: the message is invalidated!
Dems cross a line when they attack persons (as opposed to issues) who are government figures, i.e. Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Newt Gingrich, Kenneth Starr, Cheney, Rumsfeld, GWB. Dems cross a further line via attacking the personal characteristics of civilians. Why does the President's Press Secretary: Robert Gibbs, stand before cameras and attack the personal choices and personal characteristics of civilians Hannity, Limbaugh, Santelli, Cramer?  Do voters notice Robert Gibbs - the President's public representative - avoiding substance and descending to grade school namecalling and taunting?

Don't get me wrong: Barack/Gibbs/spokesultants would be on righteous ground if they attacked the logic of Joe the Plumber, Hannity, Limbaugh, Santelli, Cramer, Cantor. Also, Barack/Gibbs/Dems would be righteous if they did not respond at all.  Yet, they choose Option C: coordinate, get the message out to friendlies, then disparage away! Attack the person, not the substantive argument.  Use personal characteristics to try and invalidate this particular messenger at this time.

Immoral. Without virtue. Graceless. Despicable. Is anyone paying attention?



Barack, via avoiding substance and attacking the messengers, displays lack of confidence in the strength of his own arguments.  

Barack knows the kicking hooves of media, new media, and entertainment mafia 
1) are on his side, and 
2) will gleefully publicize and promote any substantive argument he wishes to offer.  

That Barack fails to rebut with substance ... is an indication of weakness and lack of confidence -and is, frankly, amazing to me.  It's Bill Clinton's Ken Starr strategy multiplied and liberally spread around.  This is what the cheerleading media who let Clinton get away with attacking Ken Starr have wrought.  This is how a Democrat "governs".  This is Barack at his weakest, most  disengaged, and least relevant.

That Barack pairs his soft underbelly of illogical beliefs with the most fragile of glass jaws is not good.  Churchill, he is not.  Barack reeks of weakness, immaturity, and intellectual disengagement.  These odors emanate from him in waves.   Our enemies are onto the scent - and the kicking hooves of Barack's defenders do not target America's enemies. 

For the targeting of American enemies who stumble into Jacksonville, FL, we must rely on the Cassy Fianos of the world:  


Karl Rove on video:
What surprised me was, frankly, the tone of Mr. Gibbs, who sounded like some wise cracking Junior High smart mouth. It would've been better, both for Obama and for the country, if Mr. Gibbs had - if he felt necessary to respond - responded to the merits of the issue rather than putting such heavy emphasis on his little sarcastic, flip comments - because these are real issues. These are real issues.

No comments: