Tuesday, September 6, 2011

When You Don't Gag on Someone's Prez-Pole and No One is Around to Not Hear It, Did You Not Make a Sound?

I kinda thought this was a joke at first (via Hot Air), but I think this Capehart guy is quite serious.

Obama’s fight — for respect

Now overall he seems upset that Obama's so passive in the face of Republican ignominy. Passive, is this instance of course, means not railroading through your every whim with a sniff and a reminder of "I won." Now that there are enough Republicans in the legislature to actually speak for, you know, half the country, Liberals are all sad and crying indignantly for their mommies.

"Yeah, yeah. In the grand scheme of things, the kerfuffle over the timing of President Obama’s jobs speech before a joint session of Congress is the perfect slow-news-day story that has little resonance outside the confines of the Washington Beltway. It’s the kind of thing news and political junkies chew over when there’s nothing else to do during summer’s last gasp.

Still, the hard-core move by Obama to address the nation before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 7 — the same night as a Republican presidential debate — resonated with me and more than a few others around the country because of what it symbolized. A willingness by the president to fight. But when House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) issued his honey-coated push back over the date, I and others said (ok, demanded) the president should deliver his speech on the day of his choosing. For me, this was not a demand rooted in politics. It was rooted in weariness at the ongoing lack of respect for the presidency and this president. "

So let me get this straight. Picking that particular night was a deliberate "fight", but when the other side in the issue actually pushed back, i.e. participated in the fight, they were wrong.

Mr. Capehart, call your dictionary - that word "fight": I do not think it means what you think it means.

So this Capehart is coming out of the gate with a dunce cap on, but let's have some more fun with him.

So first Capehart is glad that the President picked a fight. A "hardcore" fight even. (Note that a consistent comment by me on this blog is that Obama only truly "fights" against Americans and American institutions.)

Next Capehart whines about

"the ongoing lack of respect for the presidency and this president."

I quoted that for posterity, because it's beautiful. After about a 10 minute search I was able to find the following examples of Democratic legislators showing their respect for the presidency and another president:

Obviously, if I went wider than the legislature, I could fill Google's servers with examples of far worse behavior and accusations.

So we must begin to wonder - is Capehart ignorant of the events of the last decade or so? Is he intentionally dissembling?

"As Jim Downie pointed out in his excellent post last night, Boehner’s rejection of Obama’s joint-session request is unprecedented. Mind you, this isn’t the first time this speaker thumbed his nose at this president. During one of the most dramatic moments of the debt-ceiling talks, Obama called Boehner twice to follow up on a conversation about additional revenue in the grand bargain they’d been negotiating in secret. He was told the speaker was unavailable."

This President is a pushy punk and treats Republicans like shit in public - why would anyone with an R next to their name want to take his calls?

And then there was Boehner’s offensive response on “Meet The Press” to questions about the persistent lie that Obama was a closet Muslim who wasn’t born in the United States. “As the speaker of the House, as the leader,” he was asked by moderator David Gregory, “Do you not think it’s your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?”

"It’s not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people. Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me. The president says he’s a Christian. I accept him at his word."

I've read it a few times and I simply can't find anything offensive in that exchange except for Gregory's lable of "ignorance" applied to folks wanting to be sure of where their president was born.

"When George W. Bush was president, harsh things were said all the time by congressional Democrats and their leaders. Some even crossed the line. Yet, while there was disdain for the man in the Oval Office, respect for the office itself was never in doubt. I seriously worry that it’s in doubt now among some Republicans. Each petty slight by Boehner is one more chip away at respect for the presidency."

"...crossed the line." (See above)

So when Bush was president, "disdain" for the man did NOT reflect on the office (not that a little disdain for ANY aspect of government is necessarily a bad thing IMO), but with Obama, disagreement with the man DOES equate to disdain for the office. This Capehart guy must have been busy practicing on his carrots and cucumbers the day they taught logic in school.

"In Obama, we have a president more grounded and comfortable in his own skin than many of the people he has to work with to govern this country."


" He’s bigger than most of us."


"So the petty slights that get a lot of us riled up probably don’t register to him."


I didn't make those preceding 3 sentences up. This WAPO guy actually wrote them.

Let's see them again:

"In Obama, we have a president more grounded and comfortable in his own skin than many of the people he has to work with to govern this country."

So comfortable that he bullies and pouts and brags like a 14 year old?

" He’s bigger than most of us."

A bigger asshole, sure. I can see that. A bigger ignoramous. A bigger socialist, even.

"So the petty slights that get a lot of us riled up probably don’t register to him."

So now the slights against your robot-god-king are petty? I thought they were bad enough to harm the very office he holds?

"He’s a thinker and plotter with his eyes on the prize down the road, not the daily hysteria taking place on the road to get there."


" That’s why I’m praying that when the real fight comes, the president will show Republicans — and the American people — that he’s not the pushover they believe him to be.

By Jonathan Capehart | 10:08 AM ET, 09/01/2011 "

Yeah, the "pushover" that gave us the Stimulus, Obamacare, an unauthorized war in Libya, a takeover of GM, persecution of Gibson, a Gulf permitorium, and a cockblocking of Boeing.

You know, I worry about some of these fervent Obama disciples. Because let's face it - either Obama is the first non-crooked pol to come out of the Chicago machine in 100 years or he's just been getting superb blocking from the press during his run. When he's done fucking this country like his personal two-dollar whore, hopefully in 2012, someone's going to actually start shining light on whatever skeletons are in his closets (Rezko, anyone?), and if any of them are remotely serious, jokers like this Capehart idiot are going to go cata-fucking-tonic.

And as amusing as that will be, I worry that, in his stumbling, he might accidentally impale someone with his giant dunce cap.


Midwest Chick said...

There is no critter more dangerous than a zealot who is shown that he/she is wrong. We've seen bits and pieces of it in Wisconsin and in Hoffa Jr. and Maxine Waters. It's going to get a lot worse.

Windy Wilson said...

100 years? Chicago hasn't put out an honest politician since waaaaay before the Great Chicago Fire, so I'd say, at least 130, more like 150 years.

But all this difference between the treatment of "their guy" and "our guy" comes down to what Adolf Eichmann said about all those people he sent to their deaths "but they were Jews.". In this case, "But he was a Republican and he deserved it."

Logic has never been the socialists' long suit. If they could reason they'd be Republicans.

Post a Comment