Jim Stillman
Nevar
The consistency of the Rabid (and nutty) Right
April 18th 2009 23:13
Those of us who are addicts of talk radio can attest to a few examples of the consistency of the more hysterical hosts in their absolute and unconditional hatred of Barack Obama. There is and has been commentary in the moderate and rational media that the basis for this hate is racial in origin and, there is some support for this position.
Tammy Bruce, one of the more strident voices was, once, a decent enough person, active in pro-choice and other women’s right issues and, if fact President of the National Organization for Women chapter in Los Angeles. Her strong belief in the cause of ending domestic violence resulted in her being tossed out of NOW when she, referring to O. J. Simpson, said, "You are not welcome here; you are not welcome in our country; you are not welcome in our culture". This was considered by many in the area to be a wish that Simpson would “go back to Africa”
Whatever the reason, Ms Bruce made a 180° change in political and social direction. She refers to President Obama as “B. Hussein Urkel” thereby managing to combine the inference that the President is a middle-east terrorist and that he is like the Steve Urkel character on the television program Family Matters, awkward, nerdy, anti-social, weird-dressing and, above all, black.
The hatred extends to Michelle Obama who has no political role in government. Again I go to that font of bigotry and absurdity, Tammy Bruce who points out that Mrs. Obama has a “fake accent” [i.e., not urban ghetto] and “"That's what he's married to…. you know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House." Ms Bruce goes on, “Listen to [Michelle] Obama sound like -- a white girl."
How uppity can you get!
Whether it is based on racism or just shallowness generally, there can be no question that Michael Savage, Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter and, of course, Glenn Beck and the ever self promoting Rush Limbaugh hate, truly hate.
When Somalia-based pirates attacked an American flagship and seized Richard Phillips, its captain, it was a gift from heaven. The bloggers went wild, generally agreeing that the capture of Captain Phillips was a major defeat for the President; it was his entire fault.
The pirates according to Warner Todd Houston, a common analysis: “These skinny, underfed, unorganized and ill-equipped pirates are making a fool of what is ostensibly the most powerful man in the world.” The consensus of the rabid ones was that the President was a weak, ineffectual, naïve and incompetent. He would not allow the Navy to do its job and rescue the Captain and kill the pirates. As another commentator whined, "Why were these pirates not deterred by the prospects of a response from the United States Navy?" Simple answer: Barack Obama is President and, as such, is in charge of the Navy. So, if the Navy doesn’t rescue the Captain, it is because the President has failed.
Then, as we all know, the Navy did rescue the Captain, killing three pirates in a dramatic and magnificent demonstration of the appropriate use of force (and marksmanship)
Each and every crew member of the seized ship, the ship and cargo are safe, and the pirates are all dead or in custody. It’s still a poor showing by President Obama: he failed because he sat in Washington and didn’t “do anything”
What was he supposed to do beyond directing the Navy officials at the scene to act? Was Barack Obama expected to don a flight suit and pilot a jet to a carrier? Was he required to personally give the sharpshooters at the scene an order to shoot? Or make the shot himself?
It is interesting that one of the principal argument by Fox News that the President’s refusal, before the rescue, to answer questions about what action the United States would take. Many within the rabid congregation stated that the reason was that the answers were not on a teleprompter and therefore could not be supplied to the dense and ill-informed Obama. (Tammy Bruce: “Urkel has managed to make GWB look like a rocket scientist.”)
Ms Bruce and others anticipated the failure of the United States to act in an appropriate manner with no casualties – except for the bad guys. In the days following the pirate take-over, Newt Gingrich said that of the present Obama administration, “No one has the will to do anything”. Glenn Beck added, “Obama cannot do anything, the Navy cannot fix the problem…we’re screwed.” President Obama was accused of being indecisive, compared (unfairly) to Jimmy Carter’s situation with the late 1960’s hostage actions in Iraq; the record is clear that the far right bet on the United States’ failure. They bet on failure -- and actually looked forward to it – because it would validate the disparagement of Barack Obama whom they hate.
But, it turns out that the President’s refusal to speak openly about rescue plans made a great deal of sense. Moreover, the Navy effected a masterful rescue operation all at the order and direction of the President – doing what a President is supposed to do.
Did this events slow down the machine? Not even for a minute. The extremists now state that President Obama is still at fault; he should have acted earlier, he is still unworthy or they just refuse to discuss it. He gets no credit whatsoever.
The absolute hatred of this President is all encompassing, even more than that directed to Bill Clinton. President Clinton, from his first day in office, was the object of innuendo, investigations of alleged illegal land transactions in Arkansas. His presidency was hampered by the well-funded right wing organizations that never forgave him for not allowing the “real” president, George H. W .Bush to take the oath of office. In spite of these distractions, the United States had a balanced budget at the end of Bill Clinton’s term, generally good relations with and respect from other nations and a prosperous economy.
And no war!
But the right’s hatred of Barack Obama exceeds that of Bill Clinton. It is not objections to his political views or his liberal-progressive approach to governance. It certainly cannot be a feeling that this President is inactive; in fact a legitimate criticism is that he is taking on too much at one timed. It cannot be simply that the newly elected President is not too smart. One cannot have his academic record without brains!
The rabid right has forfeited any claim to responsible political opposition. They will still get the support of the diminishing fraction of the electorate.
But the rest of us have to be sickened.
[The substance of this article has been published by the author at EXAMINER.COM.]
Tammy Bruce, one of the more strident voices was, once, a decent enough person, active in pro-choice and other women’s right issues and, if fact President of the National Organization for Women chapter in Los Angeles. Her strong belief in the cause of ending domestic violence resulted in her being tossed out of NOW when she, referring to O. J. Simpson, said, "You are not welcome here; you are not welcome in our country; you are not welcome in our culture". This was considered by many in the area to be a wish that Simpson would “go back to Africa”
Whatever the reason, Ms Bruce made a 180° change in political and social direction. She refers to President Obama as “B. Hussein Urkel” thereby managing to combine the inference that the President is a middle-east terrorist and that he is like the Steve Urkel character on the television program Family Matters, awkward, nerdy, anti-social, weird-dressing and, above all, black.
The hatred extends to Michelle Obama who has no political role in government. Again I go to that font of bigotry and absurdity, Tammy Bruce who points out that Mrs. Obama has a “fake accent” [i.e., not urban ghetto] and “"That's what he's married to…. you know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House." Ms Bruce goes on, “Listen to [Michelle] Obama sound like -- a white girl."
How uppity can you get!
Whether it is based on racism or just shallowness generally, there can be no question that Michael Savage, Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter and, of course, Glenn Beck and the ever self promoting Rush Limbaugh hate, truly hate.
When Somalia-based pirates attacked an American flagship and seized Richard Phillips, its captain, it was a gift from heaven. The bloggers went wild, generally agreeing that the capture of Captain Phillips was a major defeat for the President; it was his entire fault.
The pirates according to Warner Todd Houston, a common analysis: “These skinny, underfed, unorganized and ill-equipped pirates are making a fool of what is ostensibly the most powerful man in the world.” The consensus of the rabid ones was that the President was a weak, ineffectual, naïve and incompetent. He would not allow the Navy to do its job and rescue the Captain and kill the pirates. As another commentator whined, "Why were these pirates not deterred by the prospects of a response from the United States Navy?" Simple answer: Barack Obama is President and, as such, is in charge of the Navy. So, if the Navy doesn’t rescue the Captain, it is because the President has failed.
Then, as we all know, the Navy did rescue the Captain, killing three pirates in a dramatic and magnificent demonstration of the appropriate use of force (and marksmanship)
Each and every crew member of the seized ship, the ship and cargo are safe, and the pirates are all dead or in custody. It’s still a poor showing by President Obama: he failed because he sat in Washington and didn’t “do anything”
What was he supposed to do beyond directing the Navy officials at the scene to act? Was Barack Obama expected to don a flight suit and pilot a jet to a carrier? Was he required to personally give the sharpshooters at the scene an order to shoot? Or make the shot himself?
It is interesting that one of the principal argument by Fox News that the President’s refusal, before the rescue, to answer questions about what action the United States would take. Many within the rabid congregation stated that the reason was that the answers were not on a teleprompter and therefore could not be supplied to the dense and ill-informed Obama. (Tammy Bruce: “Urkel has managed to make GWB look like a rocket scientist.”)
Ms Bruce and others anticipated the failure of the United States to act in an appropriate manner with no casualties – except for the bad guys. In the days following the pirate take-over, Newt Gingrich said that of the present Obama administration, “No one has the will to do anything”. Glenn Beck added, “Obama cannot do anything, the Navy cannot fix the problem…we’re screwed.” President Obama was accused of being indecisive, compared (unfairly) to Jimmy Carter’s situation with the late 1960’s hostage actions in Iraq; the record is clear that the far right bet on the United States’ failure. They bet on failure -- and actually looked forward to it – because it would validate the disparagement of Barack Obama whom they hate.
But, it turns out that the President’s refusal to speak openly about rescue plans made a great deal of sense. Moreover, the Navy effected a masterful rescue operation all at the order and direction of the President – doing what a President is supposed to do.
Did this events slow down the machine? Not even for a minute. The extremists now state that President Obama is still at fault; he should have acted earlier, he is still unworthy or they just refuse to discuss it. He gets no credit whatsoever.
The absolute hatred of this President is all encompassing, even more than that directed to Bill Clinton. President Clinton, from his first day in office, was the object of innuendo, investigations of alleged illegal land transactions in Arkansas. His presidency was hampered by the well-funded right wing organizations that never forgave him for not allowing the “real” president, George H. W .Bush to take the oath of office. In spite of these distractions, the United States had a balanced budget at the end of Bill Clinton’s term, generally good relations with and respect from other nations and a prosperous economy.
And no war!
But the right’s hatred of Barack Obama exceeds that of Bill Clinton. It is not objections to his political views or his liberal-progressive approach to governance. It certainly cannot be a feeling that this President is inactive; in fact a legitimate criticism is that he is taking on too much at one timed. It cannot be simply that the newly elected President is not too smart. One cannot have his academic record without brains!
The rabid right has forfeited any claim to responsible political opposition. They will still get the support of the diminishing fraction of the electorate.
But the rest of us have to be sickened.
[The substance of this article has been published by the author at EXAMINER.COM.]
| 74 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
It does reveal people's prejudices.
The only way I know of avoiding rash judgement is to ask myself, What does God think about this?
All of a sudden, I have a different perspective completely. God doesn't hate anyone. He will punish the evil but it will be out of a motive of strict justice, not hatred. God cannot hate. He just possesses mercy and justice in an infinite and perfect degree, and it would make Him imperfect to not mete out justice to those who hate Him without cause after all He's done for them. He's the one who gave them this world. And they treat it like they created it and He doesn't exist. That would make a human angry.
Right wing? Left wing? Political activists? They're often all tarred with the same brush. The hand of God. He knows human nature intimately.
I've read the Roman Martyrology. I've never heard of one US President being named in the book of life. There's ony saints listed. That's what I think of Obama.
This is not a rash judgement. I've thought long and hard about it. The guy is a wingnut. God gave him really ugly ears so that when he gets so full of his own importance he still has to look in the mirror and wonder if evolution is true or not. [that's a joke, albeit a sick one
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Obama on the other hand can cause me sorrow no matter how good of day I have had. Now Jim don't get me wrong I don't want Obama to go back to Kenya, Iran would make me happier.
Comment by Nevar
Is Why
Perhaps we can be enticed back into the fold by a responsible and accountable president; but as one of those you'd consider on the nutty right, I contend that your argument lacks substance.
Comment by Nevar
Is Why
Obama is a serial liar and demonstrates it daily.
Comment by Andrew Biviano
The Middle Ground
This was very eloquent, thanks for putting it out there. I try to add one more small voice for moderation and fairness at my new blog, if you're interested. I would appreciate any feedback you have.
Do you find that writing from this perspective is worthwhile? I sometimes get disheartened reading these blogs, and the comments on my blog, as it seems that only hate has a voice and no one has ears. Maybe I'm naive, but I feel like maybe some value can come out of offering a different perspective. I really don't know, so I'd be interested in hearing what you have experienced and any advice you have. Thanks.