 | |
| Common scold |
To outward appearances, Mr. and Mrs. Obama are deeply in love, and also a matched team in furthering his career. The daughters, Malia and Sasha, seem to be polite, good students, warmly attached to mom and dad. Possibly Malia, who is around 13, throws tantrums over wanting to go steady and screams at Michelle, “You never loved me!” in the privacy of the family quarters, but it seems unlikely.
We may contrast this almost-too-perfect script from a Frank Capra movie with the train wrecks of domesticity the GOP has served up over the years. While I heard of no blemishes on the family image of the Romneys (aside from the dubious business morality of the pater familias), take the Palins, puh-leeze: Nobody but nobody ever worked the family values-scam harder than the floozy Sarah Palin with her floozy daughter, drunken son and all-round battlin’, griftin‘ mob of sanctimonious phonies.
Then there was horndog McCain, nobody’s model of marital fidelity. And before that the Bush IIs, with their drunken lout of a father who could not hold a job and their out-of-control drunken daughters.
The Bush Is were scandal-free but not very close. When Bush I needed a family portrait for political purposes, he could not get his children to gather for the photographer, so he created a clumsy forgery.
And who can forget the Reagans, paragons of all old-fashioned virtues, except for Ron Jr. working out his daddy issues on the teevee and Patti working out her daddy issues by taking off all her clothes and making soft porn films.I do not usually pay attention to the domestic affairs of political leaders. It does not have to affect their ability to operate -- FDR’s sham marriage and the misadventures of his sons did not prevent him from being the most effective president of the 20th century. (With Nixon, the dynamic apparently ran in the other direction; his political life made his wife’s life miserable. One wonders whether a loving and supportive wife would have buffed out some of the vindictive hatefulness in the man, but probably it wouldn’t have. Sociopaths are resistant to love.) But an otherwise trivial event blew up over the last week that really makes the question -- why don’t the Republicans admire the fine family values of the Obamas? -- insistent.
 |
| Dressed for church |
A minor league, but entirely typical, Republican operative, Elizabeth Lauten, launched a weird attack on the behavior and appearance of Sasha and Malia at the pardoning of the turkeys. Lauten probably didn’t have that many readers but the Internet is a multiplier.
And her remarks were truly weird. She criticized the girls for dressing like they were going to a bar. In fact, as anyone can see, they were dressed either for church or the mall. Or maybe school. You might imagine that Lauten hasn’t ever been to a bar, but as we will see, that is not so.
More subjective was her rant that the girls seemed bored and showed a lack of respect. Lack of respect for a turkey pardoning? Say it ain’t so!
I watched the entire 5-minute film of the event on Post TV and while it did not show any eyerolling, the camera wasn’t on the girls most of the time. I have no trouble imagining that two girls, 13 and 16, rolled their eyes at some of the president’s corny jokes. “Come on, Dad!”
Or that they were bored. So what?
Lauten later removed her post but the Internet never forgets.
Subsequent to her apology and resignation, she scrubbed her FB page, but the Internet is not only retentive but cruel.
It turns out that when Elizabeth Lauten was Sasha’s age she was robbing Belk’s although unlike Mike Brown, she was not shot to death for it. And she does know what the inside of a bar looks like. Her own Twitter feed had a picture of her blowing a longneck.
Stay classy, Elizabeth.
It will come as no surprise that the Republicans, instead of trying to put Elizabeth Lauten as far behind them as possible, could not refrain from complaining that Democrats did worse, although they could not show any instance of it.
So, back to the original question: Why doesn’t the party of family values embrace the wonderful family values of the Obamas?
I can think of only one possible reason: the Obamas are black.
If the Republicans are the party of family values, as they claim, why do they not embrace the Obamas?
ReplyDeleteDo you realize what a logical horror show that sentence is?
But an otherwise trivial event blew up over the last week that really makes the question -- why don’t the Republicans admire the fine family values of the Obamas? -- insistent.
Do you have any examples of where Republicans don't admire the Obama's family values? Any criticism on that score, at all, anywhere?
It will come as no surprise that the Republicans, instead of trying to put Elizabeth Lauten as far behind them as possible, could not refrain from complaining that Democrats did worse, although they could not show any instance of it.
You cannot possibly have read your own link. I see one specific instance cited: Carol Costello apologized for her statements on Bristol Palin and kept her job.
The key sentence is here: The left thrives on the politics of personal destruction. The rules of civility they demand of everyone else do not apply to them. They demand grace and show none.
To those of us who don't wear Fundamentalist Progressive blinders, that is so obvious as to hardly need stating.
But in case you need more convincing, look here, here, or here.
Better yet, Dear Media: This Elizabeth Lauten Nonsense Is Why Everybody Hates You.
The stench of progressive hypocrisy is practically overwhelming.
BTW, you said You can find recordings of O'reilly's [sic] drunken phone calls on the innertubes if you care to.
I cared to. I couldn't.
How about some links?
(Spoiler alert: you won't, because you can't.)
Did you read Lauten's statement? It answers your first question.
ReplyDeleteThere is this thing called the Internet now, you may have heard of it. By the time the 'media' became aware of this ol' Vox Pop had already taken Lauten to the woodshed. No coaching or organization from the White House despite the vicious meme being circulated by the rightwing smear empire.
If the 'media' or 'progressives' or anyone else 'demanded' 'grace' from Lauten, they didn't get it, did they?
If you are going to go public with a demand that a 13-year-old girl 'show class,' you'd better be ready to show some yourself.
BTW, as a non-owner of a teevee, I had never heard of Costello. Now I have looked her up, and I see the rightwing smear empire has smothered her. There is the little factual matter that by the time that tape was revealed, a whole lot more than Palin's version was already widely known and her version was, indeed, laughable. So Costello laughed. You should have, too.
Did you read Lauten's statement? It answers your first question.
ReplyDeleteYes, I did. No it didn't.
So, by all means, quote for me exactly where, and how, Lauten insulted the Obamas' family values.
So Costello laughed. You should have, too.
Once again, you missed one of the major points here: rank progressive hypocrisy. Not just Costello, but plenty other examples, some of which I cited, prove the point abundantly.
As do you. You made a declarative defamatory statement about O'Reilly. It is false. So either you lied, or you got punked.
Either way, you owe an explanation and an apology.
Lauten did that. Progressives don't.
Apologize to Loofah Bill? I think not.
ReplyDeleteAnd Lauten did not apologize. Her venomous attack was directed at 4 people, 2 in particular, and she did not address anything to them, as she would have done if she were apologizing.
You provided instances of progressive attacks on completely blameless 13-year-old girls? I don't think you did.
'I'm guessing you're coming up a little short in the "good role model" department' sounds like an attack on family values to me.
Apologize to Loofah Bill? I think not.
ReplyDeleteSo you are okay with libel and defamation, then. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, that you had been taken in by a comedy routine. It happens.
Regardless, your failure to correct your mistake (presuming that's what it was in the first place) puts you in the same liars' league populated by so many progressives.
Thank you for making that abundantly clear.
'I'm guessing you're coming up a little short in the "good role model" department' sounds like an attack on family values to me.
Then you clearly lack sufficient understanding of "family values" to discuss them.
Let me help: family values are about how one treats one's family.
It is entirely possible, and in the case of the Obama's seemingly certain, that Obama does, in fact, espouse, without hint of hypocrisy, family values.
It is also quite certain that Obama is a serial liar.
He is a good dad. If you value the truth, then in that regard he is a bad role model.
And Lauten did not apologize. Her venomous attack was directed at 4 people, 2 in particular, and she did not address anything to them, as she would have done if she were apologizing.
In what way, and please, do quote directly in substantiating your position, explain precisely how this is not a full, unqualified, apology:
After many hours of prayer, talking to my parents, and re-reading my words online I can see more clearly just how hurtful my words were," Lauten wrote. "I'd like to apologize to all of those who I have hurt and offended with my words, and I pledge to learn and grow (and I assure you I have)from this experience.
Scattershot nonpology. If she had wanted to apologize, she would have addressed the people she attacked.
ReplyDeleteYou have a strange and twisted idea of family values and I doubt many of the rightwingers who prate about them would define them that way. For example, using your standard the Numero Uno current exemplar of Republican rightwing family values wouldn't qualify, would he?
Scattershot nonpology. If she had wanted to apologize, she would have addressed the people she attacked.
ReplyDeleteDid you read any of Lauten's critics? At all, even one?
I did — and many of them criticized Lauten not just for whatever pain she inflicted on the Obama's daughters, but also all young women, who are uniquely vulnerable to such criticism.
Lauten's apology directly, and without any qualification whatsoever, directly addressed those criticisms. Nothing would be added, and she could not possibly have heaped anymore blame upon herself, if she had added the Obama daughters's names.
That is what I mean when you need to adopt the habit of directly quotation and analysis when you make such claims — you might just find out how baseless they are before committing them to pixels.
Also, I think it rich that someone who is grossly, and unapologetically, defamatory, should be so willing to criticize others' apologies. You must be immune to irony.
For example, using your standard the Numero Uno current exemplar of Republican rightwing family values wouldn't qualify, would he?
You are at the train station waiting for an airplane. No, worse than that, a submarine.
Now, since you have, once again, left a vacuum where a citation should be, I have no idea exactly what the heck it is you are talking about (except, on historical evidence, it is likely to be wrong, or irrelevant).
Regardless, in what regard does not being a paragon of family values diminish the worth of family values? Is an alcoholic therefore prohibited from preaching the value of sobriety? Who else is more aware of the value of family values — the one who has fallen short and paid the price, or someone to whom those values, for whatever reason, come completely naturally?
You, as a progressive, are great at demonizing, but not so much when it comes to morality.
Hobby Lobby. I should not have had to remind you about that, as you have been vocal about it.
ReplyDeleteAs for preaching, so what? I said the Republicans should embrace the Obamas as exemplars: Do as they do, not as, say, Sarah Palin says.
Over on the other RtO, a commenter said that if I had merely researched, I could have found many examples of Republicans praising Obama'a family values, but in the event we got some boilerplate from Romney who was trying to keep his partisans from talking smack about El Jefe, which rather proves than disproves my point, doesn't it?
Hobby Lobby. I should not have had to remind you about that, as you have been vocal about it.
ReplyDeleteLink please. Otherwise, I have no idea that you are talking about.
I said the Republicans should embrace the Obamas as exemplars: Do as they do, not as, say, Sarah Palin says.
What is the difference between what the Obamas do, and what Sarah Palin says to do?
... which rather proves than disproves my point, doesn't it?
I have no idea what your point is. I do know that you trot out these pronunciamentos like painted show ponies without any attribution, and when challenged, trot out the next show pony.
And I'm still struck by the moral gulf between a serial defamer -- that would be you -- and someone who voices a merely objectionable opinion about behavior and clothing.
Progressive family values in action. That would be the same guy who used some truly vile language, who uses the c-word to refer to women, and calls special needs children "retards".
And still has a job.
After all, he didn't do something truly horrible like criticize skirt lengths.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/
ReplyDeleteDid you even think that one through?
ReplyDeleteUmmm. No.
So do this. Specifically, as in with a link, identify Hobby Lobby's legal position. Then examine the investments Hobby Lobby had: discuss how those investments conflict with Hobby Lobby's position. Also, while you are at it, examine the overall nature of those investments.
After all, it is entirely possible that some investments you have, as part of the portfolio, companies that make guns, or ammunition, or tools that are used to make guns and ammunition.
I think your anti-gun hysteria is counterfactual, plagued by motivated reasoning, and unrealistic.
But it would be ridiculous to accuse you of hypocrisy because one of your mutual funds might have stocks related to guns.
Although you are, in the realm of apologies, a hypocrite of the very first order.
Compare the two situations. I'm sure you will see the difference.
He has your number.
ReplyDeleteI do not buy mutual funds.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not the point.
ReplyDeleteSo do this. Specifically, as in with a link, identify Hobby Lobby's legal position. Then examine the investments Hobby Lobby had: discuss how those investments conflict with Hobby Lobby's position. Also, while you are at it, examine the overall nature of those investments.
HL's legal position is identical with that of the Lowell mills in the 1840s: the employer has the right to dictate the private affairs of its employees, and in particular their religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteFor someone who frets so much about government interference in private affairs, you have been oddly acquiescent to the Greens' outrageous behavior.
Query: for someone seeking such a drastic and illiberal power, would it have been unduly burdensome for the corporation to have developed an appropriate investment policy, the way so many private persons and organizations do. (There are even mutual funds that provide this service for free, so the answer is, no, not burdensome at all.)
HL's legal position is identical with that of the Lowell mills in the 1840s: the employer has the right to dictate the private affairs of its employees, and in particular their religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThat's insane, and ignorant -- but typical for a progressive.
Here is the holding in the case: As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
I could be wrong here -- you are the expert in all things historical, so I'm sure you will set me straight if I am -- but the RFRA did not exist in the 1840s.
Therefore, HL's legal position cannot possibly be the same as Lowell mills.
And that is even before getting to the delusional conclusion that HL was dictating the private affairs of its employees in 2010, but not in 2008. Or has ever done anything with regard to the religious beliefs of its employees.
What is clear here is that a fundamental goal of progressives is to destroy civil society. HL does not want to be complicit in murder. Unfortunately, progressives are committed to murders of convenience, so too bad for HL.
Factual error. No murders were before the court.
ReplyDeleteYou are right (so far as I know) that the Greens were not dictating the private lives of employees, although we have reason now to think that that was only because they would have been sanctioned -- until the rightwingers gave them legal authority to do so.
The idea that their behavior was or is legal is irrelevant. The question is, is it decent?
The idea that their behavior was or is legal is irrelevant. The question is, is it decent?
ReplyDeleteNo, that isn't what's relevant (ignoring for the moment whether the government forcing people to violate their morality is decent, or the trivial cost of the few birth control methods to which the Green's objected made doing do worthwhile.)
What is relevant is the law, which is the basis for the decision you won't read.
Factual error. No murders were before the court.
Typical barking mad progressive nonsense. All elective abortions are murders of convenience.
They are legal murders, but the Green's religious convictions, protected by the RFRA do no make those murders morally acceptable.
You are wrong on the law, and wrong on morality.
The question is, are murders of convenience decent?
Fact: the methods the Greens think are abortions are not abortions.
ReplyDeleteCite?
ReplyDeleteI thought not.
ReplyDelete