For reasons that baffle me, a big deal is being made over someone photoshopping the president’s face into a representation of The Joker from the The Dark Knight. The LA Weekly, eager to play the racism card says “the only thing missing is the noose.”
Whaaa?
Now, I can see if someone had taken a picture of President Obama and photoshopped whiteface for spite and without context, (or, for that matter, blackface as done here to Michael Steele) then one might have a credible case for crying “racism.”
But this is making a clear reference to a known fictional character called The Joker, and there is clearly the word “Socialism” beneath the portrait. This is political commentary; whoever came up with it is using a familiar visual image, and giving us an actual word which delivers a two-point message: he or she thinks the president is a joke, and a socialist.
This -until very recently- used to be called “free speech.” It is protected in this country, and thought very highly of. And protest or dissent, we have been told, is the very highest form of patriotism.
For that matter, using The Joker for political commentary has been done before, and more menacingly:
More reaction here:
“Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery,” says [Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari] Hutchinson, “it is mean-spirited and dangerous.”
Whaaa?
We just went through 8 years of President Bush being called Hitler and photoshopped as Hitler, as Mussolini, as Saturn Devouring One of His Own Children.
Obama’s predecessor endured 8 Years of Assassination Fascination. Actually, the “Assassinate Bush Chic” began even before the 2000 election, when Craig Kilborn flashed “snipers wanted” under a picture of Bush. So-called “newsmen” like Keith Olbermann repeatedly called the president “a fascist” and “a terrorist.” And Obama supporters can’t handle The Joker and the word “Socialism”?
Politics is ugly, and it is often over-the-top but that’s not new. Photoshop happens; it’s a free country. I myself have been photoshopped next to a dancing condom, a commentary on my annoying habit of being a Catholic.
Bob Owens amuses himself thusly:
Frankly, I don’t get it. One embraces terrorists and madmen, is dedicated to anarchy and the destruction of capitalist society, and sends the population fleeing in horror from his creations. The other is a fictional character played by the late Heath Ledger.
Uh-oh. That sounds almost like a late-night talkshow sort of joke, doesn’t it? Are late-night comics yet making those sorts of jokes about Obama, or is he still Obama-the-Unmockable? To be fair, the “hands-off-Obama” thing seemed to come out of Hollywood’s own instinct to kneel, and not “by decree.” Just as Bush managed to roll with the non-stop punches throughout his presidency, I think Obama is cool enough to roll with this little picture.
This Obama/Joker portrait is actually heartening to me. I may not have liked the press’ incessant attacks on Bush, and some of the uglier media put out about him, but I never found any of that as worrying as I have found the unquestioning incuriosity of the Obama-press, or the inclination by some to treat him as something more than a mortal politician voted into office by the people. The self-censoring we have seen in media has been sad and a little chilling. More chilling than any of the pics used here.
Besides, Obama has his face plastered all over America. One of the newsweeklies has had him on the cover 12 times in 12 months. One little poster shouldn’t get his supporters so hot and bothered. In the end, they might prefer it to this.
As Hillary Clinton famously yelled, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’”
Free speech. It might be the very best thing about America, even when it irks.
Related:
Hot Air
August 4th, 2009 | 1:57 am | #1
There are times when I wanna hug ya. This is one of them! I was appalled when I was informed that this Joker Picture was racist (I am using it elsewhere). Are these folks for real? The guy who shopped it may love the Joker and the president. Maybe he thought of this work as an anarchists icon. Long live the great Socialist Obama! What evah…it is political satire. And as such it can be used…by both sides. Long live..
” ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’”
Free speech. It might be the very best thing about America, even when it irks.” Amen and thanks.
Related:
August 4th, 2009 | 5:49 am | #2
The Joker was not just a joke, he was also a master criminal and thief, highly destructive, and the enemy of Batman, the protector of the innocent and the law abiding common people. That also rings a bell when it comes to Obama. And it’s no joke.
August 4th, 2009 | 6:05 am | #3
LA Weekly is not the same as the LA Times.
August 4th, 2009 | 6:59 am | #4
Lox is right. The Joker is a villain and evil. The portrayal of Obama as the joker says that he is a villain and evil. The poster indicates socialism as evil. I agree that socialism is evil.
This poster is a hit on Obama.
The portrayal of Bush as evil was over the top and so is this. But it was accepted under Bush and this is tit for tat.
August 4th, 2009 | 7:30 am | #5
@Loxodonta Solitarius
Not only that. As I see both films as a single story told in a single context, the Joker looks more and more like a deliberately created Nobody (no history that can be discovered, remember?) whose creator(s) are dedicated to the same destructive ideals (League of Shadows).
Bells are ringing indeed. For whom do these bells toll?
August 4th, 2009 | 8:06 am | #6
Like it or not, free speech it is and clever, artful free speech at that!
August 4th, 2009 | 8:07 am | #7
I think that these critics should all lighten UP a little. “IT” is not like any one was saying in certain ways that The President has “Bombed” or that he spiritually appears to be getting “old” because of some of his political views and no one has picked on his Ma yet!
I hear ya! Are you trying to be sarcastic Victor?
Not me Anchoress cause I could never do that to someone as wonderful as you, “IT” was sinner vic. I think that he might be a little UPSET cause you left out his “old bomb ma” and now some of his sins will need to die because of “IT” or should I have simply said that some of his sins will need to diet a little?
When I become a God, I think that I will send one or more of sinner vic cell in a dessert to diet for forty days and that should smarten sinner vic UP. In the mean time, let’s have a little heart and keep praying for him cause he really needs “IT” right now!
I hear ya! Careful what you wish for Victor!
August 4th, 2009 | 8:32 am | #8
What does a liberal do when they’re losing any argument?
Claim racisim!
August 4th, 2009 | 8:52 am | #9
Small correction, the “noose” quote was from the LA Weekly, not the Times.
And I really want a framed version of that poster.
August 4th, 2009 | 9:34 am | #10
Yes, that racism charge sure comes in handy, doesn’t it?
It can be applied (like sunscreen) as needed. Janeane Garofola needs to tar and feather all tea party protestors? It’s not peaceful dissent/free speech but rather, “racism, straight up.” An arrogant and self-absorbed professor loses control and starts ranting at a cop doing his job? Racism again.
I agree that Obama will be cool enough to roll with the Joker spoof, in public at least. But the main issue with Obama’s skin is how very thin it is. In private, it will probably irk him a great deal. I hope. It’s a bit different from all of those worshipful magazine covers, isn’t it?
August 4th, 2009 | 9:48 am | #11
[...] The Anchoress notes the race-card players and celebrates free speech, Hillary-style: As Hillary Clinton famously [...]
August 4th, 2009 | 9:57 am | #12
I am always surprised by the left that insists on portraying this man as less than mortal.
There are far worse characters to be maligned with.
August 4th, 2009 | 10:52 am | #13
[...] Tim Worstall, Examiner.com: The Obama Joker poster: about time too First Things, The Anchoress: Obama as the Joker Alberto de la Cruz, Babalú Blog, an island on the net without a bearded dictator: Blasphemy [...]
August 4th, 2009 | 11:02 am | #14
[...] Alert #237: The Obama-as-Joker poster Posted on August 4, 2009 by nobamablog The Anchoress reports: For reasons that baffle me, a big deal is being made over someone photoshopping the president’s [...]
August 4th, 2009 | 11:03 am | #15
[...] Anchoress has lots, lots more including some history of what was done to [...]
August 4th, 2009 | 11:11 am | #16
Anchoress putting these pictures up on the web does not help at all. We need to be civil in this country & OK let’s talk about these things but helping circulate the images is just no good.
August 4th, 2009 | 11:14 am | #17
What an absurd commentary fomr the LA Weekly. They quote an urban policy professor? What, arent; there any political scientist or anyone at all knowledgable about political history in Los Angeles? Nobody there heard of a cartoonist named Nast?!?
I disagree with you about Obama being cool enough to roll with it. He has shown himself to be one of the most thin-skinned people in politics. That was one of the most annoying things in the last election–seeing how easily he was flustered while the press, knowing full well the kind of office he was running for, put up a protective cocoon around him to make sure he was never asked any hard questions or exposed to redicule.
So now, thanks mostly to the press (and partly to John McCain), we have a president who can’t handle the pressures of office.
August 4th, 2009 | 11:15 am | #18
The truth is, it’s become harder to tell them apart in recent years, but the Times at least has some claim to being a legitimate newspaper. The Weekly has always been an “alternative” rag.
August 4th, 2009 | 11:20 am | #19
The poster is brilliant in simplicity and impact.
August 4th, 2009 | 11:23 am | #20
Joe Odegaard- “does not help at all” what? who? We need to be civil? You must have missed the ongoing character assassination of Sarah Palin.
Civility is over. It’s now time for war, in a metaphorical sense.
August 4th, 2009 | 11:25 am | #21
I’m not turning any hairs over this. I’ve seen far worse about Brown, whom I feel vaguely sorry for but who at the end of the day has put himself into power & deserves to be abused, in all honesty.
I like this (not safe for work).
So, in America, which by all accounts is a brutal arena, & the likes of Rahm Emmanuel know it to be so, this sort of thing is usual.
You’re paying attention to Hollywood, & I suppose this is justifiable because it has great influence in the “culture”. I personally don’t watch TV or care what celebs say.
I myself am a firm foe of left-wing conformity as well as right-wing conformity because they are two wings of the same beast. Regrettably, conformity is a human trait which is almost universal. I’d hate to be in a minority surrounded by people of opposing views (I myself am in fact surrounded by people who don’t have any views on politics at all, which if anything is worse).
So I see why you look at who’s on TV. But I’ve yet to meet the serious blogger who simply licked on Obama’s ring. He picked up support from moderate leftists like me, from centrists & even moderate conservatives. They can’t all have been members of a personality cult!?
Many simply decided that he was the best option available or that, while not up to much, the alternative would have been worse. I really think Republicans would by now be horribly mired in this recession & making a mess of foreign policy. I concur with Larison on this matter.
I am actually vaguely glad that Obama’s halo is slipping because he should never have had a halo to begin with. I admire him as a politician. But I never thought he’d stand up & say he is an atheist (which I think he is, & good for him, but he wouldn’t proclaim), & that he was immediately going to legalise the herb because prohibition is a costly failure.
But voters voted for a politician, not the messiah. I know I am in a minority with my views so no politician is going to enact the policies I want, & then there are the limits imposed by reality.
This has gone on a bit but what I am trying to say is that no one with any pretensions to seriousness has held Obama up as the solution to all the world’s problems, but there are people who are determined to vilify him at every turn, on the slightest pretext, right down to him eating a kind of burger they deem unacceptable. Looking at blogs, I see this as where the bias dwells.
August 4th, 2009 | 11:25 am | #22
As much as I disagree with the simplistic “socialist” label, I don’t find anything objectionable in this poster. But if there was somthing racist about it, defending it as free speech would be beside the point. No one has said it isn’t legally protected.
And I’d be interested in reading illustrations of how thin-skinned Obama is.
August 4th, 2009 | 11:37 am | #23
[...] The Anchoress: Just as Bush managed to roll with the non-stop punches throughout his presidency, I think Obama is cool enough to roll with this little picture. [...]
August 4th, 2009 | 11:49 am | #24
On about Obama vs. Bush on policy- Larison.
Larison (almost) always delivers the goods. He right makes you think with this one.
Best of the paleocons in my view.
August 4th, 2009 | 11:55 am | #25
Just as Bush managed to roll with the non-stop punches throughout his presidency, I think Obama is cool enough to roll with this little picture.
I certainly “hope” you’re right about that, but I have my doubts. He seems very thin skinned. I’m not at all sure that he will deal with increasing criticism and our constitutionally protected freedom of speech as gracefully as Bush did.
[I can only hope it, myself. One needs to believe that a president is above freaking out about this sort of stuff. Bush handled it beautifully, by ignoring it or - if protested at a speech - pointing out that free speech is what makes America work. I want to believe that Obama can do the same. admin]
August 4th, 2009 | 12:04 pm | #26
I put the photo up on my site as a birthday salute to the King Obama.
I know it pisses him off so I’m happy to put it there. I wish I’d have thought of it or at least had one of the posters.
August 4th, 2009 | 12:30 pm | #27
Dry,
…”that no one with any pretensions to seriousness has held Obama up as the solution to all the world’s problems,”
This is too funny. How about the Main Stream Media. The Jurnos embraces Obama as the messiah as the solution to all problems. Feh
August 4th, 2009 | 12:34 pm | #28
“I know it pisses him off so I’m happy to put it there.” — The “Christian Right”
August 4th, 2009 | 12:41 pm | #29
[...] ample evidence of the double standard at work in this treacherous administration/media cabal, here. She also dug up this very apropos graphic for a similar post last month. [...]
August 4th, 2009 | 12:48 pm | #30
Ken,
You want examples of Obama’s thin skin?
Here’s one from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. David Axlerod was apparently worried enough about the issue that he outlined his concerns in a memo to Obama before the election:
“…Axelrod…warned that Obama’s confessions of youthful drug use, described in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” would be used against him. “This is more than an unpleasant inconvenience,” he wrote. “It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don’t relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched,” he said of Obama’s 2004 Senate opponent….”
This memo has been reported elsewhere on the Web, but the excerpt I quoted came from Ben Smith at Politico
August 4th, 2009 | 1:10 pm | #31
After Obama himself has done quite a few interesting things in public, such as showing the middle finger directed at Hillary in a debate (which those who know of those things totally “got it” and even applauded him for it), and even smack the “lipstick on a pig” proverb right on Sarah Palin, it is only fair that he (think-skinned guy – not man – who takes himself too seriously) should take it after having dished it out. Fair is fair.
” Ken
August 4th, 2009 |
“I know it pisses him off so I’m happy to put it there.” — The “Christian Right””
Sorry thin-skinned Ken, but she has a point.
Only someone who takes himself too seriously (like you) couldn’t figure that out. You can dish it out to everyone here, including dear Anchoress, but you can’t take it, because you think you’re better than everyone else here. Sorry, but I can no longer ignore your little drama. You and Obama are Exactly Alike!
August 4th, 2009 | 1:12 pm | #32
I’m sorry, Anchoress, but I got carried away. You can delete it if you like.
August 4th, 2009 | 1:21 pm | #33
Ken: Out of curiosity, do you know if Jeannette is even Christian?
August 4th, 2009 | 1:26 pm | #34
The endless hullabaloo over white racism is a socially acceptable method of expressing a racial/class hatred of non-elite whites. You can experience and display the most venomous bigotry, and feel all self-righteous about it, too. Nice work if you can get it.
August 4th, 2009 | 1:43 pm | #35
Scott,
no I don’t know for sure that Jeanette is a Christian, so maybe my presumption was unfair, but given what kind of site this is and what kind of magazine First Things is, she most likely is. And I can’t say her tone is unusual. For example, CV expressed the same hope.
Newton,
it’s not all all clear that Obama gave Hillary the finger. Watch that move in context and you’ll see it’s not the only time he scratches his face and not the only time he scratches it there. And Obama had every reason to think the crowd was just applauding what he said. Anyhow, doing something nasty doesn’t make someone thin-skinned. I don’t think he was calling Palin a pig either.
To be fair, MSNBC did just show a memo David Axelrod wrote a Obama before the campaign saying he was too thin-skinned.
August 4th, 2009 | 2:11 pm | #36
Anchoress: As always, a wonderful summation that clarifies a current event in a savvy, pithy manner.
By the way Ken — I am a Democrat, so this image is not just appreciated by the “Right”. I agree with amba: Like it or not, free speech it is and clever, artful free speech at that!
It is reported that the White House has threatened to track down the poster artist. That’s something to think about, considering how much President Bush got thrown at him in the name of political satire.
August 4th, 2009 | 2:34 pm | #37
Mutnodjmet, I haven’t heard anyone attack the poster on free speech grounds, and you’ll note that I’m not complaining about it at all.
I find it very hard to believe that the White House is going after the poster. I think what they’ve made noise about is the images that mimic their campaign images.
August 4th, 2009 | 2:52 pm | #38
You’re not a typical Democrat, are you Mutnodjmet?
Just asking.
August 4th, 2009 | 3:00 pm | #39
Rude Pundit on about explaining to Republicans how they’re not the real America.
August 4th, 2009 | 3:23 pm | #40
Zaugg
It is time for a centrist party and cut the crazies adrift.
August 4th, 2009 | 3:51 pm | #41
Rude Pundit
I think the only thing that link explains is the typical blather of a blog crank. Posting links like that on a classy blog like The Anchoress doesn’t lend you much credibility.
August 4th, 2009 | 3:56 pm | #42
Ken: You say, “But if there was something racist about it, defending it as free speech would be beside the point. No one has said it isn’t legally protected.”
Call the free-speech “defense” a preemptive strike if you wish; nor, I imagine, does anyone here imagine that the image will be officially censored, making the free-speech “defense” necessary. But really. Do you deny that the charge of “racism” (like “Why do you hate poor people?”, “It’s for the children!”, “I’m reminded of a letter I received from a physically challenged single mother of a child with autism…” and so forth) is frequently levied with the intent of stifling debate, of making perfectly legal free speech so uncomfortable that – while the speaker knows he or she still has the right to speak – the speaker stops speaking?
Sadly for the once-proud liberal community, “liberalism/progressivism” is now all about the conformity. You’ve got to speak THEIR truth to the (white male Western paternalistic) Other’s “power” or be shamed (using terms like “racist” and “sexist” and “fascist”) into conformity. To fail to conform is to be marginalized – except that the community then claims that you’ve marginalized yourself through your unrepentant wrongheadedness. Poor progressives; they don’t know how to progress and they can’t figure out what else to call themselves. (It’s true that “socialists” has an unfortunate existing meaning that’s known to lots of people, however accurate it might be for some progressives; and it’s also true that “teenage girls desperate to fit in” creates limiting imagery that doesn’t encompass the universe of progressivism.)
August 4th, 2009 | 4:29 pm | #43
Aye- nothing but class in the posts & comments here until lowlife like me showed up.
Links provided are also a model of taste & decorum unless you count mine.
August 4th, 2009 | 4:57 pm | #44
Seriously, dry valleys, rude pundit lives up to his name and more, but he at least has an obvious point there: disrupting town halls is also rude and is no way to have a discussion or win an argument. And these people are being put up to it by people in the insurance industry.
August 4th, 2009 | 5:08 pm | #45
I think it shows how successfully Obama is wrongfooting his adversaries. He must be laughing his head off at birthers, these latest attackers at town halls, etc.
This isn’t going to get a single person to vote Republican, it’s going to have the opposite effect if anything.
August 4th, 2009 | 5:14 pm | #46
On about them dissenters again
August 4th, 2009 | 7:06 pm | #47
If I knew how to find you, I would beat you to death with the corpse of John Bolton.
August 4th, 2009 | 8:04 pm | #48
That “put up to it by insurance companies” is obscene! You claim to want evidence for everything – where is yours? Until you and Obama’s mouthpieces provide evidence, you are bearing false witness – just like you’ve slandered George Bush for over 8 years. If you can’t argue the issues without resorting to ad hominem attacks, perhaps you should disengage from the discussion.
Have you no imagination? You really can’t believe that people are FREAKED by having to argue for capitalism and freedom in a country formerly known for both? I’m freaked. I’ve attended a tea party. No one from any insurance company or corporation put me up to it. I feel I’m fighting for American values against a juggernaut of Leftist ideologues who have cleverly gained control of the education establishment (which is probably where you received your indoctrination), the judiciary, the media and now the federal government. That soldier demanding an apology from Claire McCaskill is badly mistaken in one regard. The Left never apologizes for any of its multitudinous failures or horrors. Never.
“How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?” – Mark Steyn
BTW – in a recent poll asking voters to choose between a generic Republican or Democrat ticket, the Republicans are ahead 5%. A lead they haven’t seen in years. Don’t count your chickens before they’ve come home to roost. Expletive deleted.
August 4th, 2009 | 8:25 pm | #49
Finally, someone saw what I told people when Obama first appeared on the national scene–when he flashes his broad grin and his mouth goes into a triangular shape he is the spitting image of the original Joker in the comics. I wondered then–since political cartoonists love to portray candidates as well known other figures–real or cartoon– whether they would draw him that way.
And, although everyone I mentioned this to said “Wow! For Real” all the political cartoonists (who certainly saw what we saw but were probably under Obama’s spell or afraid of being called racist) were gutless and refused to do what should have been natural to them—draw Obama at least once with a Joker face.
Now finally a cartoonist–unleashed and unafraid.
August 4th, 2009 | 8:44 pm | #50
[...] after all the hateful words that constantly rained down on the previous POTUS are now considered “mean-spirited and dangerous.” But this is making a clear reference to a known fictional character called The Joker, and there is [...]
August 4th, 2009 | 9:23 pm | #51
It’s taken my breath away how Obama is considered such a taboo subject for satire or cartoon characterization by so many. Remember when Ford’s pratfalls became Chevy Chase’s currency on SNL? I thought those skectches were hilarious. Now we have Obama knocking his head against the helicopter doorway and mistaking a window for a door at the White House. To my knowledge, SNL hasn’t touched that stuff with a ten foot pole. The recent beer summitt would make a hilarious sketch. Guess I’ll have to write it myself.
August 4th, 2009 | 9:24 pm | #52
Jamie, I agree that liberals sometimes cry racism with little or no reason in order to stifle debate. But I also think that all this absurd talk of Obama supposedly not being born in this country and being a Muslim, etc. must be racist in many cases. Racism is hardly dead, it’s just not respectable, so it seeks a cover.
August 4th, 2009 | 9:39 pm | #53
Western Chauvinist, I do withdraw that claim, because my information was incorrect. You should look up the meaning of ad hominem, though. It doesn’t mean simply accusing someone of doing something wrong. And for your information, I only bashed Bush for about 4 years.
And sure I think lots of people are honestly afraid of what Obama is trying to do, and I don’t blame them for opposing it or protecting. But there are ways to do that civilly. But your rant about that clever “juggernaut of Leftist ideologues” reminds me that Frank Schaeffer makes an excellent point when he says that the Religious Right isn’t really patriotic. It doesn’t love America, which is a very diverse country. It only loves it’s idea of what America should be, so it considers liberalism un-American. Unfortunately, the RR, there are a lot of leftists in this country, and they can cite the Constitution and the Founding Fathers too.
August 4th, 2009 | 10:13 pm | #54
1) The Obama Joke poster is tame by comparison with all the junk levied at Palin, McCain, Reagan, Clinton and Bush. It is barely worth mentioning as a slander or a slam. If the White House is upset, it doesn’t have enough to do and should maybe try…reading a bill before signing instead of scouring the California coast for the artist.
As for the criticisms levied at those who protest Congress over this proposed piece of government largess, how do I get on that gravy train with the insurance? Who do I call? I mean, these people who yell at their legislators must get paid. Insurance companies have scads of money, it’s just lying on the ground from all the claims they’ve denied to ensure a maximum amount of profit. So they must pay these people to be lobbyists on their behalf.
Man, it seems like everyone else is in on the conspiracy except me.
August 4th, 2009 | 10:27 pm | #55
Sherry,
1) There is no evidence that White House is upset.
2) Two wrongs don’t make a right. If something is indeed “a slander or a slam” from one’s own side, it is in fact worth “mentioning,” i.e. criticizing if one is posting as on a Christian site as a Christian, since, well, Jesus didn’t countenance that kind of thing.
August 5th, 2009 | 12:02 am | #56
Don’t we all love being lectured by Ken about the use of language and being Christian and patriotic? Perhaps you should look up “ad hominem”, Ken, as I was referring to your habit of attacking the person rather than the arguments he puts forth – in this case, the townhall attendees being lackeys for the insurance companies.
I appreciate you conceding two or three of my points. Your attack on those “lackeys” was obscene (note, you did not apologize – therefore confirming my statement about the Left). And, you admit we’re fighting leftists. And now, our opposition to leftists is unpatriotic. Hum… dissent is only patriotic when it comes from the Left – eh?
Please – do cite the Constitution and our Founding Fathers in support of your leftist vision of America. You define America by its diversity? Nothing about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Or, more to your point – e pluribus unum? How about, “In God We Trust”? Or, self-governance. Or, the Rule of Law and equality before the law (even for Prof. Gates)? How about government of the people, for the people, by the people? Where, exactly, in the Constitution does it enumerate the power of the State to determine your health care coverage? Or to buy your clunker with tax money? Or to decide how much water your toilet will flush or what light bulb you may use? Where? Gee, that provision in the stimulus bill that pays for weather-proofing homes is something the Founders missed!
You, Ken, are the one who loves some abstraction of America, which is recognizable to the rest of us as a European welfare state, where the government is large and the people are very very small. We love America for what it has been up to this point. The only place where individual liberty has flourished and the people have prospered as a result. That place is going away because we – no – you on the left, have failed (or is it chosen not?) to teach the last couple generations what Americanism is. Even you might miss it when it’s gone.
August 5th, 2009 | 12:55 am | #57
Oh, “There is no evidence that White House is upset. ” Coming from the mouth of little Ken.
The White House might not be “upset”, but they’re definitely concerned!
So, now the White House is asking for people to call on people to start calling them back on their friends and neighbors, even in their private conversations… In other times in history, that was called spying. Wow! I guess the powers of ACORN and the SEIU are not enough! They need a little “underground action”. Especially with those “redneck” Christians… right Ken?
***
Let me remind you of one thing, Ken. A Christian is a sinner saved by grace through faith – the faith to confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That’s it. A Christian is not what Ken decides a Christian is, but what the New Testament says it is. That’s all.
And nope, we don’t have to take punches and sit down like the victim of a school bully. We answer back to injustice because we must. Obama and his people have deceived A LOT of people in order to gain power. They will continue to deceive in order to keep it. My duty as an individual Christian is to answer back, with the strength that I have.
You seem to want to condemn about fifty million or so of the “Christian right” because they don’t think as YOU do. Let me remind you that we are reminded every single day that we sin. But you don’t seem to think that we are even capable of thinking that, or that we even have a right to fight back any threats to our freedom to worship freely without any threats from the government or any other entity. Or against any attempt for us to choose what we want for our individual or family welfare.
I’m sorry, but if the chance comes for me to protest or to speak against the calamity we’re about to experience because of this man and his Marxism, I’ll do it. And I won’t give a fig about what YOU think. You are too willing to condemn people who want to protect their freedoms from a creeping State and its bureaucracy, which is pretty darned close to counting on an army of thugs to enforce its will. I don’t condemn Jeanette or anyone who has seen beyond Obama’s mask to find someone who does not have the interests of Freedom in mind, but on giving people a false sense of security under his control. I for one don’t want to be enslaved to Papa Obama. I’m a free person in Jesus, thank you very much.
P.S. Jesus knew how to answer back to critics. And at one point, he got not just rowdy, but ahem… a little violent.
August 5th, 2009 | 2:43 am | #58
Would you like to link to this poll then, Western Chauvinist? I must say I’d be taken aback by even the slightest hint of a Republican revival.
Is there anyone that anyone here thinks has a serious chance of defeating Obama in 2012, assuming he holds an election rather than crowning himself dictator for life?
August 5th, 2009 | 8:06 am | #59
Western Chauvinist,
I apologize to people I’ve harmed. No rude protestors or insurance companies were harmed by my mistaken attribution.
Dissent can be patriotic coming from both left and right, obviously, but it can also be rude.
Your third paragraph is just silly, starting with your claim that I defined America merely by its diversity and in opposition to the pursuit of . . etc. The Constitution does not preclude citizens from using their liberty to empower the government to provide health care.
Newton,
by all means, speak out and protest against what you see as wrong. I respect conservative views. I don’t respect incivility.
August 5th, 2009 | 8:47 am | #60
dv,
I’ll try this link thing again, but if it doesn’t work, Google Rasmussen.
Here’s one specific to Virginia.
Oh yes, Ken. We all see how virtuous you are. No incivility from you. Just insinuation and the use of others’ good nature against them. Disciple of Alinsky by any chance?
Yes – citizens have so far had the liberty to empower the government to do most anything. Which is why Franklin told the woman asking about the new government – “a Republic, if you can keep it.” The American founding is rooted in limited government. Some of us get that and, despite our good natures, we’re going to push back against you who don’t.
“Ad hominem”, Ken? My third paragraph is silly, but you STILL haven’t cited the Constitution or the Founders. Argue the bleeping point! How do you understand America, Ken?
August 5th, 2009 | 9:30 am | #61
Thanks Western Chauvinist- I have written a quite lengthly reply but some kind of fault happened to my computer!
Aye- I don’t think Obama will be getting complacent any time soon & doubtless has these concerns in mind.
I do observe the claims that Rasmussen has a slight Republican bias, but only a slight one, so it may have called it right this time. But I know more than a bit about fluctuating opinion polls (I follow obsessively, & know that they have to be localised, so we’ll have to wait for the election.
Worthy of note is this. Health having hit some bumps, this is a bad time for Obama. If the bill passes his fortunes may well revive. But I am by no means ignoring what you say.
Of course I wouldn’t be happy if Republicans did come back
August 5th, 2009 | 11:40 am | #62
Western, I have never read Alinsky. And like I said to Newton, by all means, push back. That’s your right and your patriotic duty.
Of course I also believe in all the principles you listed. I also answered your other questions; I might ask you, since you think the Constitution prohibits those things, please explain why, and be specific.
” Just insinuation and the use of others’ good nature against them.” — Unintelligible, sorry.
August 5th, 2009 | 11:48 am | #63
This isn’t going to get a single person to vote Republican, it’s going to have the opposite effect if anything.
Don’t be so sure. Obama’s poll numbers were never that good on his actual stands on issues, and have been dropping like a stone as the recession wears on. They are not good on his health care boondoggle, either. Newest one out today is WSJ/NBC News which shows a clear drop in support in the past month. Other polling shows more people, not less, identifying themselves as conservatives, and the daily tracking poll as well as trust on the issues polling showing tips towards the GOP that haven’t been seen in years. Traffic and ratings for conservative news outlets is up, sales of Ayn Rand through the roof. This is the backlash. And those of us who are carrying the pitchforks don’t appreciate being told we’re stooges for the insurance companies. I predict that tactic on the part of Democrats is going to backfire.
Meanwhile, it is only liberal commentators who bring up the birth certificate issue. The “birthers” have been around since the campaign, there was even a court case about it, but now with no change in anything and no mainstream conservative pushing it at all, the Obama denizens in the media suddenly are wagging their tongues and shaking their heads. You have to ask yourself why that is. (Hint: See above.)
Frank Schaeffer… Someone quoted him saying Republicans “aren’t really patriotic.” Please don’t even bother. We don’t need regurgitations of HuffPo, and someone who makes a living out of trashing his family has problems in the credibility department. His constant refrain about being a “lifelong Republican” is just a gimmick, similar to his gimmick about being a “child of fundamentalists” pretending to expose the ills from the inside.
August 5th, 2009 | 12:35 pm | #64
Nnine House Republicans signed on to that birthers bill and Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs have also encouraged speculation. There have been birther posts on this blog.
As for Schaeffer, I don’t like some of what he’s written about his parents, but I also know people who knew and loved the Schaeffers but made no bones about the fact that they had their problems (like the rest of us). Dr. Schaeffer didn’t try to hide his, either.
As for Frank the son, “lifelong Republican” is accurate. He even worked for McCain in 2000.
But this is really beside the point — his observation hardly depends upon his background or his character. The fact is that loving “America” and playing culture wars are mutually exclusive activities. The country is full of liberals as well as conservatives, and both sides have made great contribtions individually and collectively.
August 5th, 2009 | 1:13 pm | #65
Nine House Republicans supported a bill that would require a Presidential candidate to provide a valid birth certificate, which would not apply to Obama at all but only to future candidates. The horror! That the government might actually have to uphold our Constitution!
“Speculation” or discussion is not pushing the idea that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. The fact is that he has gone to a great deal of trouble to conceal records in his background, though not the COLB. It is natural to ask why, particularly when the usual watchdogs are so studiously disinterested in anything but the official line direct from David Axelrod’s office.
It is also the height of irony that the left is suddenly so wary of conspiracy theories about the Presidency. Really quite comical.
August 5th, 2009 | 1:26 pm | #66
I seriously doubt if those Republicans were worried that some future president won’t be eligible for the office due to birth. Out of 44 presidents so far, how many of those have we had? The intent was to legitimize –perhaps in large part to defend — the absurd questions about Obama’s own birth certificate.
And Obama has gone to no trouble to conceal his records. On the contrary, he made the certificate available to a non-partisan, fact-checking group.
“It is also the height of irony that the left is suddenly so wary of conspiracy theories about the Presidency. Really quite comical.”
Is it also the height of irony that the Right railed against them for the last eight years? It’s we as Christians who are supposed to be above that stuff.
August 5th, 2009 | 1:33 pm | #67
I should point out too that arguments can be made that McCain was ineligible for the presidency on a technicality, his having been born in the Panama Canal Zone and thus not being a natural U.S. citizen. But the Obama Camp didn’t push that last fall, they dismissed it.
[It should be noted that the Senate did actually check McCain's eligibility; they did not check Obama's. The Obama camp was not being magnanimous. They'd been handed a gift. -admin]
August 5th, 2009 | 1:35 pm | #68
By comparison Ken, as political satire goes, this is extreemly tame. I never said political satire was wrong. This portrait of Obama as satire gains an added dose of irony when it is compared to the stuff that came before.
The same people who declared the Bush portrait art, consider this piece dangerous. People who didn’t like Bush being criticized and portrayed in such a light, didn’t like it because it was mean spirited, but they didn’t think such creations were a threat to the existence of the state. I remember lots and lots and lots of Bush slams and not once did I hear, that such things were dangerous, indeed, they were lauded as patriotic.
One last note: Don’t remember Jesus saying, “Thou shalt not criticize the existing government or portray leaders as comic clowns that battle vigilante men in tights.” But I’m sure you’re right in your interpretation.
August 5th, 2009 | 2:25 pm | #69
[...] The Obama Joker Poster: – L.A. Weekly Wets Itself over Obama Joker Poster (Hot Air) – Department of Double Standards – Sundries Shack: The Riddler Might Have Been a Better Choice – It’s Really Wrong to Depict a Politician as the Joker (Deceiver) – Why So Spurious? (Jim Treacher) – The Anchoress: Obama as the Joker [...]
August 5th, 2009 | 2:40 pm | #70
Anchoress,
you’ll not that Democrats agreed he was eligible. Neither Congressional Democrats nor big names on the Reft made an issue of his eligibility. Compare that to the Right with Obama.
Sherry,
-admin]
I agree, the Joker image is quite tame as satire goes, and I’ve said here that I have no issue with it. But who has called it dangerous to the existence of the state? (Maybe I just missed that).
[I was simply supplying you with information. You acted like there was some magnanimous gesture by the Obamites re McCain, but the Senate actually looked into the question with McCain and did not with Obama. That is worth noting. It's also worth nothing that I am not a birther, but I do not think it at all unreasonable to ask why this president is allowed to hide as much of his past as he'd like to, with no questions from the press. That has always been my complaint. And the Joker pic was called "dangerous" as quoted above. Whether the state or whomever was not made clear, so I guess anyone can assume it means anything. BTW, Sherry, Ken's a nice enough guy, but the thing is, he NEVER lets up, once you engage him, and so just be warned that he seems to have lots of "free time" like those people Linda Douglass is worried about. You'll need lots of free time to debate him.
August 5th, 2009 | 2:47 pm | #71
The Joker was also cruel, sadistic, and capricious, as is a socialist system. This poster may well hit harder than it first appears.
August 5th, 2009 | 4:56 pm | #72
And Obama has gone to no trouble to conceal his records. On the contrary, he made the certificate available to a non-partisan, fact-checking group.
As I said above. However he has a raft of lawyers keeping his and Michelle Obama’s academic and employment records under wraps. Such things, and the dedicated incuriosity of the press towards Obama’s associations and background, only fuel conspiracy theories.
About the L.A. Weekly faux outrage over the Joker poster, not long ago they thought actual depictions of certain political figures with nooses around their necks was heeelarious.
August 5th, 2009 | 5:12 pm | #73
Gina, why do we need to see those records and what right do we have to see them? And what in the world is the LA Weekly and who outside of LA had ever heard of them before? It’s not exactly like the Times and Post and NBC or any major have expressed alarm about the poster. Has any major news outlet done so?
[Gina, just so you know, Ken - nice enough guy - is just playing with you at this point. This conversation has been had over and over on this site, and he keeps asking these questions, getting the answers and acting like he's never asked the questions or gotten the answers before. The answer to this question is that Obama was sold to us as a stunningly brilliant and effective guy -smartest guy who ever took the office, the guy who was "stepping down" to take the job as president- but no, we're not allowed to see any of the school records, (or for that matter, his medical records; all we got was a signed letter from a doctor, that he was in "good health") we have NO RIGHT to see them, (indeed we are UNREASONABLE to even wonder about their inaccessibility) even though the guy, who has never run so much as a hot-dog stand, is now supposed to be allowed to run everything as he sees fit, with no dissent, no argument, or he'll have your names. Once you engage with Ken he will not stop. This thread will be 5 weeks old and 500 comments long and he still will be doing this. He says he hasn't read Alinsky. That's fine; if he says it I believe it. But in that case he is an actual prodigy. You are welcome to continue this but I'm frankly getting bored and hope it will end soon. It's certainly your time to waste. Ken, you may inspire me to put a hijacking clause in my comments rules.
Yes, I'm smiling. But only for now. Part of being civil is not deliberately baiting people with the same questions over and over when they have been answered, over and over. -admin]
August 5th, 2009 | 10:20 pm | #74
The have-your-names charge is pure sophistry, as I’ve noted on the Obey-mian Representative Democracy thread. But you gave a non-answer too. As I said earlier, I believe there may well be embarassing information in those documents somewhere, and/or Obama is betting that you guys will mrginalize yourselves lby harping on this stuff. Because the fact is that you have no legal right to the info (and his current doctor’s findings are released as a matter of law, if I’m not mistaken, so he can’t hide any real problems), and the guy is already president, and what he wrote years ago may not reflect his current views anyhow, all of which adds up to ‘why in the world do you have some kind of moral right to the documents?’
I ask the question because I’m genuinely interested in your answer, and it’s sad that you mistake honest disagreement for baiting. Gina said today that withholding records only fuel conspiracy theories. Yes it does — among people who are sworn enemies in the first place.
August 6th, 2009 | 11:50 am | #75
The word “alternative” should be enough to explain the L.A. Weekly. You should not be surprised to learn that its back pages are full of ads for what are sometimes called “erotic services”.
There is an incredibly silly article on the Washington Post site. I won’t waste anyone’s time by saying it’s worth reading. I’ll give the link so you can see this has gone across the country:
August 7th, 2009 | 1:29 pm | #76
The first thing I thought when I saw this poster was that it is wrong to portray a black man in white face and that to do so was a conscious choice by the artist, and yes, likely racist. Not that I care much.
As far as I know it’s still an expression of free speech even if it is racist. So why deny there’s an element of racism here? We have our first black president – there’s a racial element to that.
The truth is, there’s been a shift from overt to covert racism in this country. Denying there’s an element of racism in this poster seems silly. The poster draws attention to the color of the man’s skin, which is dark, by changing it to white. For others who had this same PhotoShop treatment, Hillary, Bush, etc., well, their skin isn’t as dark as Obama’s. This artist has played on the man’s skin color, and the poster is reminiscent of “blackface.” Blackface solidified and perpetuated negative black stereotypes.
So what might this artist be saying about Obama by presenting him in whiteface? What does that tell us about the changing face of race relations in this country?
We could ask the artist, if he or she had not chosen to be anonymous but that doesn’t matter either, since this is art, and its interpretation is open.
[I think that's nonsense. When I saw the poster, it didn't even occur to me that this was "whiteface on a black man," all I saw was "Joker on Obama." I think you have to be race-fixated to see Obama first as a black man and then as a man. I don't think there is "overt" racism in the nation (although the gross blackface done to Michael Steele was certainly overt) The only people who ever bring it up are the people who are fixated on it. Doesn't mean there is no racism in America - there is - but since we CANNOT know the artist's intent, you're quite right; we see what we want to see. I do not see race anywhere in it. I see a mean clown meant to make a point. Race-fixated people will see black skin and white skin. -admin]
August 7th, 2009 | 3:57 pm | #77
[...] The Anchoress puts the Obama-as-Joker picture into context. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact