Monday, January 26, 2009

Why Start Now??

To expect Obama to speak out against his minion's boorish, often aggressive behavior? That's my response to the following article, The Ugly Side of the Inauguration: Obamamania's Mean Streak (and MAJOR H/T to American Girl in Italy for this link). The author, Mr. Frederick, had this to say:
Ironic that on Inauguration Day, when President Barack Obama told Americans it was time to take personal responsibility and "grow up" as a country, some of his supporters behaved like spoiled children in booing George W. Bush.

And, sadly, neither Obama nor any leader in the public spotlight that day seized the moment to admonish the boorish behavior.

It would have been nice had Obama had the presence of mind in his inaugural speech to not only allude to scripture in saying it's time to put away "childish things" but to also have told the boo-birds that their behavior was inappropriate and the embodiment of those "childish things."

He might have said: "Isn't it enough to be just happy for me? When you boo the former president, you fail to understand what this solemn event is all about -- the peaceful transition of power. This is not a football game. Nor is it a Third World bloodless coup. This is American democracy at work. If you can't respect that, then leave. Now."

Like I said, why the hell would Obama start now? He hasn't bothered to say anything to any one of his minions at any point during the entire primary or election season, so why would he speak out for Mr. Bush?

And here is another little problem I have - him saying Obama should have said, "Isn't it enough to be just happy for me?" Um, what? Yes, we should all be happy for The Boy Who Would Be Dictator because this has nothing to do with our actual country. Wowie.

Mr. Frederick's shock continues:
But no one mustered the courage to say that. While I thought Obama's speech was otherwise thought-provoking and worthy, he missed an opportunity to call out these boors and chastise their behavior. By not doing so, I am afraid that Obama essentially condoned this kind of mob intolerance. There is already a hateful mean streak among some Obamamaniacs. Left unchecked, it can fester into something quite un-American and un-democratic.

In case you missed it, when President George W. Bush was announced to the crowd, some booed loudly, shocking even the commentators on the official Obama network, MSNBC. One section of onlookers sang, "Nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye." And, finally, as Bush left the White House, one deep thinker took the opportunity to give the "one-finger salute," thus saying more about himself than anything else.

This from a movement that fancies itself all about peace, love and global karma.

Where in the HELL Has this man been? Clearly, he cannot distinguish between the mantras of the Obama Party and the REALITY of the Obama Party. How many, many times have we written about this, the cruel, aggressive, demeaning, sexist, even misogynistic behavior of Obama's followers, and that is just toward Secretary of State Hillary Clinton!! It would seem Mr. Frederick's blindfold and earplugs served him well if he was unaware of these, um, "shenanigans." The "one-finger salute? Like the one Obama gave to Clinton detailed in THIS article?

He continues:
Now look, it would be a mistake to paint all Democrats and Obama supporters with the actions of these few on Inauguration Day. And, according to news reports, some in the crowd tried hard to shush the boo-birds. That is a hopeful sign.

But let's also not ignore the obvious. There is a growing faction of the American left that seeks revenge more than righteousness.

Intolerant of dissenting views, this faction thinks as comedian Janeane Garofalo does that some members of the opposing political party should be "jailed." Terrorist acts (such as mailing envelopes of white power to Mormon temples because the gay marriage vote in California went the church's way) are seen by this faction as understandable and acts of legitimate political expression.

But of course. Target the Mormons, thus the Senate Majority Leader (why does everyone always forget that Harry Reid is a MORMON, and ANTI-Choice? I just don't get that.) So, yes, Janeane, let us completely deny that even before the election, the NY Times was predicting that it would be OBAMA'S supporters that would vote IN Prop. 8. That, in fact, was the reality. It was the African American community coming out in droves that tipped the scales, as detailed HERE and HERE.

Mr. Frederick does touch on the issue of race, too:
There is also an ugly racial component to it. We first saw it with Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who said, among other things, that white America had deliberately inflicted black Africa with AIDS.

When the Rev. Wright first hit the national stage, we hardly knew what to make of his irrational and separatist statements. Consequently, we pretty much ignored the substance of Wright's racially divisive rhetoric and focused on it as a day-to-day political story. It made us more comfortable, I think.

But in light of the things we saw at the inauguration, it may be time to revisit the dangers of intolerance and hate -- no matter the color of the person who makes them -- and nip this ugly mean streak in the bud.

As our president said, it is time to grow up. (Sherman Frederick ( is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.

Well, that is just laughable - to expect the most juvenile, petulant, arrogant, immature, empty-suit to tell his minions to grow up. HAHAHAHAHA!! Yeah, maybe when he does.

Beside that, though, is the convenient amnesia of Mr. Frederick regarding what the Rev. Lowery said at the inauguration (h/t to LisaB), highlighted in Pat Racimora's article, "A Profound Prayer Until..>Wrong Turn!." To recap, he said this:
Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Holy cow. Yeah, I think that qualifies as having a racial component.

But it also begs the question WHY Rev. Wright's incendiary, separatist comments were not addressed more fully? And why his connection, as well as Louis Farrakhan's, to Obama was continually glossed over by the majority of those in the MSM? Because they were afraid of being called racists? Or because they knew it would be real trouble for Obama if they actually did their job and exposed the belief system in which Obama was a willing participant? Some of us were paying attention, though. Do a "search at: NoQuarter on Rev. Wright, and you will get page after page after page of articles that at least have some mention of him, if not dealing with him directly (far too many to link to here), beginning with this one in March.

Same goes for the "boorish" behavior of Obama's supporters. The Palin (and Clinton) t-shirts? The intimidation/bullying at the caucuses? "Iron My Shirt" buffoons? Obama turning away from Clinton without greeting her at the SOTU? Obviously, I could go on and on with examples, all of which have been well documented at NQ and other sites. Which raises this question: where in the hell has this guy been, expecting Obama to change his stripes NOW? Just because it was Bush being booed? Because at no time has Obama acted like a "grown up" when his crowds have gone off on his competition - not once. He has been their role model for boorish behavior from debates to rallies. So for anyone to expect anything different now just because he was sworn in a few times is nothing short of delusional.

So to recap, it is way past time to take off the blindfold and take out the earplugs. The booing? Typical. Comments like Garofalo's? Typical. Intimidation of dissenters? Typical. (Don't believe me? Just ask the Justice Department since they are suing the Black Panthers.) Racial division by clergy? Typical.

This is who Obama is. To expect him to challenge behavior in which he himself engages is nuts.


SFIndie said...

You're right Rev, anyone who expects BigO to speak out against the childish, inappropriate behavior of his staff and supporters needs to revise their expectations. This is, after all, the man who appears to define "bipartisanship" as, "I won".

And, I know this is o/t, but since I'm griping, I've got to say that I've had it with people who want to heap praise on BigO for doing the right thing (like reversing the Global Gag Rule) instead of simply expecting that he do what he said he would. I mean, is he President of the United States, or a 2-year old who needs to be congratulated for using the toilet (Oh, Barry, what a good boy, you went poop in the potty instead of your pants!). Should I expect my boss to heap praise on me because I come in to work every day? We've become a nation of people who no longer expect anyone to do the right thing, especially our (s)elected representatives. We expect people will do the wrong thing, find excuses for them when they do, and when they do the right thing, we think it's so fabulous of them!

I, for one, will not heap praise on the Boy Child for doing the right things he said he would. But I will criticize him when he screws up.

I expect I'll be doing a whole lot of criticizing this next 4 years.

Okay, that's it. Thanks for letting me gripe, Rev!

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Hey, SF -

You can gripe all you want to, friend! Anytime!

I know - can you believe that? Can you IMAGINE what the liberals would be saying if Bush came out with such a juvenile statement?? We wold have been going NUTS - "What an asshole!" But since it's Obama, well, you know.

And I hear you, too - Obama should be congratulated for just showing up, apparently. And, I might add, he did NOT lift the ban on stem cell research (, so it wasn't a total reversal ANYWAY.

As for the whole reward thing, I watch a lot of sports, and one of the things that has interested me is how players get hand slaps and taps even when they FAIL. They miss a free throw? Everyone high fives, and gives them a good job slap. Strike out? Same thing. And on it goes. It's like people are no longer rewarded for doing a job WELL, just for doing anything, even if they fail.

It reminds me of a Doonesbury theme in which he makes fun of UUs during the church softball league, "Three strikes and you're special!" Sort of thing. FUNNY as hell, but still, I think that is an underlying theme that has permeated our culture. People are rewarded and complimented for what should be ROUTINE, expected. And when they fail, as you said, people make excuses for them instead of there being consequences.

Anyway, I could go on abt this, but I think you have hit the nail on the head, SF.

How was the vet app't?

SFIndie said...

Good news/bad news with the vet. My boy's about the same, which is good news (he's holding his own). Bad news is they still can't figure out why his eyes continue to remain dilated. Vet says when he sees that in a cat, it's either a virus which meds should clear up (they didn't) or the cat is blind (he isn't). So, it's off to a vet vision specialist. My poor boy is so tired of being poked and prodded, he (for the first time ever) growled at the vet yesterday! Thank goodness the vet is good-natured, and apologized to Raymond for poking him so much.

I see you have a new post to read it now.

I hope your recovery is going smoothly! And thanks for checking in on my boy, he's my love and I do worry about him!

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Hey, SF -

Good grief, I'm sure Raymond is tired of being poked and prodded! That is so odd abt his eyes being dilated, but it not being one of the usual two causes! I do hope the vision specialist can figure out what is happening.

And glad to hear the vet apologized for irritating him!! :-)

I know all too well how important our animals can be to us, SF, and how difficult it is when they are ill. I hope he continues to hold his own!

And thanks, too, for the support! I am in my repetitive motion machine as I type (not so easy, that). My range of motion is increasing, thank heavens, though it also continues to be quite painful. Oh, well - no pain, no gain, right? Thanks for asking!

Dana Seilhan said...

I've gone off and read about Reverend Wright on my own, and I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding about his intentions and character.

First off, a man who is part of an extremely homophobic community who can nevertheless reach out to AIDS sufferers in his congregation and be there for them when their own families have abandoned them, is someone to be commended. He is also apparently pro-choice. (He has written pieces on reproductive rights sites.)

Secondly, this is the demographic population from whence came a group of men who were experimented on in Alabama, and given syphilis without their knowledge. Even given that there's a 99.9 percent chance Wright is incorrect about the government giving AIDS to black people, I can understand why he would be suspicious of the possibility. You should learn more about what our government has done to people of color medically and surgically against their will, then you might understand where the paranoia comes from. (For example, Native American women have also sometimes been sterilized against their will.)

Do I think Wright is a saint? No. No one is. Do I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding here that wouldn't exist if not for residual racism? Definitely.

For the record, I was disgusted at Obama's treatment of Mrs. Clinton as well, and I voted for McKinney instead. I don't know what I would call my politics but they would never justify voting for McCain, because if for no other reason, I will not vote for a man who calls his wife a trollop and a cunt in public. Especially the wife he married because he had dumped a previous wife for being crippled.

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Hey, Dana -

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate your coming by.

I am familiar with the atrocities our government has perpetrated on people of color, especially women, It is horrifying that our gov't would act in such a despicable manner to its own citizens.

That being said, Wright is from Philly, as are his parents. While I get the connection you are making, I think Wright takes things to extremes, and that is the whole problem with him. He undermines his credibility by making outlandish remarks, as well as anti-American comments. But his dry-humping the pulpit, attacking Senator Clinton from the pulpit, and willful distortions of Scripture to suit his own ends are problematic.

I hear you that he does good work for people with AIDS. That is commendable. Like most people, he is not all bad, and I am sure his church has done good work in its community.

All that being said, his anti-white, anti-American, anti-woman speech is unacceptable (and remember, the man whose theology Wright follows was one of my seminary professors, so I know and understand that theology WELL. Wright has taken it to a new level.).

I have been able to find no reputable record that McCain ever called his wife those names. I can tell you, he always treated Hillary Clinton with the utmost respect and kindness, a claim Obama certainly cannot make.

Anyway, thanks for coming by and for your comments - very provocative!