Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Dems Fighting Words

Dems Fighting Words

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Now that Van Jones, the so-called Green Jobs Czar has resigned, one might say the cost of fighting words has risen. While he signed onto the cause that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration, his amazing foul mouth line against Republicans says something about the hubris of the Democratic power elite. Evidently, there is an assumption that thoroughly rotten behavior is forgiven if one is a Democrat and in power. Others feel that this kind of lunacy and profanity are now par for the course in our national dialogue. Perhaps that's why Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett, close advisor to the President according to Politico, heaped praise on Van Jones rather recently. Perhaps only Republicans are accountable for wretched speech or insane conspiracy theories.

That words now count differently for some who lead rather than others comprises a fundamental distortion in our national discourse. It also exposes the craven. If say, a Republican now votes for Obamacare after Democrats have called them un-American (Pelosi/Reid), racist (Patterson, Rangel) or asshole (Van Jones), that person is a punk. If someone called you these to your face, you'd dispute it, to say the least, if not take a swipe at them. These are fighting words. Do nothing and you deserve the abuse you will receive. Anyone who's vaguely aware of how people interact knows there are certain words and phrases which are certain to inflame a conversation. It's that attempt by someone to make general attacks personal that is so evil. To sink a phrase hook into someone's consciousness is to try to intimidate on an intellectual plane.

Unless one replies in kind, the verbal smear artist has achieved a hold over the target.

However, this verbal intimidation has not worked, so far. Barack Hussein Obama's big speech to Congress can do little to fix things. As Walter Ong wrote, once something is uttered, all else afterward is simply patchwork on the previous oral expression. Obama's soothing words can do little to stop the rancor that has engulfed the national conversation this summer. Sure, we'll get a speech about the grand visions and the individual sob stories, but for most, the system works. Look, once someone has called you a vile name, no amount of sweet words can change your opinion.

Obama cannot persuade with facts because they are completely against him. Of the 50 million newly insured in Obamacare, less than 10 million are actually indigent U.S. citizens who lack means for coverage. So we're paying over one trillion to insure less than 3% of the population? We're cutting Medicare to insure illegals? Will doctors want to practice in a profession which will pay them less and make them take more patients? We're taking a hatchet to one sixth of our economy when we're in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression? If this weren't so close to becoming law, it would be laughable, it's so bad. The program as it stands described now is an absolute farce.

In spite of this obvious contradiction between between facts and words, language is the way out for Obama now. Obama will, as one Congressman advocated as a course of action in Vietnam, "declare victory and get out." Obamacare is doomed in its present form. This means the administration will pass some weasel bill supported by Democrats and a few punk Republicans probably costing a mere 200 or 300 billion dollars. This "victory" declared by his horde of media toads will allow Obama to segue into another issue, probably energy. However, he is damaged goods. The vicious vile language of the health care debate will haunt him.

On the other hand, maybe it's best to take a different tack. Let's go along with the smear job in one specific instance and see if it leads somewhere. Perhaps we should assume Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Brian Baird are right and the Republicans opposing this really are "Nazis" Absurd? Sure, but allow this to play out.

We know know from history the Nazis were murderous scum, but how driven were they really? Assuming Obama believes his own team's propaganda, what is he up against? How determined are these Republican Nazis? If history is a guide, here is an example from North Africa, 1942, described in Rick Atkinson's book, An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943, It highlights the observations of one captured American officer watching the workings of a German military airfield from a holding pen:

At El Aouina airport, whence the captives were to be flown to prison camps in Italy, the Americans watched as Allied bombers briefly pummeled the field and flew away. At the all clear signal, German soldiers heaved grappling hooks into a burning Junkers transport plane bombed moments after landing from Italy. Bulldozers dragged the wreckage off the runway. Landings resumed instantly, and Wehrmacht troops clattered down the aircraft ramps before the propellers stopped spinning. Only then did an ambulance pull up to the burning Junkers, and German rescue workers in asbestos suits begin pulling injured men from the wreckage.

Another captured officer turned to Frelinghuysen. "People who fight a war like that," he said, "will be hard to beat."

I'm not sure those people have that much in common with Republicans, so let's put them in the role in which they might actually fit: that of Americans in the same place and same time. However, let's be fair to Pelosi and use a Nazi description of them. Attributed to Erwin Rommel after he saw them fight in North Africa, this assessment of the American troops could perhaps apply to Republicans. He supposedly said of American soldiers, he had never seen worse soldiers in their first battle, nor ones who had learned so much by their second.

Republicans were drubbed in their first electoral encounter with Obama, but his youth and inexperience is showing and they seem to be learning fast. We'll find out how much they've learned next year.

Powered by

About Mr Dock Ellis

  • Arch Conservative

    Obama is as arrogant as they come.

    He honestly believed that his election was a mandate to give a few teleprompted speeches and we’d all jump on the socialist bandwagon overnight.

    Unfortunately for him all the nation is not Chicago and the American people cannot be strong armed to bend to his will.

    He is doing as much if not more damage to the Democrat brand as Bush did to the GOP brand.

    I agree with you regarding the whole health care issue Dock. The cat is out of the bag now and he can give his little speech tonight but it won’t matter. Hell he can even dig those roman columns he used at the dem convention and set them up tonight. it’s not going to change a damn thing. The majority of Americans have learned what he is all about and don’t want any of the change he’s interested in bringing.

    What’s really amusing is watching his minions spin and spin. “his falling poll numbers don’t really mean anything,” “most Americans want the public option…just look at the NYT poll on it….”

    Try as they might the propagandists cannot keep up the illusion. Bush has been gone for almost a year now and instead of governing Obama is still campaigning.

    The way I see it the only big winner in the election of Obama to the presidency is Jimmy Carter. History will remember him much more kindly now.

  • Jordan Richardson

    He honestly believed that his election was a mandate to give a few teleprompted speeches and we’d all jump on the socialist bandwagon overnight.

    Isn’t that essentially what government is, except with varying “bandwagons?”

    Unfortunately for him all the nation is not Chicago and the American people cannot be strong armed to bend to his will.

    Which means what, exactly? Are you going to have him removed from office? How are you going to stop your president from continuing the “socialist agenda?” What are some practical ways this could take place?

    The majority of Americans have learned what he is all about and don’t want any of the change he’s interested in bringing.

    Do you have any evidence to support this claim, Arch?

    What’s really amusing is watching his minions spin and spin. “his falling poll numbers don’t really mean anything,” “most Americans want the public option…just look at the NYT poll on it….”

    What’s more amusing is your own personal spin on the issue. You’ve interpreted what the “majority of Americans” think without one shred of evidence, yet you find flaws in it when the side you’re not on does it. Can you be a bigger hypocrite?

    Bush has been gone for almost a year now and instead of governing Obama is still campaigning.

    In what way is he campaigning? The way I see it, Obama has a lot of work to do in the clarity department and this means he has to get his ass out there and start speaking to the people even more. He has to make his health care plan clear and concise so that people understand what they’re getting into. It can’t be left to the media anymore.

    So in that respect, in addressing a public so deeply divided politically and socially, Obama needs to “campaign” in order to achieve anything meaningful in his administration.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Jordan, he’s already achieved something meaningful. He’s united a huge number of Americans who previously bickered with each other over issues in the common agreement that they don’t want the US to become more socialistic.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    He has to make his health care plan clear and concise so that people understand what they’re getting into.

    True.

    He can’t explain it clearly and concisely until there IS a plan which is clear and concise.

    Instead of yakking on TV, he needs to be strong-arming the Congress — both houses.

  • Arch Conservative

    In other news 11 Acorn employees were charged with voter fraud in Florida today.

  • Baronius

    I hope that Republicans don’t get overconfident. About 16 years ago, a Democratic president’s health care package bombed, and not long afterwards his party lost control of Congress. Definitely a one-term president, they thought.

    As for the fighting words, politicians on both sides have to let such comments roll off their backs. You can’t retaliate for insults (unless you’re 5). You put the country first.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Strong-arming the Congress, Clavos, is beyond what’s doable. Most commentators agree that the road to compromise between the Reps and the Dems on the issue is a dead-end, and that yesterday’s speech was directed only at the Democrats, to close the ranks.

  • Arch Conservative

    Baronius, there is a world of difference between Clinton and Obama. Clinton was just a horny narcissist with a shrew for a wife who wanted to be loved by all and had no core principles other than his pecker being the preeminent presidential priority.

    Obama is an arrogant, narcissistic, die hard leftist committed to socializing this nation. Most people have figured this out already and want no part of him.

  • zingzing

    archie: “Obama is an arrogant, narcissistic, die hard leftist committed to socializing this nation. Most people have figured this out already and want no part of him.”

    except that it’s not true, of course. what is socialism, archie? i’d like to know your definition.

  • Baronius

    Arch, both Clinton and Obama specialize in portraying themselves as sympathetic figures being attacked by meanies. 1994 provided Clinton with stock villain characters. 2010 may do the same for Obama.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Stock villain characters.”

    Must be a phrase from a storybook. Oddly enough, though, they’re more real than the average person imagines. Truth has always been stranger than fiction.

    As to Archie’s idea of socialism, zing, how is this one? Free love all around and the poor Archie left out.

  • Clavos

    Strong-arming the Congress, Clavos, is beyond what’s doable. Most commentators agree that the road to compromise between the Reps and the Dems on the issue is a dead-end, and that yesterday’s speech was directed only at the Democrats, to close the ranks.

    The Democrats are the Congress at this point, Roger. His problem is not with the Republicans, they’re the minority. His problem is with the Democrats who are not on his bandwagon, and as the Big Cheese Dem, he can and should strong-arm them, or he will lose the battle, and probably the whole enchilada.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I believe my statement takes cognizance of the fact. Since the public appears to be divided on the healthcare issue, Democrats, too, are facing the dilemma, unless they don’t care about getting re-elected.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You must have been away for a while, Clav, since you have not been posting.

    Never mind my two testy remarks on the other thread concerning you idol – just tit-for-tat, nothing more.

    (I didn’t know BTW that you had one.

%d bloggers like this: