Double-Speak From Where You Least Expect It

Are you sick and tired of all the shallow, meaningless, hypocritical political double-talk?  No, I’m not referring to the endless rhetoric coming from Barack Obama about “hope and change,” or even the well orchestrated propaganda campaign mounted by the left-leaning main stream media.  I’m talking about comments from die-hard right wing commentators like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Karl Rove.  Apparently, they and many other conservative commentators, must have gotten the post-election memo that failed to reach the rest of us.  I haven’t read the memo myself, but it must have said something like: “After losing as badly as we did, it is essential that you put a ‘happy spin’ on the election.  Just keep talking about how much you want Obama to ‘succeed,’ and that will hopefully boost your own image.”  One would expect that from the left-leaning main stream news media.  Just today, in my hometown newspaper, The Arizona Republic, there was the headline: “We All Now Must Help Obama Succeed.”  I would expect that kind of “journalism” from this paper.  I’d call The Arizona Republic a real “rag,” but I would not want to insult the rag world.  The paper is actually good for nothing.  When I first moved to Arizona, it was good for something, I used it to line the bottom of my bird cage, but the paper is now so full of crap it’s not even good for that. 

I’ve never before heard this kind of self-serving hypocrisy come from otherwise straight-talking analysts.  Do they really want Obama to succeed, or do they want him to succeed only if he changes his stated agenda?  These conservative commentators are doing a grave injustice to the public, to themselves and even to pres-elect Obama.   Do they want Obama to succeed in ushering in an era of bigger government, higher taxes, and international withdrawal?  Do they want him to succeed in “spreading the wealth around” and establishing the most extreme liberal social agenda this country has ever seen?  I, for one, do NOT want pres-elect Obama to succeed.  What is wrong with saying that?  If I wanted Obama to succeed, I would have voted for him – DUH.  I would be delighted if Obama suddenly changed his political ideology and turned away from everything that he has built his political career, and his presidential campaign on, but is it reasonable or fair to expect him to do that?  He ran on a clear platform, and his constituents have every right to expect him to deliver on that platform.  Of course, I wish pres-elect Obama no personal harm.   In fact, I DO wish him many good things.  I wish him happiness, peace, fulfillment and good health.  I even wish that he finds a cute cuddly hypo-allergenic puppy for his two beautiful daughters.  I wish him the best… but I do NOT wish him success.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Double-Speak From Where You Least Expect It”

  1. on the pike Says:

    I did not vote for Obama, but I am one of the ones who wants him to have a successful presidency, where I define success as the US doesn’t get nuked, the economy turns around, crime goes down, domestic jobs increase, wars are won, etc. I do not want Obama’s political agenda to succeed.

    I think as a country, we have too many freedoms. Dissent is healthy, until it takes on a life of its own. I think we should all exercise our freedom of speech, but as a die-hard disciple of “do unto others,” I will not do to Obama what he and Hillary did to George Bush, who I believe will be treated far better by history than he has by his own country.

    Being a good citizen matters, even when our candidate doesn’t win.

  2. garret Says:

    i fear you’ve improperly separated the “political agenda” from a “successful presidencey”. A president usually makes policy decisions formed from a philosophical, governing worldview; politics is not so easily removed from that. In fact, that’s what shapes the label for someone’s politics. For all the things you wish success it’s clear – to me anyway – that Obama’s projected rememdies are his political agenda. He wants to change the paradigm by which we define America and do business. Unfortunately, he seeks to do this at the expense of some immutable principles.

    It’s funny how the relativistic nature of this era has led us to this point. People have grown so accustomed to supplanting truth with reality that they seem unable to grasp the functional difference. For too many it’s a distinction without a difference, and for the rest…they have no idea what the hell it means.

    i do applaud your character concerning “good citizenship”. They can put your last sentence on your tombstone.

  3. garret Says:

    Hey, i neglected to comment on your blog, clearspeak!
    i’m with you. i find it difficult to shift gears so quickly, or at all. i’m of the firm belief that elction results don’t negate ideas (nor do they magically fix problems or make days brighter).

    i’m terribly annoyed by the REASONABLE critics who have dropped their high expectations for the sake of unity and ‘peace’. When i locate one of those critics i’ll name him. The issues of contention which you raise are not the primary ones people seemed to care about. While i think Obama’s associations and his birth location (and the 57 states) are interesting, proving their saliency was a failed effort that should have been shelved long ago. i do think they may prove to be pertinent in the future, but seeing that things such as that were Hannity’s main saw he is wise to drop them for now.

    There is a point though at which we who see the world as we do ought to yield to what is, and let happen what must. Remember the words Jesus spoke to Pilate. Live like you have a King in your life – not a president over your country. There’s only one Savior.

  4. Ginny Says:

    Garret, it says a lot about you that your first reaction is to criticize someone else’s opinion. The next time you refer to Jesus, you need to remember that his ministry was all about good news. In Jesus’ ministry, you would not make the grade.

    The Arizona Republic, Boston Globe, New York Times, LA Times – they’re all lining birdcages and wrapping up crap – if nothing else, this past election should make it obvious. But let’s state the obvious, shit smells.

    At the end of the next 4 years, we’re going to see the Republicans headed back to the White House. Without the conservative movement that truly makes the world go round, we have no future, and every American, even the black ones, will see that this election which everyone wants to celebrate will go down in history as the sham of the century. What’s that expression, careful what you wish for? Oprah, do you hear me????

  5. outnumberedby5 Says:

    Ginny,

    “Garret, it says a lot about you that your first reaction is to criticize someone else’s opinion.”

    Don’t swing your head to fast, i’d like the opportunity to duck out of the way of the plank sticking from your eye.

    Notice, if you will, that i wasn’t criticizing onthepike’s opinion, but was merely pointing out what i saw as an inconsistency in the logic. OTP separated out two things i see as being inextricably synonymous. i was trying to challenge, not belittle OTP.

    i’d love to share thoughts about Jesus with you, but i’ll let clearspeak post a blog about Him first.

  6. on the pike Says:

    Outnumberedby5 knows from our previous discussions that I reject his hypothesis that Presidential candidates push their political agendas while in the White House. The reality AND the truth is that if Obama wanted to push what many people fear would be a socialist economy, he never would have appointed one of the biggest proponents of capitalism as his Secretary of Treasury. Every modern president campaigns to the strength of his party and then moves slowly and sometimes invisibly toward the middle once they are sworn in. If there’s any inconsistency in logic, my dear friend Outnumberedby5, respectfully it would be yours.

    I want Obama to be a successful president, as I defined in my original comment. If he does succeed in implementing some of his campaign rhetoric which won over the ignorant masses, then I will be protesting and howling from every podium available. Until that time, however, I am in a “wait and see” mode because I strongly believe that the weight of the Oval Office will temper the extreme and the left. Although Bill Clinton was too busy turning the Oval Office into the Oral Office to professionally benefit from the clarity that this level of responsibility brings, the Oval Office does have a metaphoric magnifying glass which clearly illustrates the truth and reality that most rock star politicians gloss over while on the campaign trail. Obama, being an educated, intelligent family man, shows promising signs of eschewing the political rhetoric of his party in his swift approach toward naming candidates to his cabinet while making certain that independent thinkers like Joe Lieberman are not cast aside for not towing the party line. While cynics doubt that such statesmanship can be sustained by the incoming President, for all our sakes, I hope and pray that he will continue to be an ardent student of history as he finds ways to govern this country in a responsible and productive manner.

  7. outnumberedby5 Says:

    i think i could have been clearer.
    Yes, i do agree that presidents usually govern more centrist than their campaign rhetoric would suggest they might. The forces that cause that are many; not the least of which is a contrary legislature. Obama will be working with a legislature whose leadership is decidedly left of left. i would argue that anything right of them is dubiously center. It may appear as though he’s a centrist, but there’s a whole lot of movement to the right to get to center. i’m not satisfied with saying, “at least he’s not as far left as Pelosi.”

    Obama has displayed an inclination to surround himself with capitalists and Clintonistas alike. i’m left to speculate as to what he’s actually comtemplating for policy based on that mixed message. What i’m left with are his stated intentions both before and after being elected. His suggestions on the domestic front – economy, energy, immigration etc. – and on foreign policy – Iraq, trade, diplomacy etc. – imply that he really believes the mantra of “change”. So far i haven’t heard him talk seriously about methods that will actually WORK to achieve the “successful presidency” you’ve described.

    i’m hopeful that he will “change” his mind and adopt a reasonable approach to solving problems. Depending on who you ask, that will or will not be a successful presidency. The people who got him elected will consider him a dud if he doesn’t work towards enacting his campaign agenda. i’m of the belief that he believes leftist policies work and will try like hell to install them. Logic be damned! The lunatics are running the assylum!

    You know why 80% of Americans dissaprove of Bush? The left hates him because of Election 2000, the right has disowned him because he abandoned sound governing axioms to make friends with people who want him dead, and the Great Middle get their cues from the networks and the NYT. Bill Clinton has forever high approval ratings because he never got enough electoral support for anyone to care. All the people who never voted for him had such low expectations that the successes of the 90’s stuck to his ass like wet paint.

    Obama can’t lose if he does the responsible things a good president would do. He will end up a successful president because enough adults who didn’t vote for him will concede – as you’ve done already – that he’s smart enough to do what works. Thrown in will be liberal judges and anmesty (both of which will effectively kill any political opposition – forever) to satisfy the loons and he’ll end up with Clinton-like ratings.

    He’ll lose, yet still win, if he goes left and manages to make things worse instead of better. Bush will continue to get tarred and feathered just as Hoover did after numerous Roosevelt failures. And as we discussed in person, conventional wisdom and corrupted mouthpieces will spin an alternative reality at the expense of truth. In this scenario we’ll all be losers, but the great unwashed will have their bar of soap.

    If you get a chance, read the Op-ed page of the Telegram from Friday the 21st. Some guy i’ve never heard of wrote a piece riddled with quotes from great thinkers, leaders, pundits, and humorists throughout the history of America. My favorite was this, “Those who rob from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.” It isn’t enough that “the US doesn’t get nuked, the economy turns around, crime goes down, domestic jobs increase, wars are won, etc.”. It must be done in a way that preserves the Constitution, the rule of law, and objective trust. If the current economic situation is allowed to tank the country and skew our baseline, we’ll take all those things you mentioned in such a diminished capacity that we won’t recognize how you meant them when you said them.

    “…For all our sakes, I hope and pray that he will continue to be an ardent student of history as he finds ways to govern this country in a responsible and productive manner.”

    Amen

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: