Outrage looking for something to stick to.

[Arkady]

I get the distinct impression that when it comes to conservative reactions to Obama, the outrage comes first, and the nominal cause of the outrage is just whatever convenient material happens to come along. The latest example is Obama carelessly saluting his guard with a cup in his hand. Conservatives, predictably, plastered themselves to the ceiling about this... never mind similar half-hearted or encumbered salutes by various Republican presidents, or that through most of our history, presidents almost never saluted at all.

There are plenty of other examples of trivia like that being the convenient settling place of free-range conservative outrage towards Obama. Obama will forget to put his hand on his heart during the star-spangled banner, and you'd think he'd given the flag a one-fingered salute. Inevitably, people will quickly produce photos of countless Republican politicians likewise forgetting to put their hands on their hearts while everyone around them does, without it having inspired any eruption of outrage, but the conservatives will be immune to the obvious point that the outrage they're feeling is actually unconnected to the cause to which they attribute it.

Other recent examples include when Obama didn't attend the funeral of a general who was killed in action. Republicans insisted this was a break with tradition, when in fact many other generals had been killed in action, during other presidencies, with the presidents not having gone to their funerals, including modern Republican presidents. Or how about the time Obama didn't attend the D-Day memorial, and Facebook exploded with false claims that this was one of the only times a president had ever slighted the memorial, when in fact every recent president had done so at least once. The conservative apoplexy about Obama's golfing or vacations are other examples. Don't trouble them with the fact that Obama isn't actually a very avid golfer or vacationer by presidential standards. Their outrage is strongly felt and needs some sort of topic to adhere to, facts be damned! And they can't even confine it just to Obama -- his wife gets plenty of similar outrage, linked to off-the-cuff comments or questionable fashion choices that would not have had anyone bat an eyelash if it had been a Republican first lady.

Obama isn't the only Democratic president who has been on the receiving end of outrage that's supposedly about some taboo he crossed. I remember the conservative ninnies clutching their pearls and looking for the fainting couch when Clinton was photographed in the Oval Office without a tie or jacket. But with Obama, it seems a lot more frequent and even sillier, since so often the outrage is nominally directed at something where Obama is completely normal, as with the spotty D-Day attendance. Maybe it's a result of Obama being the first president since most technologically retarded conservatives first discovered social media. Maybe every Democrat will get this same treatment in the future.

 

[as seen on tv]

ark - you're entirely correct, and I've given your post a huge "like".

i have consistently urged participants in PJ to stick to Obama's egregious and uninformed policies, when criticizing his performance, and eschew the little stuff like golfing; his poor manners; and troublesome comments intended to inflame racial tensions.

there's plenty to criticize regarding deficits, unemployment, taxes, green energy boondoggles, mismanaged foreign relations, and of course the Affordable Care Act to keep obama critics busy.

don't sweat the small stuff.

 

[Addy]

lol.. love your read Arkady, esp. this line -- Maybe it's a result of Obama being the first president since most technologically retarded conservatives first discovered social media.

 

[Colorforms]

I get the distinct impression that when it comes to conservative reactions to Obama, the outrage comes first, and the nominal cause of the outrage is just whatever convenient material happens to come along. The latest example is Obama carelessly saluting his guard with a cup in his hand. Conservatives, predictably, plastered themselves to the ceiling about this... never mind similar half-hearted or encumbered salutes by various Republican presidents, or that through most of our history, presidents almost never saluted at all.

There are plenty of other examples of trivia like that being the convenient settling place of free-range conservative outrage towards Obama. Obama will forget to put his hand on his heart during the star-spangled banner, and you'd think he'd given the flag a one-fingered salute. Inevitably, people will quickly produce photos of countless Republican politicians likewise forgetting to put their hands on their hearts while everyone around them does, without it having inspired any eruption of outrage, but the conservatives will be immune to the obvious point that the outrage they're feeling is actually unconnected to the cause to which they attribute it.

Other recent examples include when Obama didn't attend the funeral of a general who was killed in action. Republicans insisted this was a break with tradition, when in fact many other generals had been killed in action, during other presidencies, with the presidents not having gone to their funerals, including modern Republican presidents. Or how about the time Obama didn't attend the D-Day memorial, and Facebook exploded with false claims that this was one of the only times a president had ever slighted the memorial, when in fact every recent president had done so at least once. The conservative apoplexy about Obama's golfing or vacations are other examples. Don't trouble them with the fact that Obama isn't actually a very avid golfer or vacationer by presidential standards. Their outrage is strongly felt and needs some sort of topic to adhere to, facts be damned! And they can't even confine it just to Obama -- his wife gets plenty of similar outrage, linked to off-the-cuff comments or questionable fashion choices that would not have had anyone bat an eyelash if it had been a Republican first lady.

Obama isn't the only Democratic president who has been on the receiving end of outrage that's supposedly about some taboo he crossed. I remember the conservative ninnies clutching their pearls and looking for the fainting couch when Clinton was photographed in the Oval Office without a tie or jacket. But with Obama, it seems a lot more frequent and even sillier, since so often the outrage is nominally directed at something where Obama is completely normal, as with the spotty D-Day attendance. Maybe it's a result of Obama being the first president since most technologically retarded conservatives first discovered social media. Maybe every Democrat will get this same treatment in the future.

Maybe it's because Barry is more callous and inconsiderate than most other people. Who knows.

 

[Arkady]

ark - you're entirely correct, and I've given your post a huge "like".

i have consistently urged participants in PJ to stick to Obama's egregious and uninformed policies, when criticizing his performance, and eschew the little stuff like golfing; his poor manners; and troublesome comments intended to inflame racial tensions.

there's plenty to criticize regarding deficits, unemployment, taxes, green energy boondoggles, mismanaged foreign relations, and of course the Affordable Care Act to keep obama critics busy.

don't sweat the small stuff.

Although we obviously could hardly be farther apart in our appraisal of Obama's performance, I think we're agree that sweating the small stuff is pointless. I tried to make this point to liberals in the Bush years, when they'd get their knickers in a twist about something trivial. I worried that obsessive attention on stuff like that would just suggest to the public that there was nothing serious to complain about. I don't care if Bush gets caught picking his nose at a basketball game, or if he gives the German Chancellor an uncomfortable looking shoulder rub. I care about him destroying the American economy, taking a giant crap on our Constitution, and starting a multi-trillion-dollar war on Iraq in order to find some non-existent WMDs.

 

[Addy]

 

[Charcat]

On the other hand, the "small stuff" demonstrates his character.

 

[Arkady]

lol.. love your read Arkady, esp. this line -- Maybe it's a result of Obama being the first president since most technologically retarded conservatives first discovered social media.

I may be wrong about that one, but certainly among my own friends and family, the most liberal people tend to be technological "early adopters," and were avid web users since the mid-90s, and social media users since not too much later, whereas a lot of the conservatives (mostly older folks) seem to have discovered Facebook just as the early adopters started outgrowing it.

 

[Addy]

True, Arkady, funny to watch some of those when they first discovered the social media sites, some of my repub friends on FB acted like they had invented those websites. Such a display of arrogance/ignorance with all types of pixs and announcements. I was embarrassed for them actually.

 

[Arkady]

On the other hand, the "small stuff" demonstrates his character.

If I were in a position to see a good selection of the "small stuff," maybe I'd feel justified extrapolating character from that. But even people with outstanding character have bad days or bad moments. Follow someone around with a camera all the time for years and you'll catch lots of bad moments, the same way you'd catch an unusually safe driver occasionally speeding or forgetting to signal. So, I'm reluctant to make sweeping character judgments about politicians based on little moments like that.

Where I'm less reluctant is in drawing conclusions from carefully considered policies that have giant, foreseeable consequences. For example, when Bush chose to stamped the nation into war with Iraq, based on some half-baked intelligence and wild conjecture, that told me all I needed to know about his character.

 

[fairsheet]

This sort of approach eventually turns counterproductive, as the more thoughtful begin rolling their eyes.

 

[fairsheet]

I realize most lefters don't like hearing this but, we Democrats took a similar approach to Reagan - especially during his first term. I think that one of the most important "epiphanies" the Democratic Party has had over the last 50 years, is the realization that however "righteous" we may think this sort of thing is, we need to be mindful of the point at which it starts becoming counterproductive.

 

[Arkady]

True, Arkady, funny to watch some of those when they first discovered the social media sites, some of my repub friends on FB acted like they had invented those websites. Such a display of arrogance/ignorance with all types of pixs and announcements. I was embarrassed for them actually.

I've never been much of a Facebook poster but -- if you'll excuse me being crass for a moment -- I sometimes scroll through it on my phone while at the urinal. It's a good way to pass the time when you have a very short period with nothing else to do. So, although I might only post something every other month or so, I actually get a sampling of what my hundred or so "friends" are posting on a regular basis, and have for six or seven years. Over that time, the change has been huge. When I started, mostly it was young, liberal people posting about concerts and social events and the latest video games, with occasional excitement about Obama or Hillary Clinton. Now, it's dominated by older aunties sharing jokes that made the rounds years before they joined (along with lots of family pictures), "mommy blogger" types, and angry middle-aged dudes spouting off about how horrible Obama, kids, immigrants, and Muslims are these days.

 

[fairsheet]

"CoffeeCupGate" might've made a tiny bit of sense in the several months prior to the 2012 presidential election. At this point though, this sort of thing is nothing but a reminder that the Fox/GOP has absolutely nothing of value to contribute.

What frosts me though, is that I spent a rare few minutes viewing one of the "Big Three" boradcasters run the film clip and "report" that "some people" are making an issue out of it. The Big Three should stick with what they do best - ultimately meaningless fluff pieces that won't possible offend anyone.

 

[Arkady]

I realize most lefters don't like hearing this but, we Democrats took a similar approach to Reagan - especially during his first term. I think that one of the most important "epiphanies" the Democratic Party has had over the last 50 years, is the realization that however "righteous" we may think this sort of thing is, we need to be mindful of the point at which it starts becoming counterproductive.

I remember a bit of that, with the name-calling ("Ronnie Ray Guns"), and the criticism about the visit to Bitburg, and laughing at him for idiotic claims like the one about trees causing more pollution than cars, or trying to pass off a movie plot as an actual incident from WWII, etc. But I don't remember anything even remotely on the same scale as Obama has faced, where every golf trip or teleprompter reading is subject to criticism. Reagan got ripped on for trivial stuff that was, at least, peculiar to him, whereas Obama gets ripped on for stuff that is not even remotely unusual (like his golfing). And some of what Reagan got away with is beyond anything I can picture Obama surviving. Reagan, for example, twice lied about filming the liberation of concentration camps (his unit never left Hollywood during the war). I have trouble picturing Obama even daring to invent war-theater service that way, but if he did, the tempest would overwhelm his administration. With Reagan, it was at most a back-pages scandlet.

 

[Charcat]

I remember a bit of that, with the name-calling ("Ronnie Ray Guns"), and the criticism about the visit to Bitburg, and laughing at him for idiotic claims like the one about trees causing more pollution than cars, or trying to pass off a movie plot as an actual incident from WWII, etc. But I don't remember anything even remotely on the same scale as Obama has faced, where every golf trip or teleprompter reading is subject to criticism. Reagan got ripped on for trivial stuff that was, at least, peculiar to him, whereas Obama gets ripped on for stuff that is not even remotely unusual (like his golfing). And some of what Reagan got away with is beyond anything I can picture Obama surviving. Reagan, for example, twice lied about filming the liberation of concentration camps (his unit never left Hollywood during the war). I have trouble picturing Obama even daring to invent war-theater service that way, but if he did, the tempest would overwhelm his administration. With Reagan, it was at most a back-pages scandlet.

Apparently you are too young to remember the brief presidency of Gerald Ford, who spent his tenure being ridiculed as stupid and clumsy because of hitting someone with a golf ball and tripping a couple of times.

 

[Addy]

FS, the public apparently runs with what the media puts out as 'important news'.. says a lot about the news medias' influence as well as influencing the viewers' reaction.

"CoffeeCupGate" might've made a tiny bit of sense in the several months prior to the 2012 presidential election. At this point though, this sort of thing is nothing but a reminder that the Fox/GOP has absolutely nothing of value to contribute.

What frosts me though, is that I spent a rare few minutes viewing one of the "Big Three" boradcasters run the film clip and "report" that "some people" are making an issue out of it. The Big Three should stick with what they do best - ultimately meaningless fluff pieces that won't possible offend anyone.

 

[fairsheet]

I remember a bit of that, with the name-calling ("Ronnie Ray Guns"), and the criticism about the visit to Bitburg, and laughing at him for idiotic claims like the one about trees causing more pollution than cars, or trying to pass off a movie plot as an actual incident from WWII, etc. But I don't remember anything even remotely on the same scale as Obama has faced, where every golf trip or teleprompter reading is subject to criticism. Reagan got ripped on for trivial stuff that was, at least, peculiar to him, whereas Obama gets ripped on for stuff that is not even remotely unusual (like his golfing). And some of what Reagan got away with is beyond anything I can picture Obama surviving. Reagan, for example, twice lied about filming the liberation of concentration camps (his unit never left Hollywood during the war). I have trouble picturing Obama even daring to invent war-theater service that way, but if he did, the tempest would overwhelm his administration. With Reagan, it was at most a back-pages scandlet.

My point wasn't to compare the respective "quality" of the digs taken at Reagan and those taken at Obama. My point was to equate their respective political effects. To whit: Does your "attack angle" no matter how consequential or inconsequential, further your cause or harm it?

 

[fairsheet]

FS, the public apparently runs with what the media puts out as 'important news'.. says a lot about the news medias' influence as well as influencing the viewers' reaction.

"Fox News" IS the most viewed cable-only news show. 3% of America views "Fox News" routinely. THREE PERCENT! Why then, do the others feel so compelled to comment on what Fox has to say?

 

[middleview]

On the other hand, the "small stuff" demonstrates his character.

Says more about yours.