President Obama gave a great speech, according to many reports. I don’t know. I didn’t bother tuning in. I already know he gives good speeches. But no matter how good the speech results are what really matters; and “results” rely mostly upon how we really react when faced with the inevitable opposition after the speech.
Once that meant they just disagreed with us… or not. It meant a few would vote with us… most would vote the other way. Now it’s become a name calling contest, mostly from extremists on the other side of the aisle. A race to find the most inaccurate, most offensive, way to portray our efforts, our President and what we have proposed.
We put up with it.
We claim we want to “move forward.”
If we believe in change, are we going to continue to put up with the same old patterns enough to actually “move forward?” Guess not. Already Libs are twisting their panties over the fact that Republicans are headed the opposite direction: being even more uncooperative.
Doing something about it? Eh, not so much.
What, did they expect Joe, the Neo Con Conservative Republican; drunk on power, ego and pure partisanship, to come home and say, “Great speech. Now I realize how bad I’ve been. Sorry. All these years I’ve been beating up on you, calling you names, making fake accusations. I know you weren’t all ‘traitors’ when you challenge the Patriot Act, questioned WMD, or the war in Iraq. Obama’s not some foreign born socialist out to control and own everything. Max Cleland lost his limbs doing his patriotic duty. Hillary didn’t murder Vince Foster. Can I stay and work things out if I stop: become more honest, cooperative and kind?”
Would you believe them even if they did do that? If you did, then you had to have sniffed gasoline after smoking a few pounds of crack first. Or maybe just be one of these “get along at any cost” Dems. Same damn thing. And there are far too many of them these days.
So we wait for the obvious to happen, as it has so often. The pattern seems to be set in concrete: kind of like a Democratic Jimmy Hoffa. We’ll make suggestions. They’ll toss us into the river of unreasonable, baseless, accusations and laugh while we sink in the polls. Sink in the polls because the media will insist on being “fair and balanced:” rarely if ever pointing out the lies, never commenting on their vicious nature.
Oh, we have our own moments of rage, like the recent Supreme Court decision. And that rage will last… how long? Will we organize and take to the streets? Pound on doors? Get arrested? Characterize them in unflattering ways? Do what they do and use every weapon we have to beat back those who beat us so often?
No, for the most part I’m sure we will do what we always do, slink away as soon as the corporate owned media finds a way to distract us. Where’s Michael Jackson or balloon boy when they need them? Oh, I’m sure if something doesn’t happen they’ll just make it up.
My guess is by the time this is published the rage is about to fade into semi-obscurity, just as it has for the most part over torture, no WMD, Bush’s fake National Guard record and and his statements that “Saddam never let the inspectors in/kicked them out.” Remember how Bush’s National Guard problems were all washed away simply because the information, while correct, wasn’t on the original form; using the original font? Why do I hear even lefties claim it was a bogus document when the secretary who handled the original information said the information was correct?
Couldn’t all this be a bit like the abused wife who tells the police, or her neighbor, that her black eye was caused by a doorknob?
Or how abuse over Whitewater turned into abuse over Bill and Hillary murdering Vince Foster, turned into…. and the only thing they got him on was saying “there is no relationship,” when at that time there wasn’t? Now even most lefties claim Bill was convicted of perjury, something that never happened.
“I’m sorry officer. No, he hasn’t been abusing me. Broken arm? Yes, I do need to be more careful in the shower.”
More than a decade later after all that we hoped that would all change, it obviously hasn’t. You cannot have change if you continue to empower those who created the mess to begin with.
The mainstream press eagerly ran with the lies and did little to correct them. Maybe we keep “letting it go,” because we hope to win the next one, make them see, make them understand. Maybe we just hope that the voting public will see how poor little us were victims all this time, not understanding that re-victimizing victims has become great theater.
And maybe we’re just being damn fools, especially when we think a good speech will break the cycle: solve bloody anything. This endless cycle reminds me of the woman beaten at the mere mention of how much she doesn’t want to be berated and abused…
“He balls up his fist and smacks her. She’s left crying in a corner, asking, ‘What did I do wrong? How can I make it better?'”
But she can’t, can she?
Like an abused spouse we wince and cry about what been done. Then blame ourselves. It’s Barack’s fault. Hillary’s fault. If not for Joe Lieberman, or Ben Nelson, or… But actually do something? Toss Joe out the political window as he so richly deserves? Enforce party discipline even one iota, a smidgen, a mere speck? No, no, no. That won’t do. It’s “our fault.” We just weren’t cooperative, understanding or bipartisan enough. We’ve got to move more to the “center,” do everything more like how “he” wants things to be.
But the real question, the real quandary, is will we continue to allow him to beat us? Nothing will ever satisfy him: even if he kills us the media will claim it’s our own damn fault.
Being more cooperative sure isn’t the answer. How much more “cooperative” could we be? Why would even a damn fool think “cooperative” would work with the Right as it exists today; the same Right who cheer on their hero when he claims he wants our President to fail? Who cheer on talk show hosts making vague references to assassination? “Bipartisanship” with that kind of abusive spouse is a death encouraging act.
But instead of realizing this and doing something about it we seem to say…
“He beat me again. I must have done something wrong. Maybe he’ll stop if I just say I’m sorry.”
For “he” always does the same thing: comes home; finds something, anything: real or imaginary, to be mad about and then beats us senseless. He expects, demands, that we try to soften the blows by attempting to please him with that grand make up sex: bipartisanship mixed with compromise. Then he will tell us we’re still being difficult and beats us again, attempting to pound any ounce of independence out of us.
“He” is obviously the Right in this analogy, and the corporate owned mainstream media. And all the compromise and over eager adjustments from our side should be painfully obvious.
Take, for instance, the nice summer opportunity Barack gave them to get their act together on health care; gather the gang to oppose anything proposed, and especially to make up lies, spew spurious, vile, accusations. He could have pushed harder. We could have done the “up or down vote” mantra popular when they were in power. But no… that wouldn’t be “fair.”
So what was their cry after that gift? Oh, yeah, “Democrats are trying to ram this down our throats!”
“He balls up his fist and smacks her again. She thinks, ‘It’s my fault. Why do I keep making him so mad? Maybe I should try to find some way to avoid anything he finds disagreeable.'”
The media cheers and jeers, like the crowd who gathers to encourage a bully on an elementary playground. From not one, single, mainstream media source did I hear them pointing out how much of a lie this “ram” claim was in the face of the obvious summer recess opportunity they were given, the fact that single payer wasn’t even considered, that insurance companies were handed back pretty much everything they already had and offered even more than they had; especially when public option was quickly dropped.
Who pointed out that these facts made “ram” a damn lie? No one. Not MSNBC. Not CBS. Not ABC. Not ABC. Not the Times, the Post, the… not one.
And someone please tell me when Republicans during the previous administration were this cooperative and Dems used any opportunity to come back and beat on the Republicans?
So now Scott Brown has been elected, are we going to try to get health care through before the ax falls? No, that wouldn’t be “fair.” If you listen to his acceptance speech you would think Democrats were refusing to seat him, like Republicans did Franken, as they chanted, “Seat him now! Seat him now!”
Like the husband who keeps complaining that his compliant wife isn’t compliant enough, they know no one on our side would be brave enough to stand in his way. No one is trying to stop Brown from being seated. Indeed we’re paving the way. Not only will he be seated, but the Commander in Chief and Nancy Pelosi insist we “play fair” and wait for him to be seated before we continue the health care circus.
Oh, but we’re “Nazis” for even trying to improve health care? “Nazis” because we know that selling such things across borders means less coverage for the needy as insurance companies cherry pick communities? Yes, I do remember Adolph Hitler making sure even the Jews had health care.
“Just enter that gas chamber over there and you will be taken ‘care’ of.”
The Jews you see, like the poor, had a “precondition.”
Yes, we know who is really acting like Brownshirts, and who supports the true “death panels.”
But, that’s OK, Ken. Calm down. After all, they’ll appreciate the fact we’re waiting for Brown to be seated, right? Everything thing will be puppies and roses now we’ve shown how “fair” we are, right? “He” will forgive us for what “we’ve done,” right? They’ll calmly discuss health care and come to some compromise, or politely say they can’t vote for it.
No, what will happen once he’s seated?
“He balls up his fist and breaks her nose, then says: ‘Serve me what I want now, faster, bitch, not this socialist crap. You’re too slow. You’re my servile slut. Your ass is mine.'”
So what did the President who did so well confronting them the other night according to reports do previous to that speech? Barack promised that once Brown’s been seated the all too thin bill that everyone worked on so hard will be thinned out even more… thin enough that I imagine even Snuggles the Charmin bear will be embarrassed. It will melt in our hands; turn into… a big bonanza for the insurance thieves who brought us here to begin with.
So after all that, will they be thankful?
“He balls up his fist and smacks her over and over again. Her nose is broken, her face is raw. Still she thinks, ‘It’s my fault. It must be my fault. What can I do to make him happy?'”
Nothing will “make him happy.”
Not if we “play nice”
Not if we “play fair.”
Every compromise will lead to more angry demands. Our very compliant nature feeds the abusive behavior.
How far will this go? Soon they will simply demand we all shut up, and be able to make it happen. Think net neutrality. Why do you think the Right Wingers are so focused on this? If they can deliberately slow down access to beyond noisy dial up slow, while provide lightening to the rich, the well connected…. who will have free speech; more ability to be abusive? Combine that with corporate “free speech” and the limitless ability to pump money into pols and causes. Get the picture yet?
And who will have little to no free speech, thanks to the Supremes and intentionally slowing down the net? Who will have all they can buy? With all the money flooding into the system, the politically incorrect, un-bought and unconnected will have “free speech rights” more like this…
“Her teeth are broken. Her mouth is swollen shut and her very existence only angers him more.'”
Maybe someday Dem leadership will wake the hell up. Abused spouses sometimes do stand up for themselves: do what they have to do to kick them out of their positions of power, or at least limit the damage they do: and do whatever it takes.
We are at a crossroads.
We can have a repeat of 1994. only worse, or we can energize our own base.
Forget trying to pacify the party of mostly abuse. No matter what they say they’ll never play “fair,” “nice,” or back off.
Or we can follow the advice of those who would rather take the beatings than really do anything about it. The kind of advice that has a spouse who follows it end up in a body bag, while those who gave the advice still blame them.
These enablers would rather us join them than stand up for ourselves.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved
Ken, I appreciate your passion and outrage on this, since I feel much the same myself, but watching Obama in the SOTU and his meeting with the GOP the next day, I began to appreciate, if not completely agree, with his approach.
Not that I’m comparing Obama to Gandhi or MLK, but I can see Obama’s using similar tactics; both of those leaders employed reason and non-violence so as to not fall into the trap the British (in Gandhi’s case) and the racists (in MLK’s) were setting. In both cases, the opposition desperately wanted an angry revolutionary who would fight them with vicious words and threaten violence, not a mild-mannered, affable person who spoke calmly and rationally. Obama is refusing to play ‘Angry Black Man’ to the Republicans and it’s driving them crazy.
In the SOTU speech, he made the regressives look like idiots for refusing to applaud such GOP staples as tax cuts and going after the banksters, simply because it was Obama proposing them. Someone must have gotten to the GOP delegation — by the end of the speech, most of them were applauding, too, which, of course, angered their base. Obama had them in a damned if they do and damned if they don’t situation — don’t applaud what you actively support and look like peevish morons to the independents you need to get elected, or applaud and rile your base up against you. It was a neat and very subtle trick on Obama’s part.
The next day, speaking to the GOP retreat in Maryland, Obama affably fended off the usual GOP Talking Points (T.P., in the Charmin sense), and calmly set the record straight. The Republican Boobery thought this was a chance to embarrass or irritate Obama and he neatly flipped it back on them, leaving them on the mat with the wind knocked out of them. (He even called out Frank Luntz.) OTOH, if the GOP would have refused to allow Obama at their meeting, then they’d look like a bunch of peevish a-holes, again, objectionable to the indies they desperately need.
Don’t make too much out of Scott Brown’s ascendance — Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate, Brown played possum until the last few weeks of the campaign, and he didn’t campaign as a Republican on the ‘God, Guns, Gays and I Hate Obama’ platform. Instead, he studiously avoided any mention that he was a Republican and kept styling himself as an ‘independent.’ He’ll be gone in the next regular election when Mass. voters realize he’s Palin with a penis.
In my state, even with the Blago prosecution hanging over the Dems, the Republicans are not putting the party name in their ads or mentioning it on the stump, they don’t slam Obama, and most run from any connection with the teabaggers. Like Brown, they’re all trying to position themselves as ‘moderate independents.’ That’s telling since a lot of these same Republicans were flag-waving, full-bore supporters of Bush and his wars six and eight years ago.
Obama’s poll numbers are going up and the GOP’s are still wallowing in a ditch. Plus, I just heard some House members have come up with a scheme to pass some parts of health care reform through the Senate by 51-vote reconciliation and junking the Baucus-Lieberman disaster.
We’ll see what happens, but all may not be lost, as frustrating as it seems right now.
I have noticed that, too. As far as I recall, Bill Clinton was never convicted of anything and his impeachment failed in the Senate. What’s more, according to the definition of ‘sex’ as agreed on by the Paula Jones civil suit, he didn’t commit perjury. Our ‘Liberal Media’ strikes again.
Actually, Ken, I did hear the media report the facts on MSNBC; not only Keith Olbermann and Rachel, but even David Shuster had a good laugh over this goofy notion and slapped down some ‘GOP operative’ for bringing it up.
From what I know, the average German in the 30s and 40s had no idea the Jews were sent to concentration camps. Goebbels’ propaganda assured the Deutsche Volk they were being removed by train ‘for their own protection’ and taken to the Jewish ‘homeland’ in what was then Palestine — the death camps were a top state secret only known to a small number of the Nazi elite and the camp personnel. Most Germans were shocked after the war when they found out what was done to the Jews in their name.
I agree about the Germans. It was meant as a silly juxtaposition between claims the Right has made and what a Nazi really is.
I hope your positive spin is right. We’ll see in November. To be honest? I think the public is too stupid to get the more head game approach.
Oh, and I admit, I may have missed some of this. I tire of MSM coverage, so I don’t listen much. Think I’d rather have a root canal with a jackhammer.