Tuesday, October 14, 2008

No Habla Jibber-Jabber

Dear readers, it seems that the Obama-waffle selling site Fraters Libertas has taken umbrage over something I have written as part of the Fairness Challenge:
However, VDH and Hewitt will have to be spared the regulator's axe, at least for now. Since they said nothing of the sort. Here is the transcript of the conversation in question. The relevant excerpt follows. For context purposes, it is long, reflecting the in-depth and thought provoking nature of most of the conversation you hear on the Patriot.

(ed note: for sake of brevity, you can read the transcript here)

So, Obama's willingness to give up the office of President was never discussed, as Sponge stated as a reason for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine.

Instead, Hewitt and Hanson speculated on Obama's willingness to give up the adoration of the masses and positive world opinion in order to do what is right for the country (and to match up with his stated rhetoric). An excellent question. Maybe Bob Schieffer will ask it at the debate on Wednesday? (If so, it will more likely come out as "Senator Obama, why does the world love you so much?")

Looks like they're going to have to come up with another reason to shut down Conservative talk radio.

Speaking of fairness, I can only hope if Obama does institute a Fairness Doctrine, to punish certain kinds of political speech, there is a provision to shut down any web sites found to be promulgating disinformation and falsehoods to the American people on matters of public policy. It would only be fair.
Ah yes, all of those websites that operate on a spectrum as limited as our public airwaves.

I do admit that while traveling down the highway at 60 mph I did not have access to a transcript of Mr. Hewitt's program but I would hate to have readers of the Cucking Stool think I was trying to play fast and loose with the facts, so here is a brief explanation of what I heard and where I am coming from on this matter:

The Fraters boys certainly have a point if you accept the premise that Barack Obama makes his decisions based on the need to be loved, preferably by foreigners.

If you take this sentiment at face value, it seems to me that the motivation for each and every decision made by the man lovingly referred to as The One can also be explained away by Mr. Hanson's psychobabble. This sort of advanced hackery does not exist in a vacuum and, should you subscribe to it, your scope on the matter sure as hell isn't confined to naval blockades and Iran. From the financial crisis to Afghanistan to Iran and beyond, Hanson's nonsense is a pearl-clutching critique of the age-old problem of putting the campaign rhetoric rubber to the political road. If I had a fainting couch near my computer I suppose I could regale you with stories of how Mr. McCain will be unable to engage in any sort of meaningful bi-partisanship after running a campaign carefully threaded through constituencies that find a jolly good time in calling their opponent an Arab who pals around with terrorists. But back to Mr. Hanson...

While some readers may view his comments (once again, here is the transcript) as an isolated incident involving Iran, I refuse to acknowledge Hanson's initial premise or to ignore the fact that, if taken seriously, it can be spread evenly across the board from Obama's issue positions to his very existence as president. Again, without the benefit of a transcript, and as heard in context and in real time, I interpreted this little give-and-take as Hanson's ham-handed way of implying that Obama is not serious about the issues, the Presidency, and the security of the American people. Furthermore, by tying this flimsy implication directly to the BS notion that Obama is driven by a "Messianic sense that people love him for himself," who here amongst us honestly thinks that Hanson confines this sort of boobery to the specific question of whether or not Barack Obama cannot be counted on to act against Iran simply because he does not want to lose the sweet caress of his many adoring Berliners? Folks, both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain's fidelity is to the Constitution and the security of the American people. That is a f'ing given with men who run for this office. Yet here we have the clown Hanson talking about how the hard choices of the office will put Obama in a position where he will have to choose between the love of Helga and Helmut and doing what he, Mr. Victor Davis Hanson, believes is the right thing to do (which is a pretty narrow goal post by its own right). Here we have the clown Hanson insisting that the only two options for Obama are to either continue servicing his foreign lovers or to become a unilateralist warrior. These are absurd thoughts and if you believe them, then yes, Mr. Obama is not going to be willing to give up that easily: the love, the issues, the policy, and the office. This sort of nonsense is the first step in viewing an Obama presidency as an illegitimate one. If Obama can't be trusted to put aside the love of the precious Berliners for America's national security do you honestly believe that's where his malfeasance ends?

I know it may seem far off to those of you who believe that Mr. Obama values the love and adoration of Berliners more than Bloomingtonites, but what I heard in real time on AM1280 was a guy who not only does not respect Obama enough to assign him the most fundamental qualification of the Presidency (to protect the Constitution and the American people) but who then fiddled his way through a nonsensical argument about Mr. Obama's bad faith before bringing it on home with a statement about how hard it will be to give it all up. Give what up? The love of Berliners? His Messianiac followers? Please, the man is running for the President of the United States, not a world popularity contest. This was the first question that popped into my head when I heard this segment. "Give what up?" Sorry guys, I'm not buying the love/celebrity bullshit. Mr. Obama is running to be the President and Commander in Chief. He's doing so because he strongly believes in protecting the Constitution and the American people. Plus, when people make arguments that make zero sense, the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves. Perhaps my ears are simply not tuned to the frequency of this particular conservative dog-whistle. Again, you can listen to the segment here for yourself.

Finally, I believe the overarching theme here is just how far some conservatives have jumped the shark. When the Paris Hilton celebrity commercial came out I did not think for one second that anyone in their right mind could actually believe something like that. However, as the clown Hanson and his clutch of monkeys over at Fraters Libertas clearly show, there really are people who will purchase beach front property in Kansas. I continue to invite Cucking Stool readers to take the Fairness Challenge. If you disagree with my real-time take on Mr. Hanson, you can find several other examples in the original post or you can click here for yet another example of how GOP radio abuses the public airwaves for free campaign work.

No comments: