Jimmy Hoffa, in his introduction to Barack Obama, managed to violate almost every liberal commandment on “civility”:
They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war . . . President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.
1) The use of martial imagery: After the Giffords shooting, we were lectured that metaphors like “crosshairs” were inflammatory; but war seems pretty overt.
2) Coded threats: We were lectured that talk radio often uses language tantamount to calling for near insurrection; but by that logic “war,” “army,” and “march” are, again, not an implied but in some sense an overt call to action of some sort (e.g., what does Hoffa mean by his army marching to war?).
3) Profanity: Even talk radio cannot get away with “these son of bitches”; we are back to Reverend Wright’s “God damn America” both in language and in the apparent compliant silence of the hearer Barack Obama.
4) “Take out”: For many Americans, “take out” is popular jargon for assassinate; it was used a lot in the Cold War in the sense of killing some foreign despot. That message probably was not lost on the audience.
5) “Give America back”: A common liberal complaint is that conservative phrases like “take back America” are a sort of charge of treason, as if the liberals in power were not genuinely American. But Hoffa was even more overt. He thinks un-Americans now have America and it has to be forcibly retrieved from these counterfeits by his and Obama’s real Americans.
A growing problem for Barack Obama is Barack Obama. Because he chose to be a sermonizing president, he is bound to practice what he so commonly preaches — otherwise he risks the fate of an Elmer Gantry, or sanctimonious Jimmy Carter. But on a number of topics, he has simply lost all credibility. How can Obama ever again lecture Americans on “civil discourse” and the need for common standards of polite public speech after following Hoffa’s mean-spirited rant and offering him praise? How, after these first family elite vacations to Martha’s Vineyard, Costa del Sol, Vail, etc., can Obama ever again credibly lecture on the dangers of indulgent “millionaires and billionaires,” “corporate jet owners,” “spread the wealth,” and “fat cats” whose lives are so very different from our own? And how — after confessing that his “shovel-ready” $800 billion “stimulus” targeted at “investments” and “infrastructure” in fact “was not as shovel ready as we expected” — can he request to borrow hundreds of additional billions for shovel-ready investments in infrastructure? What has now changed to ensure the next near trillion will be “shovel-ready”?
All this is becoming worrisome beyond partisan politics. We are only in our third year of this administration, and already it is beginning to implode. The White House is in danger not just of becoming far more polarizing than even Bush in his latter years, but of descending into such incompetence and petty spitefulness that it inhibits economic recovery at home and the very sense of American confidence abroad.
One result of all this has been the radical reappraisal of the Bush and Clinton presidencies. A lot of liberals are wondering whether their harsh rhetoric of 2003–7 might be equally applicable to Obama, and conservatives are starting to see, that in comparison with Obama, the protean second-term Clinton was not all that bad. Relative to serial 9-plus percent unemployment, Monicagate seems much less important.
Obama is already much more divisive than Bush. Obama intentionally divides Americans based on class, race and politics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood summary of the temper of the historical moment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama had credibility only because he lacked a record of failure. Now that he has that as his baggage into 2012, he's got to find scapegoats to explain it. He started by calling himself "unlucky" Standby for a longer list
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMan, I just can't keep up. I though "take our country back" was code for racism, not an accusation treason. I must have an old copy of the Republican Dog Whistle Manual.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's news on the racism charge re: "taking back our country". The UAW has used it before, as have Cynthia McKinney, ActBlue, American Federation of Teachers, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Saul Alinsky, and a guy by the name of Barack Obama, who was a speaker at both the 2006 and 2007 "Take Back America" conferences. It was in use by the left long before the right used it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's not go overboard. The roots of the financial collapse are in the Clinton years, particularly his second term. It was the Clintons who turned Fannie and Freddie into bust out operations. It is the Clinton administration that pushed for deregulation of banking. It was in the Clinton years that Wall Street took over the American government.
Clinton was the worst president of the 20th century and one of the worst in American history. If our nation ever regains its sanity, I hope all public restrooms will be named after Bill Clinton, as warning to future generations about the perils of Clintonism.
As to Obama, I fully expect him to be in a Dashiki this time next year, making explicit appeals to race, in order to save his campaign. He will throw in a heaping of class rhetoric, maybe even referring to his opponent as a running dog capitalist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuite right. Additionally, much of the Clinton's economy was built on the tech bubble. All that easy money masked the inefficiencies inherent in the crony capitalism that has always been the Dem MO.
Oh, and despite the nascent groundswell of alternative media, the MSM displayed its formidable image-making skills, giving that fraudster untold billions in free PR services. Today, the same forces prop up the current Dems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou forgot how Clinton was responcible for teaching the Chineze how to launch ICBMs and satalites into orbit.
I think that Johnson would have to claim the #1 spot as worst president. He wasted thousands of our soldiers lives, while disaffecting a whole generation on a war that he actually prevented us from even trying to win. Then there is his great society which trapped millions of our poor into a hopeless life of poverty. Johnson is the worst president in my life time.
Obama is our 2nd worst president. He has actively worked to destroy the country so he could "hope and change" it into a progressive fascist paradise. He is working to install islamic/al quada governments through out the middle east (including Egypt). He is enabling the destruction of Israel and the murder of millions of Jews. He is destroying our economy by establishing a huge government that is sucking the live out of the private sector with insane regulations, and huge debts. So that makes him number 2.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton make up numbers 3 and 4 of the list of worst presidents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would love to read examples of, "A lot of liberals are wondering whether their harsh rhetoric of 2003–7 might be equally applicable to Obama." Can anyone cite one?
Regarding conservatives concluding, "in comparison with Obama, the protean second-term Clinton was not all that bad," I wonder if we all felt that way as early as Obama's inauguration (John Huntsman and Kmiec excepted).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI felt that way about Clinton the minute Obama declared his candidacy. It's surprising that people are still giving the man the benefit of the doubt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuit all this worrying about TONE. Stop asking who's going to condemn whom, and who's going to apologize for what. Quit saying "Excuse me, I was talking first." Quit saying "Hey, I apologized, why don't you apologize?"
All of that is TEENAGE GIRL TALK.
Mature males should be doing, not talking. If they have to talk, the talk should be about what they're going to do. And then they must DO what they said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAn echo of your post is something I learned from my father: "Don't tell me what you're gonna do, tell me what you did." Changes the focus from dreaming to doing. Had this approach been applied in 2008, Mr. Obama would not be President, the Audacious Dreamer in Chief; he may not even have been a candidate.
Three years on, Mr. Obama still cannot tell us what he did and expect to get re-elected, so the focus will be on "what I'm gonna do" and "those other guys will throw granny off a cliff, slap you in chains, and then eat your babies."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour observation is correct. Unfortunately, a lot of voters have the political maturity of teenage girls and it is they that we also need to impress. Were it not so that so many American voters are superficial and naïve, Barack Obama would never have been elected president as a rank novice with zero accomplishments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis quote has an ellipsis where there is none, and lacks an ellipsis before "let's take these SOBs out." This is what's missing at that point: "And, President Obama, we want one thing: jobs, jobs, jobs... That’s what we’re going to tell him. He’s gonna be... and when he sees what we’re doing here, he will be inspired. But he needs help. And you know what? Everybody here’s got to vote. If we go back, and we keep the eye on the prize."
The phony offense at this sort of language is annoying on both sides, but there's no need to lie about what the guy said to make your point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou think the Bolsheviks got a bad rap because people were "offended" by their language? Or was it their goals/methods/results?
When someone says they're at war with you, it's a good idea to take notice. I don't think many people are wasting their time feeling offended.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is not even a nice try. The inflammatory language cannot be rationalized away. Hoffa said it. Obama applauded it. that settles it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseso I guess it will be ok to say we want to "take Obama out" in 2012 as long as we follow that by saying we'll do so via the voting booth, right ???
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This quote has an ellipsis where there is none, and lacks an ellipsis"
Par for the course, at least on this course.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Let's take them out" is very thinly--VERY thinly--disguised code language for "Let's destroy them." That's a lot more than just saying "Let's vote them out of office." Especially when it's being said by the Teamsters, whose reputation for thuggery is well deserved.
Webster's dictionary, in fact, defines "destroy" as one of the meanings of "take out."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"give America back to an America where we belong"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere exactly is that, underneath Giants Stadium?