Posted on 10/28/2012 7:21:26 PM PDT by smoothsailing
October 28, 2012
Rude, insulting language about Romney (“bullsh****r) from the president. Vulgar sexual innuendo, aimed at seducing young women to vote for him. The vice president asking a bereaved parent about the size of his murdered son’s testicles. It’s quite a spectacle. We’re a fractious people, and our politics have always been full of colorful language, but I can’t recall the current depth of vulgarity. The “politics of personal destruction” have gotten uglier. Does it mean anything? Should we try to understand it?
First, it bespeaks a coarsening of public language. No surprise there (Romney’s gentlemanlyness is more surprising, in fact); for a long time our movies and television have abandoned the rules that banned certain words and phrases. Still, until recently, our political leaders have avoided such vulgarities, at least in their public rhetoric. No more, at least at the highest level of the current Democrat Party.
Second, it shows the shrinking vocabulary of our political life. There are plenty of usable and powerful synonyms of “buls*****r,” but a graduate of Harvard Law School didn’t have any of them on the tip of his tongue. Or perhaps he just preferred the vulgarity.
Third, it is yet another step in the erasure of the line that once divided public and private. We always knew that there was (sometimes) a big difference between public image and private behavior. No man (except maybe Sir Winston) is a hero to his valet, etc. etc. But still, there were proprieties, rules for public decorum, and those who fell from grace in public were criticized and excoriated for falling. No more, at least so far as I can see among the Democrat faithful.
To be sure, there’s a difference between the two parties. When male Republican candidates make disgusting and ridiculous statements about rape, the faithful turn on them, properly so IMHO, but neither Obama nor Biden has come in for punishment for their use of obscenities and vulgarities.
So the rules for proper decorum are out the window, and the former arbiters of good taste are on board, ratifying the changes by their silence. It’s a shame, but there you have it.
But the arbiters–the intellectuals, the elite punditocracy et. al.–can’t dictate standards to the rest of us, even though they often delude themselves into believing they can. The politicians who indulge in the new nastiness clearly believe it’s fine with us, because they think their elitist friends dictate standards to the rest of us. I think they’re wrong. When only EIGHT PERCENT of Americans have a positive view of the media, it tells you something, after all. And when I read about the sudden 7 percent drop in Obama’s approval ratings in three days, I suspect it has something to do with bulls*****r and losing-your-virginity-is-like-voting-for-Barack ads, and Biden’s disgusting remarks [1] to a bereaved father.
It’s a continuation of a process that began with the first debate, in which Obama tip-toed out from behind the curtain on the central stage of Oz, and showed us who he really is. Not a great leader, certainly not a messianic figure. Indeed, as we now see, he’s a bum. It’s a shock to lots of Americans, who previously were willing to grant that the president had his faults but was basically a good man, a nice guy, and a cultured gentleman. He showed them he was none of those things.
I think that was a real shock to a meaningful chunk of the electorate, and it would not have been nearly so potent if it had come from a book or an oped. Its power comes from the fact that Obama showed it himself.
It shouldn’t have been hard to foresee the consequences of his self-revelation. So why did he do it? He’s certainly capable of dissimulation. The One who won the presidency four years ago did not present himself this way. He and his acolytes very carefully portrayed him as a transcendent figure, a new kind of leader, the incarnation of elegance and brilliance. And that succeeded. So what’s up?
I think he’s cracking, and the inner nastiness and vulgarity are on display. He’s losing, and he’s angry, and he can no longer sustain the pretense of elegance and coolness.
Nobody ever said he was disciplined, did they?
Moreover, he is the victim of his own myth, the “I have a special gift” legend that is the core doctrine of his powerful narcissism. He thinks he is so charismatic, and so wonderful, that if we see him in all his splendor, we will love him as he so loves himself.
I think that’s false, and I think the shifts in the polls–people suddenly like Romney, people suddenly turning away from Obama–demonstrate that. We’ll see for sure on the 6th of November.
They will do whatever it takes to win. No honor.
WRT to Obamugabe’s vocabulary, perhaps he just scored 135 on the LSAT and only got into Harvard Law via affirmative action??? (For those of you in Rio Linda, LSAT 135 is frankly putrid;)
Just like we all knew the commie punk would.
Gutter language and behavior from Kenyan muslim gutter snipe taught in the Chicago dirt throwing political ways.
That is how the extreme left wing is! Look how they treated Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann!
Because he’s a mack daddy. Look it up. It’s what he is and they are vile people.
Truth be told, Obama is a piker compared to the vulgarity of LBJ, who was a product of what was ostensibly, a more polite and civil era.
Homosexuality is immaturity-—a fixation in the Latency period.
The SA Brownshirts (and Afghani men) were/are extremely immature. Rudeness and reducing everything to fecal matter is common....look at the “balls” comment by the homosexualist Biden. It is all the same—by evil people fixated on sex and excrement.
Their dehumanizing acts of debasing others—removes dignity and worth from all human beings. They have no belief in God or dignity of women. All men are seen as objects for lust and especially young men and boys.
They desperately need power over others so they don’t feel so filthy all the time. They are empty inside-—and they seek constant affirmation because their lives are meaningless on many levels.
http://www.thepinkswastika.com/5294/index.html
Why doesn’t Obama eat pork? . . . Because it would be cannibalism.
It is because he is black and has a chip on his shoulder for all that whitey has done.
Because he has a good dose of street thug in his makeup. He's actually probably exercising great restraint.
Ledeen is precisely right, and without a doubt much worse.
Barkey and Joe really are getting more outwardly vulgar lately. When the pressure is on, people revert to their true selves and can’t maintain the phoney shell unless they are very disciplined. Which these two aren’t.
The yutes probably think this is very cool, but they are also too cool to vote, I hope.
Another +1 for hb's subtle restraint!
Zero has been flipping everyone off for 4 plus years ... and now we are going to notice that he is vulgar?
Not Breaking News to the “Most Casual Observer” ... just to the MSM
TT
and because he has a cold hard heart from being rejected
by BOTH parents...and because he is filled with self-loathing related to his mixed race and repressed homosexuality...and because he is steeped in anti-americanism and adoration of islam...and because his whole
life is a fraud.
also, i notice liberals use vulgar words a lot. lazy speech
for all their fancy book-learnin, they seem to have rather
limited vocabularies.
In spiritual terms, it’s called possession.
If we beat Obama, we need to keep him out of the UN. Christians might understand what I mean here. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.