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.
Apparently he’s and admirer of Richard Nixon.
Because they had to fish him out of the tolilet when he was born?
Why doesn’t Obama eat pork? . . . Because it would be cannibalism.
He has a limited vocabulary...just listen to him talk about “stuff” and “folks.”
He is a communist muslim. For both of those belief systems, the ends justify any means and lying / taqiyya are legitimate means. When you have an immoral belief system, you have forsaken all morals and ethics, so what’s a little vulgarity and profanity?
Do you think Obama would have honor enough to resign the presidency in order to spare the nation the turmoil of impeachment? I don’t.
Levin calls him a punk, which I think accurately describes him, a vulgar Chicago street thug.
I was thinking of Nixon’s coarse language. But it is interesting that at least in the old days they at least had the decorum to keep it in private and not include it in interviews or public places.
Nixon in 1972 - "You've gotta know if your President is a crook..."
0bama in 2012 - "You've gotta know if your President is a liar..."
And we all know how it worked out for Nixon.
Expect massive amounts of vandalism to computers and WH equipment before the Obastards leave.
He thinks he’s being cool and appealing to the yout. Refer to the photo on Drudge now showing Madonna giving the finger. That’s your pop culture and Obama is right in the middle of it. He’s a big effin’ deal.
Don't kid yourself. Obama WAS NEVER a street thug. His body language is all wrong. This guy had his ass handed to him.
Obama was and always will be a WANNABE street thug. And in reality that makes him even worse to deal with.
Is this a trick question? Because he is a nasty and vulgar person.
Oh, and a man can't be eloquent if he makes your skin crawl when he talks.
THAT is the answer I’ll go with.
Can’t be said much better than that.
He only admires himself.
Didn't say he'd ever been a street thug, but it is definitely part of his attitude. And we can be sure he was exposed to quite a bit of it during his community organizer days in Chicago.
Because Obama is a jerk.
Seems like the only “friends” he ever had were high-school potheads, and I’d bet dollars to navy beans they thought he was a jerk, too.
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.