Demon In The White House

I rarely use this blog to spew the word "hate". Oh, sure. I proclaim my dislike, my abhorrence, my loathing, my despising, my fed-up-ness and a few other things, but I rarely use the word hate. I feel myself getting closer, however. Especially when the topic of Rush Limbaugh and whatever comes out of his ridiculous mouth comes up.

See, according to the fine folks over yonder at Politico, yesterday on his radio show (which is listened to by a frighteningly large number of people who seem to really enjoy and agree with what he has to say) he made reference to some pictures of President Barry that had been posted on The Drudge Report website. What he said was idiotic at best. He said, "...folks, these pictures, they look demonic. And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released...It's very, very, very strange. An American president has never had facial expressions like this. At least we've never seen photos of an American president with facial expressions like this. "

What. The. What. Seriously? Demonic? What is that supposed to mean? Was he referencing a Harris Poll taken earlier this year which indicated that 24% of Republicans believed that President Barry was the Antichrist? Or is he just grasping at any straw that he can to try and bring down more Democrats (which will inevitably happen) in the upcoming election? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of Democrats who do deserve to be booted out of whatever office they're in. There are. There are a lot of Republicans who need to get the boot as well. But what is Rush Limbaugh's rationale for saying something so incredibly asinine? I guess only he knows.

First of all, President Barry has got to be the most photographed President in history. He's on TV every freaking day. And when he's on vacation, we (the public) are inundated with photos of him eating ice cream the entire time! I don't care that he eats ice cream! Why do I need 57 different photos from 36 different angles and 12 commentators giving me the low down on what flavor he chose? I don't remember it being like this with other Presidents. Did we have a million photographs of Bush flying all over the place all the time? It doesn't seem like we did. (Then again, Bush would have never been accused of looking demonic because he always looked so damned clueless that that's all anyone could ever focus on.)

The point here is that when you're having your photo taken all the time by a bazillion different outlets, the chances increase that you're going to have a few that are not so flattering. That doesn't mean you're demonic or possessed or anything. And it certainly doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh should be trying to rile up the inexplicable masses that listen to his drivel every day.

My second point was that since when are everyone's facial expressions all the same? Or since when can they all fit into the same category? I'm pretty sure that Rush probably has some expressions that aren't seen anywhere else on this earth. (That's a good thing, in case you were wondering.) It's just a ridiculous thing to say. I wish that someone with so much radio time and (I hate to say it) so much power to sway the opinions of the meeker and weaker among us would use his pulpit for something useful instead of fear mongering. That's all. (And by the way, is he going to tell us that the photo of him doesn't look a little demonic? Geez, at least President Barry isn't spewing smoke out of his orifices. Though that would be a million dollar shot if anyone were to come up with one. I'll give you that.)

Rahm = Bad; Rush = Good

Yesterday I discussed Sarah Palin's belated and delayed reaction to the elf-life Rahm Emanuel's use of the term "effing retards" to describe a bunch of liberal groups who wanted to publicly attack those who would not go along with health care reform (as they seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that they would likely need these same members cooperation on matters other than health care in the future and publicly ostracizing them for their health care stance is not exactly a proven method for winning friends and influencing people). My conclusion was that I sort of saw her point, but since Rahm made the comment almost six months ago and in a private conversation none the less, that she needed to pipe down and go back to whatever it was that she was doing before she started doing all of the piping in the first place. What she really needs is to start receiving some sort of consistency schooling.

Look, I'm all for someone who takes a public stance on something. But being in the public eye is a tricky thing. You have to pick your battles and know when to fold them. (Or you have know when to hold them or something like that. I think I was mixing metaphors and country western songs there and it didn't work out so well.) Consistency is key. Not being ridiculous is also key. And not saying that something is not OK for one person to say but that it is perfectly fine for a different person to say is not going to go over very well at all.

See, it was brought to Mrs. Palin's attention that "Palin's fellow media star Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly used the word "retards" to describe those he disagrees with", that according to the undercooked folks over there at The Raw Story. Oooohhhh! Buuusssteeeedddddd!! Eh, not so fast.

Still according to The Raw Story, when Mrs. Palin appeared on Fox News Sunday and this subject was brought up and it was mentioned that it seemed as if she were criticizing Rush Limbaugh for his using of the word "retards". Now, I was a little puzzled by that line of questioning. I mean, obviously if Limbaugh used the term "retards" that she would obviously be criticizing him for that in the same manner that she criticized Rahm Emanuel for using the term "retards" and in the same manner that I would expect her to criticize anyone using the term "retards". But that's not exactly what she said she was doing. No, she instead decided to (wait for it) defend Rush Limbaugh's use of the term. Wait. She what now?

Correct. She defended him. In the context that Rush used the term, she said that "They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh," Palin said, claiming Limbaugh was merely "using satire." Um, satire? How is calling a group of people that you disagree with "retards" and having that qualify as satire? No, see, satire is like when you're making fun of something in a manner that closely relates to the thing that you're making fun of. Like when Family Guy did a satire of Star Wars. Rush Limbaugh saying "retards" is nothing like Star Wars (though he is incredibly similar to Jabba the Hutt).

She continued along her line of inexplicable justification of Limbaugh's words by saying "I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'f-ing retards,' and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that...There is a big difference there." There is? There is a big difference? I'm not so sure that there is. In fact, I know that there is not.

Let's take a gander at just what Limbaugh said, shall we? He said "Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are looney tunes. And I’m not going to apologize for it, I’m just quoting Emanuel. It’s in the news. I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House." Yeah, see, that's not satire.

And I'll admit, she could have almost gotten away with defending his use of the term right up until he got to the last sentence. By saying "There's going to be a retard summit at the White House" he has stepped out of the realm of paraphrasing and stepped into the realm of what Sarah Palin had deemed to be derogatory speech. Oh, but it's OK if a Republican blowhard like Limbaugh says it, but it's not OK if a Democrat elf like Rahm Emanuel says it? Spare me.

If Sarah Palin is going to lead the conservative movement anywhere besides into the ground, she's going to have to be a little more consistent. And if she can't be consistent, could she at least try to not sound like a moron when she's being inconsistent? Seriously, all eyes are on her. She is going to need to be at the top of her game and then some because any little flub or any little slip that she makes is going to be reported ten, twenty, thirty times more than it would be for anyone else. She HAS to pay more attention to what she is saying and how she says it otherwise she's going to take something that has semi-potential and decimate it to the point where nothing is ever going to get done and it's going to be status quo for the rest of our pathetic lives.