?

Log in

Mark Steyn Dissection of Obama Movement - jordan179
February 17th, 2008
10:35 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Mark Steyn Dissection of Obama Movement
Here ...

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/obama-barack-america-1981504-new-first

I found particularly amusing this part:

On the other hand, if you're running for president not as an unexceptional first-term senator with a thin resume but as the new Messiah, the new Kennedy, the new Gandhi, the new Martin Luther King, you can't blame folks for leaping ahead to the next stage in the mythic narrative. Around the world, a second instant subgenre has sprung up in which commentators speculate how long it will be before some deranged Christian-fundamentalist neo-Nazi gun-nut deprives America of its fleeting wisp of glory.

Steyn follows by quoting a truly manaical Obama-gets-assassinated fantasy done by Earl MacRae in The Ottowa Sun.

Here's part of it:

"They do not want to hear that he is a better American than they are, these right-wing extremist fascists in the land of America who no doubt believe it's God's will Barack Obama not get to the White House, no method of deterrence out of bounds, in their zealotry to protect and perpetuate Roy Rogers, John Wayne, Mom's apple pie and the cross of Jesus in every home."

Among the funniest aspect of this is that MacRae apparently does not know the meaning of "deterrence," and imagines "Roy Rogers" and "John Wayne" to be symbols of racist assassinations (to the younger among you Gentle Readers: they were cowboy movie actors!!!) Oh, and there's an inexplicable hostility here for "Mom's apple pie" (I think it's yummy!) and "the cross of Jesus," the last being especially odd since Barack Obama is famously Christian.

Hilarious.

Current Mood: amusedamused
Tags: , ,

(25 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:prester_scott
Date:February 17th, 2008 06:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
If Obama is assassinated, my first suspect would be the Clintons.
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:February 17th, 2008 07:00 pm (UTC)
(Link)
If Obama is assassinated, my first suspect would be the Clintons.

Mark Steyn made the same point. Jokingly, I assume -- but they would have the best motive.
[User Picture]
From:yechezkiel
Date:February 17th, 2008 08:19 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Honestly, my first suspect would be a crazy-as-hell racist. I know this is the liberal fantasy, but it doesn't confirm what the liberals think it does. Even in the most rural parts of America, KKK sorts are looked at as cartoonish, evil freaks. The fact that only some borderline fanatic would do such a thing and be universally condemned for it (and probably thus win the elections for whoever picked up the Democratic banner) shows just how wrong their vision is.
[User Picture]
From:btripp
Date:February 18th, 2008 12:16 am (UTC)

yep ...

(Link)
I was just about to post along the same lines.

And, heck, they can make it look like some "some deranged Christian-fundamentalist neo-Nazi gun-nut" ... after all those years in Arkansas, I'm sure Bubba has some handy contacts like that in his rolodex!


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:February 18th, 2008 12:34 am (UTC)

Re: yep ...

(Link)
The two obvious reasons to suspect the Clintons would be:

1) They would be the chief beneficiaries of such a plot, and

2) They have extensive criminal contacts, and

3) It would not be the first time they had used violent tactics.
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:February 18th, 2008 12:34 am (UTC)

Innumerate Jordan

(Link)
Heh, NO ONE suspects THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
[User Picture]
From:desert_vixen
Date:February 17th, 2008 06:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)

Yes, he is Christian, but he has that inconveniently Muslim-sounding name. Hence all the sly innuendo that he is somehow not REALLY Christian.

I think the last email thing I saw on it tried to link his church (Trinity) to the Nation of Islam without explicitly saying so.

DV
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:February 17th, 2008 07:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think the last email thing I saw on it tried to link his church (Trinity) to the Nation of Islam without explicitly saying so.

There is a link -- the pastor or whatever they call him is an admirer of Louis Farrakhan. Though that doesn't mean that Obama is.
[User Picture]
From:the_mcp
Date:February 18th, 2008 02:53 am (UTC)
(Link)
Unfortunately, one of the major tenets of Islam is that it is perfectly acceptable to lie to infidels if it furthers the cause of spreading Islam... which invites speculation among the conspiracy-minded that Obama could be an "undercover Muslim" who is merely maintaining a Christian facade to get himself into positions of power to further the Islamic agenda.
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:February 18th, 2008 04:12 am (UTC)
(Link)
... which invites speculation among the conspiracy-minded that Obama could be an "undercover Muslim" who is merely maintaining a Christian facade to get himself into positions of power to further the Islamic agenda.

Sounds improbable, and if he tried he'd be impeached. But yeah, I can see the worry.
[User Picture]
From:prester_scott
Date:February 18th, 2008 03:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Why would he be impeached? If it were uncovered that Obama were connected to a terrorist organization, yeah. But the mere fact that he may have lied during the campaign about what religion he believes isn't a criminal offense.
From:skyfirefox
Date:February 17th, 2008 10:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Funny you should mention Obama's religious beliefs and how he's proclaiming them.

Isn't it strange that if a Republican proclaims such beliefs, they're accused of wanting to turn the government into a theocracy? But when Obama does the same, liberals love him for it.
[User Picture]
From:eric_hinkle
Date:February 19th, 2008 07:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Isn't it strange that if a Republican proclaims such beliefs, they're accused of wanting to turn the government into a theocracy? But when Obama does the same, liberals love him for it.

Yes, but he's promoting a nice, tolerable, leftist version of Christianity. Nothing at all like the media-stereotype "ban everything" racist, mysogynist, homophobic KKKhristians (yes, I've actually seen it spelled like that) who 'run the Republicans'. If you want a quicky version of this character, then just watch almost any episode of Law & Order that has someone who's Christian in it. You'll see what I mean. The only ones that aren't evil are crazy, and vice-versa.

[User Picture]
From:juliet_winters
Date:February 17th, 2008 11:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think we can expect all the love of the Boomers for JFK and Bobby and MLK to come out in this election.
Obama may be centering his campaign on "change" which is good for the young crowd, but he is also a candidate poised to take advantage of all the nostalgia Boomers have for 60s politics. I'd say, barring another attack on U.S. soil between now and November, he stands a really strong chance of being elected if he's chosen.


[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:February 18th, 2008 12:39 am (UTC)
(Link)
If Obama is elected, he's going to be a terrible disappointment for the country, including his supporters. I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter, who was elected on much the same "Youth! Honesty! Change!" appeal, was likewise naive about the nature of the world outside our borders, and had his whole Administration wrecked by the collision between his campaign assumptions and reality.

The result of "Carter II" in 2008 would be "Reagan II" in 2012, except that, in an environment of terrorist attacks against our homeland, "Reagan II" would probably be much less nice than was "Reagan I."
[User Picture]
From:juliet_winters
Date:February 18th, 2008 02:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
I am also old enough to remember Carter. I don't think he dealt out quite as much charisma as Obama. Reagan II, eh?
And who would that be? Not McCain by that point.
From:last_servant
Date:February 18th, 2008 07:16 am (UTC)
(Link)
Of course, the part these assassination fantasies leave out is the happy ending for America...

But seriously, why all this hatred on the Christian fundamentalists? All it means is that they follow the "fundamentals" of your religion. Just cause the Koran is a pile of refuse doesn't mean fundamentalist=terrorist.
[User Picture]
From:juliet_winters
Date:February 18th, 2008 01:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Christian fundamentalists who want to take up arms to return the country to a theocracy are few and far between. But don't count them out in an election cycle.
True Christian fundamentalists would throw themselves in the path of a bullet headed in Obama's direction.
[User Picture]
From:superversive
Date:February 18th, 2008 02:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
What was this theocracy that you are suggesting the country might return to, and when did it exist?
From:last_servant
Date:February 18th, 2008 02:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That would be the one inside their deluded little minds.
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:February 18th, 2008 02:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
What was this theocracy that you are suggesting the country might return to, and when did it exist?

There was a theocratic period in the early history of Massachussetts (17th century) but I'm not sure if that's what she means.
[User Picture]
From:juliet_winters
Date:February 18th, 2008 04:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I mistyped, I suppose. However, many fundamentalists do believe that in the early years of the nation it was in essence a theocracy, "Under God" and they would like it to be more as they perceive it to have been.
I am certainly not denying that in the past America presumed itself to be ... and that the majority still does perceive itself to be a Christian nation. If it were not for that perception the current president would not have been elected.
[User Picture]
From:superversive
Date:February 18th, 2008 05:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I have known a lot of Fundamentalists in my time, and never one who believed that the church and the state were ever one and the same in the U.S. If by theocracy you mean that persons of avowed religious belief were not excluded from political office because of their beliefs, then both I and the Fundamentalists would accept the charge and reject the terminology. For that is not what anybody actually means by the word theocracy, except for some of the dimmer lights at the ACLU and their fellow-travellers among the American Left. If you want a genuine theocracy, you need look no further than the Middle East; you will find plenty of rank posies to pick there. But there is not now any nation in Christendom where the clergy can issue orders and expect to be obeyed by the secular authorities, with the trivial exception of the Vatican City.

Am I wrong in detecting a sneer in your last paragraph? Certainly America ‘presumed itself to be a Christian nation’. It was and is a nation composed predominantly of Christians, and insofar as public policy is to be decided by counting noses, it has never been possible to count a winning number of noses without having a great many Christian noses among them. I don’t suppose even the dimmest American secularist would think of denying that fact, though they are loud enough in deploring it.

And yes, most Americans do still perceive that the majority of Americans are Christians, because that happens to be a fact too obvious to ignore. You claim that George W. Bush could not have been elected President if it were not for that perception. Yes, I suppose that if Americans were too stupid or deluded to recognize what is the predominant form of religious belief among the citizenry, they might have a very different system of government indeed. They might also fail to notice that America is a human nation, and the current President might be a Roswell Gray or a poached egg.

But I doubt this is what you mean. It looks to me as if you disapprove of the current President, and want to blame his incumbency upon a ‘perception’ or ‘presumption’ that you think could be changed, instead of acknowledging the facts of the situation. In fact Mr. Bush has been less overtly religious than some recent Presidents, and much less than some who have been serious candidates for the office within my memory. The Rev. Jesse Jackson is an obvious example. And I have heard more about Barack Obama’s religion from Barack Obama’s mouth than about George Bush’s religion from George Bush’s mouth; but for some reason it is Bush who is abused as a would-be theocrat. One might almost suspect a double standard.
[User Picture]
From:juliet_winters
Date:February 18th, 2008 07:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I do not disapprove of the current president. In point of fact, I voted for him and have defended him to many people. I would vote for him again, given the opportunity. Furthermore, I attend an evangelical church.

If it were an accepted fact that most Americans count themselves as some sort of Christian, why would it have been front page news a few months ago? Why the shock that Huckabee did so well in the primaries?

What are they teaching the kids in public schools? That all religions are basically the same and of the same worth. Who's in charge of the public schools and whose values will be instilled in the children, barring parental intervention?

I am sorry you misunderstood my too terse comments. But surely you know Evangelicals who believe that the country was founded with a belief in God as its rock in a stormy sea of dissent...and doubtless you also know Evangelicals and Catholics who believe that the earth was created mere thousands of years ago and that dinosaur bones were put there as a trick by Satan. I am not joking about that last.

You couldn't be more mistaken in your assumption of MY beliefs. Sneering? No, but I fear I am accurately reporting the situation. Didn't say I liked it.
[User Picture]
From:eric_hinkle
Date:February 19th, 2008 07:27 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Go read AMERICAN THEOCRACY and you'll find out all about it. Really, my faith is the root and source of all evil that has ever befallen America. Honest and for true! [he said, sarcastically]
Fantastic Worlds. Powered by LiveJournal.com