04/11/2009 (7:37 am)
The Brits are going to be next on Al Sharpton’s Selective Outrage schedule (that’s pronounced “shed jool” since this is about Brits) because they called the US President… wait for it… surrender monkey.
No kidding. UK Telegraph commentator Gerald Warner wrote in his column, “Is It Just Me?,” a scathing review of President Obama’s recent international tour entitled “Barack Obama: President Pantywaist – new surrender monkey on the block.” And I note in my thickest, most grating American accent, “Dude, that’s gotta leave a mark.” We all know how sensitive Americans are to suggestions that their President is a monkey of any kind, right?
I can’t fault him, though. He’s correct on all counts. Check this out:
Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l’il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.
“Rules must be binding,” declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. “Violations must be punished.” (Sounds ominous.) “Words must mean something.” (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you – as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)
President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America’s missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.
“Multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.” He gets it, alright. Read the whole thing, it’s only about 500 words.
I remember this from the Clinton years, actually: when the American press refuses to do its job, the European press manages somehow to get the accurate story to their readers. We have to read European newspapers to avoid the Democrats’ reflexive sycophancy.
Land of the Free. Home of the Brave. And now, defender of President Pantywaist.
6 Comments »
Comment by Robert
Note to Brits: It’s “pantywaste.”
(Author’s note: I doubt that this is correct, and dictionary.com disagrees with you, but feel free to direct me to proof online.)
Comment by darkhorse
If I recall, I think some instinct of the patriotic (first) person usually kicks in here to rival to the defense of the elected president when attacked by foreign press.
Where do you think conservatives will draw the line where they won’t cross here: commiserating with the French press when they ridicule the President?
Comment by Phil
Is this a joke?
You’re actually arguing here that “patriotism” requires that the citizen defend the elected President whenever foreign press ridicules, regardless of whether the foreign press is correct or not, regardless of whether the domestic press is doing their job or not, and regardless of the topic under consideration?
That’s… um… at least an order of magnitude more jingoistic than the most enthusiastic, unthinking, hard-right, knee-jerk “America First” idiot I’ve ever encountered. And mind you, I’ve not described any conservatives that I know personally in that last sentence. Are you sure you want to be there?
Without even thinking much about the question (which truly deserves no thought, frankly,) at the very least conservatives will draw the line where the criticism aids America’s enemies in an active, shooting war, which if you’ll recall was the majority of the complaints about the left’s grotesque irresponsibility regarding the Bush administration’s measures against international terrorists.
You may notice, by the way, that the only person talking about “patriotism” is you. It’s a fake issue raised only by intellectual lightweights, and always has been.
Comment by darkhorse
Geez, don’t be so hard on me! Let me be clear: if I don’t believe something you say is worthy of thought, I’ll assume I’m misunderstanding.
I did think that Natalie Main’s joke on foreign soil about President Bush (which, like it or not, played well because of a less-than-stellar reputation overseas) was met with a VERY jingoistic response. Not from you, of course, but from conservatives that tried to repay her and her band by ruining their careers.
But what she did was bad form. I do mean to ask a legitimate question, though I used too few words to convey the meaning: despite any horror you or I may feel for Obama, which foreign sources will have less in common with us than Obama does? Obama represents a significant shift to the left from Bush; but if the Swedish, or Chinese, or Russian press criticized him as a pantywaist [sp?], which of us should pile on?
Comment by Phil
Natalie Maines (singer for the Dixie Chicks) committed two fouls; she brought her personal, political criticism of the American President overseas, and she introduced into country music politics with which a lot of country fans disagreed.
Neither describes what I’m doing here, which is drawing attention to a foreign correspondent’s opinion about the American President. A comparable example from the other side would be to point to editorials like this one from the NY Times in 2004, drawing attention to the London Times’ response to Bush’s speech before the UN. And if you’ll recall, Jim, there was no general objection to quoting foreign sources or echoing them, just to insisting that the opinions of foreigners are binding on American behavior. What we were saying was, “Of course the Europeans agree with American leftists; they’re leftists themselves. Why does that mean Americans ought to agree?”
There’s a lot more to say about Maines’ faux pas, but I’ve decided to say it in a post. I hope you don’t mind.
Regarding your question, I’m not quite getting your drift. Obama represents a move toward the opinions of those foreign governments, not away from them, on most topics. He has more in common with European socialists than he has with American conservatives. Consequently, when the foreign press notes that the President is behaving in a contemptible manner, it’s more noteworthy, not less.
If the Russian press criticized any American President as a pantywaist, my response would be to note that a) they might be bluffing, but b) it’s particularly dangerous to appear weak to the Russians, since they’re prone to respond to weakness by bullying.
My point, Jim, is that you’re introducing an “ought,” a moral objection, where none is appropriate. The opinions of foreigners are facts we need to live with, and it’s appropriate to talk about them. Furthermore, when they’re correct, it’s appropriate to say so, and always has been.
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Leftists and Church Ladies
[...] comments about my post regarding the UK blogger who called President Obama a “surrender monkey” and [...]