Hi Dan,
Might the more pointed question be–why do politicians and organized political parties of both left and right, conservative and liberal, rely on “attendant” and “appropriate” levels of leadership “worship”?
Timsays
*looks up from Reagan Shrine* stupid liberals! (jk Dan) đ
No, it wouldn’t be, Cas, because liberals like yourself continually endorse and support such worship and don’t see a single thing wrong with it.
Thus, the better question would be, “Why do liberals like Cas, rather than simply condemning the behavior of liberals that they find objectionable, attempt to draw false equivalences and equivocate?”
It is amazing that liberals like you practice such behavior, Cas. Why do you continue to worship your liberal political figures?
Cus liberals value security over freedom (conservatives value freedom over security). They want to be taken care of. They want a benevolent dictator. So they elevate their leaders to that status in their minds. The worship is part and parcel.
Hi NDT,
“because liberals like yourself continually endorse and support such worship and donât see a single thing wrong with it.”
âWhy do liberals… rather than simply condemning the behavior of liberals that they find objectionable, attempt to draw false equivalences and equivocate?â
I guess because they see other folks often do exactly the same thing from the other side (ah hem), with about as much good coming from it, NDT. Its a problem with the political discourse of this country, NDT, and it won’t be improved by another in a long line of such sessions, in which conservatives make themselves feel better by–punning and blog entry referencing happily away–“demonizing” their perceived opponents.
Out of curiosity, who do you feel I put on a pedastal to worship–Ronald Reagan?
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
Gee, that’s just exactly what the right says about Reagan… except it’s totally not.
Hi NDT,
“Funny, Cas, how only conservatives have to change, according to you.”
Funny how you like to draw a conclusion contextually unsupported by what is actually said. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go off and worship at my carefully constructed shrine to Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, FDR, and Bill “It depends on what the meaning of the word “IS” is” Clinton … I’ll put in a good word (with the appropriate divinities, of course) for you, NDT! đ
And again, even with examples provided, Cas refuses to condemn his fellow liberals’ worship of political figures.
Looks like Cas is even more of a hypocrite than we thought.
TGCsays
Its a problem with the political discourse of this country,
How come only liberals find political discourse to be a problem? Is it that you want us to shut up and sing along or go “kicking and screaming into the future”?
TGCsays
I just find it curious when a jackass democreep can demand the assassination of a Republican candidate for governor and then piss and moan about “civility”. Long story short, you can cram your problem with political discourse.
SoCalRobertsays
Cas – it’s said that politics is show business for the ugly (don’t know who said it – they weren’t talking about Aaron Schock đ ).
Mark Steyn calls them the “Emirs of Incumbistan” – followed around by retinues of people that make them feel special. A House district has around 700,000 residents (mid-sized city) yet they’re shuttled around like royalty.
We’ve done it to ourselves – putting so much power into the hands of people that, often as not, are mediocrities. When you listen to what people like Nancy Pelosi or Lindsay Graham actually say, you have to realize that these people just aren’t very smart.
I suspect liberals, having an almost religious faith in the iron fist of government, hold politicians in high regard because they think their leaders are super-smart (you wouldn’t grant a lot of power to a moron, would you?).
Most conservatives would rather minimize contact with the government and see politicians as simply necessary (and that they should be kept on a short leash).
Good point. Why won’t Cas say that Obama and his supporters like Chris Titus are wrong to call for the imprisonment, rape, torture, and murder of Sarah Palin and her family? Doesn’t Cas believe that the emails from Obama’s supporters threatening Palin’s life that were released this week ruin political discourse?
Think Cas will say that Barack Obama needs to cut back on his violent rhetoric that causes his supporters to do such things?
“I suspect liberals, having an almost religious faith in the iron fist of government, hold politicians in high regard because they think their leaders are super-smart (you wouldnât grant a lot of power to a moron, would you?). Most conservatives would rather minimize contact with the government and see politicians as simply necessary (and that they should be kept on a short leash).”
Its an interesting thesis, though the “iron fist” bit is a bit much for me, I ‘m afraid. Other theses might also hold for the same observations as well. It might also be that liberals might hold their own representatives to a higher standard of performance, since they believe that government can be useful (or are more faithful of the premise of effective government. It might be that conservatives, feeling little desire for government, hold lower expectations for its success, and are happy with lesser success, since it fits within the framework of perceived government inadequacy. One test: which type of administrations–Democratic or Republican–give highest income growth rates? http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf.
Now all this is silly, I know, but it is no sillier, in my opinion, to hold that “liberals” worship their political figures more, whilst “conservatives” do not do so as much. It could be argued that the effort of this website to commemorate Reagan’sCentennial, had quite the worshipful tone… All very rational, I know…
As for “liberal” worship, I have been unimpressed with Obama’s performance–I won’t be worshiping at his shrine anytime soon… Back to the pantheon…
TGCsays
itâs said that politics is show business for the ugly
Rush.
When you listen to what people like Nancy Pelosi or Lindsay Graham actually say, you have to realize that these people just arenât very smart.
How Bill Nelson wound up on a shuttle, except as some sort of experiment, I’ll never know.
Donny D.says
It depends on what liberals you’re talking about. And if you talking about “the left”, that encompasses more than just liberals.
Most of the liberals I talk to don’t show much enthusiasm for any politician.
As far as strong loyalty toward party or politician, I believe that’s true further down socio-economically into the conservative grassroots than it is among liberals, based on what I’ve seen and heard from people I’ve known. With the Democratic party, the only people who ever seem enthusiastic about its policies are highly-educated upper-middle class liberals, usually meaning not very liberal liberals. Below that socioeconomically, excepting perhaps among academics or those in process of becoming academics, I don’t see much enthusiasm at all. People in this lower, much larger group either pick politicians by issues, vote for Democrats to keep out Republicans, or are rah rah enthusiastic without knowing all that much about their chosen candidate or party. (The latter group, while deserving mention, is a small part of the whole. Every group has its idiots and its intellectually lazy.)
My guess is that if you looked at the loudest adulators as a group, you’d find a disproportionate number of elite players among them.
You should know that Obama has turned off a large number of grassroots liberals. Those who trusted him feel seriously betrayed.
It’s easy to cherry-pick a few opinions to prove what you want about “the enemy”. And it’s human to not be able to see the complained-about behaviors playing out on one’s own side. Both the left and the right have way too many adulators and locksteppers.
I would be more convinced of this “both sides do it” equivocation if someone posted actual evidence of Cult of Personality behavior taking place on the right; something along the lines of children singing creepy hymns to conservative political figures, or conservative figures being held up in Messianic terms. Lefties simply asserting “I think both sides do it” is pretty unconvincing, on its own.
Lest we forget, Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize just for existing.
Kheprisays
Wait, it was a Nobel Prize? For the longest time I was under the impression that it was the ‘No Balls Prize’, awarded to him in anticipation of his continuing inability to take responsibility, make tough decisions and actually say anything meaningful.
Then again, leftist politicians do seem to have the ability to get recognition for nothing.
@Roy Lofquist — Hoffer makes his argument that any type of mass movement is to provide its followers with, well basically, hope and change. He makes religion a separate type of mass movement. However, Dr. Michael Crichton in his speech Environmentalism as Religion shows that religion seems to be almost ingrained into the human psyche. If you remove it in one form, it just appears in another. This is why most mass movements use religious undertones (and overtones!) to keep the faithful from deviating.
Religion may be a mass movement, but the others just use the foundations of religion to get people to buy their snake oil.
Roy Lofquistsays
@TooMuchTime,
You are correct. However Hoffer has much more to say than can be briefly summarized.
Hi VK,
“While we wait for Tim, Cas, or any of the other hacks”
Terribly sorry, but since you didn’t direct your earlier comment specifically to me, I didn’t understand that you wanted my feedback. “Hacks” ouch. Oh well.
Anyway, love the hyperbole. As for the artist you mention at #24, you also neglect the bit at the end:
So, of course you can cast it as worship, but it isn’t. After all, this following link could be cast in all sorts of unflattering ways as well, if one were intent on scoring mindless partisan points against evangelical conservatives … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvIOPiKFrs
Hi VS,
“That video is obviously faked.”
OK, that is interesting. I have seen longer clips of which this is part. So, I would appreciate it if you could let me know how you know that it is faked (a link to some authority debunking it would be very helpful). I don’t want to spread internet rumours. Thanks.
Levisays
No one in modern political history does more slobbering over their heroes than the Republicans, and so for them to be lambasting anyone else for engaging in idolatry is the definition of hypocrisy. How soon we all forget the giddiness of the early George W. Bush years, when photo opportunities on aircraft carriers and on the ranch would have all the Republicans swooning over their tough guy, cowboy, hero-president. The video linked above perfectly encapsulates the widely shared attitude conservatives felt towards George Bush back in ’01, ’02, and ’03. Today, he’s been replaced by people like Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan. And you’ve always got Reagan and Limbaugh to gush over, too.
Are there liberals that are embarrassingly devoted to Obama? Certainly. But it’s nothing like devotion that conservatives hold for their idols.
Even if genuine, the video would only prove that idiot leftists can’t tell the difference between praying for the president and praying to the president.
(Who is, they say, “that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet.”)
Might the more pointed question beâwhy do politicians and organized political parties of both left and right, conservative and liberal, rely on âattendantâ and âappropriateâ levels of leadership âworshipâ?
First, I don’t even know what âattendantâ and âappropriateâ levels of leadership âworshipâ means.
But, I do know that the only Republican who approaches the level of “worship” was Abraham Lincoln. Ronald Reagan was lauded for his principled conservative stands. Next to Reagan, among Republicans, would be John F. Kennedy, the Democrat, who defied the Roosevelt economic theories and the bigotry of racist Democrats.
Who worships Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford or either Bush? The Democrats worship Roosevelt, flush Truman, selectively worship Kennedy, flushed Johnson, want to forget Carter, apologize for and lie about Clinton and are running scared of Obama.
So, I really do not understand anything Hi! Cas has suggested in its comment is even cogent to the post.
Maybe the “both sides do it lefties” having failed to provide a single cogent example of Republican “worship” of political figures can answer a simple question instead:
What did Barack Obama do to deserve a Nobel Preace Prize.
Hi HT,
“I really do not understand anything Hi! Cas has suggested in its comment is even cogent to the post.” You (and others) make the claim that Repubs laud Reagan, and Dems “worship” Obama. What is silly about this claim is that one person’s “lauding” is another’s worship. Can you find examples where people go overboard, and sing songs. Yes. Can you find examples where Christians in their fervour to pray for GW Bush cross the line into something else? Yes. Can you find examples where Repubs say they “worship” some figure or other–yes. So what. It is a measure of the silliness of this thread that people take seriously the idea that “liberals fanatically worship…” or that “conservatives fanatically worship…” their leaders. Can you find isolated examples–sure you can, but it is a measure of the hyperbole that masks for argument to actually claim this as true for liberals or conservatives, as a whole.
And as for what words mean, HT, what exactly does “worship” mean here? Religious overtones? What? Althouse & Coulter talk about worship and equate it with rock stardom. OK. Never thought of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, or Madison, as rock stars. Rock on, dude!!! Its just inflammatory language designed to get her books sold. Well, good luck to her.
And VK,
“What did Barack Obama do to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.”
Not much at all. Will he end up deserving it? Who knows, but my guess is not likely in this political climate. If he gets us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and these two countries are left as stable democracies–then that would be worth it, I think. But, how likely is that? I wouldn’t want to bet money on it.
The_Livewiresays
Not much at all. Will he end up deserving it? Who knows, but my guess is not likely in this political climate. If he gets us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and these two countries are left as stable democraciesâthen that would be worth it, I think.
That would be akin to awarding Truman the prize for ending WW II, Cas.
If we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and they are left as stable democracies, the credit would got to President Bush and, more importantly the people of those states.
Hi TL,
If we get out of there, and Obama is there for eight years (cause we ain’t getting out anytime soon), you can give the hat-tip to GW, but as the media and many here noted, Obama got to “own this war” when he jacked up troop levels in Afghanistan. As for “the people of those states” fair enough, but they don’t usually give peace prizes to “the people” (more’s the pity–there is a good conversation in there about the way we follow “the great ‘man’ of history trope), but to individuals who are perceived to have furthered that direction. Also, I think you have a point on Iraq (after the surge, etc), but they are not likely to give GW a peace prize for invading the country in the first place…
Heliotropesays
In #36 I wrote:
Who worships Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford or either Bush? The Democrats worship Roosevelt, flush Truman, selectively worship Kennedy, flushed Johnson, want to forget Carter, apologize for and lie about Clinton and are running scared of Obama.
Hi! Cas @#38 writes:
You (….) make the claim that Repubs laud Reagan, and Dems âworshipâ Obama. What is silly about this claim is that one personâs âlaudingâ is anotherâs worship.
Ho, hum. Watching someone trying to shadow box its your way out of a paper bag is a boring spectator sport.
Anyone care for a rousing rendition of “The Tennessee Waltz played on the nose flute and accompanied by the whoopie cushion?
As for “worshipping” Obama, I see you do not ascribe liberals as “worshipping Obama” unlike many other conservative voices here. My bad. You just think that liberals worship other Democratic presidential deities. My point remains about the partisan interchangeability of “lauding” and “worship” however, and also about the entire silliness of the thread. đ
And I would love to hear that rendition if you could post it on YouTube. Maybe we could do a duet. Can you play “Waltzing Matilda” on that nose flute of yours …?
Heliotropesays
Duh! When lauding (which means to praise) is thought to be interchangeable with “worship” (which means to give reverence to, adore, offer devotion) there is an unbridgeable misconnect.
Why play slippery semantics with a goal post shifting eel?
this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the momentâthis was the timeâwhen we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.
Worshipers suck on such drivel. Worshipers stick with such tripe even when the Worshiped One changes the message.
When you praise, you have an accomplishment as the reason. Perhaps one could praise Obama for lifting one’s spirits with the promise of hope and change. But after the dust has settled, if one continues to praise Obama who has admitted being defeated by what he inherited from Bush, then only worship will suffice. How does one praise a “leader” who has struck out on every issue because of his predecessor who is not even on the field?
I do get your point, HT. I just think its making a mountain out of a molehill–its silly, as I said in #38. One can take the isolated examples on either side of this debate, but it is a fallacy of composition, to ascribe this as behaviour of the whole, or even a majority. On either side. By all means do it (I mean, do look at a piece of rhetoric in isolation to the entire speech and what it says), but don’t expect me to take this approach seriously. It is good to cheer up the troops, but I don’t buy it, sorry.
Heliotropesays
Also sprach Zarathustra-Cassiopea’s Nachtwandlerlied @ #46 trails off in a duet duel between Hi! Cass playing the piccolo and bassoon simultaneously while maintaining its orbit around the Polar Star sitting in its chair upside-down in the the night sky.
The statement above is all quite decipherable (if you even care) whereas Hi! Cas prattles on as if it were some sort of Princess of vanity who has beckoned to be served.
Hi Dan,
Might the more pointed question be–why do politicians and organized political parties of both left and right, conservative and liberal, rely on “attendant” and “appropriate” levels of leadership “worship”?
*looks up from Reagan Shrine* stupid liberals! (jk Dan) đ
No, it wouldn’t be, Cas, because liberals like yourself continually endorse and support such worship and don’t see a single thing wrong with it.
Thus, the better question would be, “Why do liberals like Cas, rather than simply condemning the behavior of liberals that they find objectionable, attempt to draw false equivalences and equivocate?”
It is amazing that liberals like you practice such behavior, Cas. Why do you continue to worship your liberal political figures?
Cus liberals value security over freedom (conservatives value freedom over security). They want to be taken care of. They want a benevolent dictator. So they elevate their leaders to that status in their minds. The worship is part and parcel.
Yeah, both sides do it. Remember all the schoolteachers forcing children to sing creepy hymns to Reagan.
Neither do I.
Hi NDT,
“because liberals like yourself continually endorse and support such worship and donât see a single thing wrong with it.”
âWhy do liberals… rather than simply condemning the behavior of liberals that they find objectionable, attempt to draw false equivalences and equivocate?â
I guess because they see other folks often do exactly the same thing from the other side (ah hem), with about as much good coming from it, NDT. Its a problem with the political discourse of this country, NDT, and it won’t be improved by another in a long line of such sessions, in which conservatives make themselves feel better by–punning and blog entry referencing happily away–“demonizing” their perceived opponents.
Out of curiosity, who do you feel I put on a pedastal to worship–Ronald Reagan?
“Is Obama an Enlightened Being? Spiritual wise ones say: This sure ain’t no ordinary politician.
Gee, that’s just exactly what the right says about Reagan… except it’s totally not.
Funny, Cas, how only conservatives have to change, according to you.
Once again, your hypocrisy is made blatantly obvious. You support and endorse such behavior from liberals.
Hi NDT,
“Funny, Cas, how only conservatives have to change, according to you.”
Funny how you like to draw a conclusion contextually unsupported by what is actually said. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go off and worship at my carefully constructed shrine to Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, FDR, and Bill “It depends on what the meaning of the word “IS” is” Clinton … I’ll put in a good word (with the appropriate divinities, of course) for you, NDT! đ
And again, even with examples provided, Cas refuses to condemn his fellow liberals’ worship of political figures.
Looks like Cas is even more of a hypocrite than we thought.
How come only liberals find political discourse to be a problem? Is it that you want us to shut up and sing along or go “kicking and screaming into the future”?
I just find it curious when a jackass democreep can demand the assassination of a Republican candidate for governor and then piss and moan about “civility”. Long story short, you can cram your problem with political discourse.
Cas – it’s said that politics is show business for the ugly (don’t know who said it – they weren’t talking about Aaron Schock đ ).
Mark Steyn calls them the “Emirs of Incumbistan” – followed around by retinues of people that make them feel special. A House district has around 700,000 residents (mid-sized city) yet they’re shuttled around like royalty.
We’ve done it to ourselves – putting so much power into the hands of people that, often as not, are mediocrities. When you listen to what people like Nancy Pelosi or Lindsay Graham actually say, you have to realize that these people just aren’t very smart.
I suspect liberals, having an almost religious faith in the iron fist of government, hold politicians in high regard because they think their leaders are super-smart (you wouldn’t grant a lot of power to a moron, would you?).
Most conservatives would rather minimize contact with the government and see politicians as simply necessary (and that they should be kept on a short leash).
Good point. Why won’t Cas say that Obama and his supporters like Chris Titus are wrong to call for the imprisonment, rape, torture, and murder of Sarah Palin and her family? Doesn’t Cas believe that the emails from Obama’s supporters threatening Palin’s life that were released this week ruin political discourse?
Think Cas will say that Barack Obama needs to cut back on his violent rhetoric that causes his supporters to do such things?
Hi SCR,
Thanks for the reply.
“I suspect liberals, having an almost religious faith in the iron fist of government, hold politicians in high regard because they think their leaders are super-smart (you wouldnât grant a lot of power to a moron, would you?). Most conservatives would rather minimize contact with the government and see politicians as simply necessary (and that they should be kept on a short leash).”
Its an interesting thesis, though the “iron fist” bit is a bit much for me, I ‘m afraid. Other theses might also hold for the same observations as well. It might also be that liberals might hold their own representatives to a higher standard of performance, since they believe that government can be useful (or are more faithful of the premise of effective government. It might be that conservatives, feeling little desire for government, hold lower expectations for its success, and are happy with lesser success, since it fits within the framework of perceived government inadequacy. One test: which type of administrations–Democratic or Republican–give highest income growth rates? http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf.
Now all this is silly, I know, but it is no sillier, in my opinion, to hold that “liberals” worship their political figures more, whilst “conservatives” do not do so as much. It could be argued that the effort of this website to commemorate Reagan’sCentennial, had quite the worshipful tone… All very rational, I know…
As for “liberal” worship, I have been unimpressed with Obama’s performance–I won’t be worshiping at his shrine anytime soon… Back to the pantheon…
Rush.
How Bill Nelson wound up on a shuttle, except as some sort of experiment, I’ll never know.
It depends on what liberals you’re talking about. And if you talking about “the left”, that encompasses more than just liberals.
Most of the liberals I talk to don’t show much enthusiasm for any politician.
As far as strong loyalty toward party or politician, I believe that’s true further down socio-economically into the conservative grassroots than it is among liberals, based on what I’ve seen and heard from people I’ve known. With the Democratic party, the only people who ever seem enthusiastic about its policies are highly-educated upper-middle class liberals, usually meaning not very liberal liberals. Below that socioeconomically, excepting perhaps among academics or those in process of becoming academics, I don’t see much enthusiasm at all. People in this lower, much larger group either pick politicians by issues, vote for Democrats to keep out Republicans, or are rah rah enthusiastic without knowing all that much about their chosen candidate or party. (The latter group, while deserving mention, is a small part of the whole. Every group has its idiots and its intellectually lazy.)
My guess is that if you looked at the loudest adulators as a group, you’d find a disproportionate number of elite players among them.
You should know that Obama has turned off a large number of grassroots liberals. Those who trusted him feel seriously betrayed.
It’s easy to cherry-pick a few opinions to prove what you want about “the enemy”. And it’s human to not be able to see the complained-about behaviors playing out on one’s own side. Both the left and the right have way too many adulators and locksteppers.
I would be more convinced of this “both sides do it” equivocation if someone posted actual evidence of Cult of Personality behavior taking place on the right; something along the lines of children singing creepy hymns to conservative political figures, or conservative figures being held up in Messianic terms. Lefties simply asserting “I think both sides do it” is pretty unconvincing, on its own.
Lest we forget, Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize just for existing.
Wait, it was a Nobel Prize? For the longest time I was under the impression that it was the ‘No Balls Prize’, awarded to him in anticipation of his continuing inability to take responsibility, make tough decisions and actually say anything meaningful.
Then again, leftist politicians do seem to have the ability to get recognition for nothing.
Because if you don’t worship God, you’ll worship anything?
Because if you won’t worship God, you’ll worship anything?
More false gods of the left fall.
Where’s the warming?
While we wait for Tim, Cas, or any of the other hacks to come up with even one example of the Right casting a politician in a Messianic light, here is yet another example of progressive Obama worship.
If y’all want to keep guessing be my guest. If you want the answers you’ll find a of them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
It’s titled “The True Believer”.
It was written by Eric Hoffer, a remarkable man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer
@Roy Lofquist — Hoffer makes his argument that any type of mass movement is to provide its followers with, well basically, hope and change. He makes religion a separate type of mass movement. However, Dr. Michael Crichton in his speech Environmentalism as Religion shows that religion seems to be almost ingrained into the human psyche. If you remove it in one form, it just appears in another. This is why most mass movements use religious undertones (and overtones!) to keep the faithful from deviating.
Religion may be a mass movement, but the others just use the foundations of religion to get people to buy their snake oil.
@TooMuchTime,
You are correct. However Hoffer has much more to say than can be briefly summarized.
Hi VK,
“While we wait for Tim, Cas, or any of the other hacks”
Terribly sorry, but since you didn’t direct your earlier comment specifically to me, I didn’t understand that you wanted my feedback. “Hacks” ouch. Oh well.
Anyway, love the hyperbole. As for the artist you mention at #24, you also neglect the bit at the end:
“The artist insists that the work was intended purely as a political piece. “The religious reference was used metaphorically and not to insult anyone’s religious beliefs. If that is the effect that my art has had on anyone, I am truly sorry,” says D’Antuono. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/04/25/obama-worship-goes-overdrive-100-day-mark-approaches#ixzz1PBvbcZhj”
So, of course you can cast it as worship, but it isn’t. After all, this following link could be cast in all sorts of unflattering ways as well, if one were intent on scoring mindless partisan points against evangelical conservatives …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvIOPiKFrs
28 – Cas: That video is obviously faked.
Well, it’s not more faked than anyone on here will dispute its relevancy, anyway, that is.
—–
Tell him Mr. President.
“Mr. President.”
One nation under god.
“Mr. President.”
mouthing ‘One Nation Under God.’
priceless
Hi VS,
“That video is obviously faked.”
OK, that is interesting. I have seen longer clips of which this is part. So, I would appreciate it if you could let me know how you know that it is faked (a link to some authority debunking it would be very helpful). I don’t want to spread internet rumours. Thanks.
No one in modern political history does more slobbering over their heroes than the Republicans, and so for them to be lambasting anyone else for engaging in idolatry is the definition of hypocrisy. How soon we all forget the giddiness of the early George W. Bush years, when photo opportunities on aircraft carriers and on the ranch would have all the Republicans swooning over their tough guy, cowboy, hero-president. The video linked above perfectly encapsulates the widely shared attitude conservatives felt towards George Bush back in ’01, ’02, and ’03. Today, he’s been replaced by people like Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan. And you’ve always got Reagan and Limbaugh to gush over, too.
Are there liberals that are embarrassingly devoted to Obama? Certainly. But it’s nothing like devotion that conservatives hold for their idols.
Even if genuine, the video would only prove that idiot leftists can’t tell the difference between praying for the president and praying to the president.
(Who is, they say, “that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet.”)
And Levi once again displays an amazing ability to embrace an opinion contradicted by all available evidence.
Now, Levi, why don’t you and Cas go sing some hymns with the other children and let the adults talk.
Ah VK,
How the line is so easily blurred… I doubt we are saying that BO is a god or God, either, VK
Hi VK,
Just for your amusement, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/dick-cheney-paul-ryan_n_867626.html, and he isn’t even President!
Hi! Cas @ #1:
First, I don’t even know what âattendantâ and âappropriateâ levels of leadership âworshipâ means.
But, I do know that the only Republican who approaches the level of “worship” was Abraham Lincoln. Ronald Reagan was lauded for his principled conservative stands. Next to Reagan, among Republicans, would be John F. Kennedy, the Democrat, who defied the Roosevelt economic theories and the bigotry of racist Democrats.
Who worships Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford or either Bush? The Democrats worship Roosevelt, flush Truman, selectively worship Kennedy, flushed Johnson, want to forget Carter, apologize for and lie about Clinton and are running scared of Obama.
So, I really do not understand anything Hi! Cas has suggested in its comment is even cogent to the post.
Maybe the “both sides do it lefties” having failed to provide a single cogent example of Republican “worship” of political figures can answer a simple question instead:
What did Barack Obama do to deserve a Nobel Preace Prize.
Hi HT,
“I really do not understand anything Hi! Cas has suggested in its comment is even cogent to the post.” You (and others) make the claim that Repubs laud Reagan, and Dems “worship” Obama. What is silly about this claim is that one person’s “lauding” is another’s worship. Can you find examples where people go overboard, and sing songs. Yes. Can you find examples where Christians in their fervour to pray for GW Bush cross the line into something else? Yes. Can you find examples where Repubs say they “worship” some figure or other–yes. So what. It is a measure of the silliness of this thread that people take seriously the idea that “liberals fanatically worship…” or that “conservatives fanatically worship…” their leaders. Can you find isolated examples–sure you can, but it is a measure of the hyperbole that masks for argument to actually claim this as true for liberals or conservatives, as a whole.
And as for what words mean, HT, what exactly does “worship” mean here? Religious overtones? What? Althouse & Coulter talk about worship and equate it with rock stardom. OK. Never thought of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, or Madison, as rock stars. Rock on, dude!!! Its just inflammatory language designed to get her books sold. Well, good luck to her.
And VK,
“What did Barack Obama do to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.”
Not much at all. Will he end up deserving it? Who knows, but my guess is not likely in this political climate. If he gets us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and these two countries are left as stable democracies–then that would be worth it, I think. But, how likely is that? I wouldn’t want to bet money on it.
That would be akin to awarding Truman the prize for ending WW II, Cas.
If we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and they are left as stable democracies, the credit would got to President Bush and, more importantly the people of those states.
So, basically, the passive-aggressive threadjacker is claiming that Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize based on what he intended to do.
I intend to invent Warp Drive. I can has Nobel Prize for Physics?
@ V the K,
T-shirt I got my Goddaughter. “Every time you ‘can has’ God kills a LOLcat.”
Hi TL,
If we get out of there, and Obama is there for eight years (cause we ain’t getting out anytime soon), you can give the hat-tip to GW, but as the media and many here noted, Obama got to “own this war” when he jacked up troop levels in Afghanistan. As for “the people of those states” fair enough, but they don’t usually give peace prizes to “the people” (more’s the pity–there is a good conversation in there about the way we follow “the great ‘man’ of history trope), but to individuals who are perceived to have furthered that direction. Also, I think you have a point on Iraq (after the surge, etc), but they are not likely to give GW a peace prize for invading the country in the first place…
In #36 I wrote:
Hi! Cas @#38 writes:
Ho, hum. Watching someone trying to shadow box its your way out of a paper bag is a boring spectator sport.
Anyone care for a rousing rendition of “The Tennessee Waltz played on the nose flute and accompanied by the whoopie cushion?
Hi HT,
As for “worshipping” Obama, I see you do not ascribe liberals as “worshipping Obama” unlike many other conservative voices here. My bad. You just think that liberals worship other Democratic presidential deities. My point remains about the partisan interchangeability of “lauding” and “worship” however, and also about the entire silliness of the thread. đ
And I would love to hear that rendition if you could post it on YouTube. Maybe we could do a duet. Can you play “Waltzing Matilda” on that nose flute of yours …?
Duh! When lauding (which means to praise) is thought to be interchangeable with “worship” (which means to give reverence to, adore, offer devotion) there is an unbridgeable misconnect.
Why play slippery semantics with a goal post shifting eel?
Worshipers suck on such drivel. Worshipers stick with such tripe even when the Worshiped One changes the message.
When you praise, you have an accomplishment as the reason. Perhaps one could praise Obama for lifting one’s spirits with the promise of hope and change. But after the dust has settled, if one continues to praise Obama who has admitted being defeated by what he inherited from Bush, then only worship will suffice. How does one praise a “leader” who has struck out on every issue because of his predecessor who is not even on the field?
I do get your point, HT. I just think its making a mountain out of a molehill–its silly, as I said in #38. One can take the isolated examples on either side of this debate, but it is a fallacy of composition, to ascribe this as behaviour of the whole, or even a majority. On either side. By all means do it (I mean, do look at a piece of rhetoric in isolation to the entire speech and what it says), but don’t expect me to take this approach seriously. It is good to cheer up the troops, but I don’t buy it, sorry.
Also sprach Zarathustra-Cassiopea’s Nachtwandlerlied @ #46 trails off in a duet duel between Hi! Cass playing the piccolo and bassoon simultaneously while maintaining its orbit around the Polar Star sitting in its chair upside-down in the the night sky.
The statement above is all quite decipherable (if you even care) whereas Hi! Cas prattles on as if it were some sort of Princess of vanity who has beckoned to be served.