GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

How will Obama explain this to his daughters?
Top Obama strategist to appear on Bill Maher’s show

by

Sometimes, the parody just writes itself:

While slamming Mitt Romney for not standing up to the “strident voices” on his side, a top Obama advisor is planning to spend some quality time with one on his own, The Daily has learned.

David Axelrod, President Obama’s senior campaign strategist, is scheduled to appear on Bill Maher’s late-night talk show within the next few weeks, according to Kelley Carville, an HBO spokesman.

As the controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s comments about Sandra Fluke continued, a former Obama White House official today joined Republicans in pointing out that Maher, who recently donated $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC, has a history of his misogynistic slurs.

Last year, he was rebuked by the National Organization for Women for calling Sarah Palin a “dumb tw*t.”

“palin [sic] is right to point out that bill maher has said some pretty disgusting things about women, comedian or not. they are rush like,” Austan Goolsbee, the former chairman of President Obama’s Council on Economic Advisors, and currently a professor at the University of Chicago, tweeted.

On Bill Bennett said, “My question is whether the president will give back the million dollars Bill Maher gave him. I don’t know how he’s going to explain that to Sasha and Malia, when that guy uses language that would make Rush blush.”   And now his top campaign aide is appearing alongside a man who, unlike Rush, won’t even apologize for his name-clling.

Bear in mind that the graduate of America’s finest liberal arts college is turning the president’s own rhetoric on its head.As Jennifer Rubin put it:

The comment is, in a word, perfect. The gentle tone of irony contrasts with the left’s hyperventilating. The matter-of-fact assertion highlights how the left’s “outrage” is reserved for political opponents’ entertainers. And his gentle rebuke to the president — who chose to drag his daughters into a phony political gambit — is the frosting on the well- baked cake.

At first, it appeared that the Democrats won this battle.  But, now it appears that the Democrats are walking into their own trap because they refuse to condemn — and continue to associate with — prominent lefties who use rhetoric as bad as (if not worse than) Rush’s slur.

Credit the new media for exposing left-wing name-calling.  And to the situational ethics of liberal politicos–establishing rules of proper behavior applied piecemeal in attempts to undermine the opposition.

Comments

  1. Naw, it isn’t the same at all. Maher is an enlightened leftist who sees through the haze and calls it what it is. He is unencumbered by silly old morality or ancient principles which he would have to drag like a heavy chain.

    He is a Progressive. He only looks forward. He initiates, he reveals, he soars into the upper reaches of enlightenment and entitlement. He is above hypocrisy, he is above shame, he is above reasoned responsibility.

    He is a democrat.

  7. Maher hasn’t just attacked Palin. He was also the one fired from ABC for insulting the US military He also attacked handicapped children and compared them to dogs. He also said some pretty nasty things about the tea party. And about Hillary Clinton and some other dems. He’s also said some pretty inflammatory things about various religious faiths, including mormonism. So, he really has a much more extensive record than just going after one person. We should really emphasize that when bringing him up. I think it’s much more effective than just focusing on his comments about one individual when there is so much more there.

    Also, I think Maher’s comments are even worse than Limbaugh’s in that his ware written out and planned ahead of time. Rush has a 3 hour show and speaks off the cuff. He doesn’t write his program out ahead of time. It’s much more likely he’s going to say things he may regret. Maher has writers and a staff and writes out his “jokes” before the show. So he knows what he’s saying and says it anyway.

    And don’t forget, Obama was very vocal when Don Imus has his controversy. Obama didn’t just criticize him, he called for him to be fired. He said he’d never appear on his show again. Said language like that about women was unacceptable and again used his daughters as an example. So there’s a precedent there for him doing something.

    We’ll see. In the end I wouldn’t be surprised if they do return the money and Axelrod doesn’t appear on the show.

  9. FIFYB

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 1:52 pm – March 8, 2012

    And now we see mindreading suddenly coming into vogue, where before it wasn’t.

    Repeat:

    The unspoken assumption – and Ann Althouse helped me see this – is that there is some sort of consistent principle which the left applies. There isn’t. Other than the Goal. Everything else is ad hoc and contingent. Yesterday we have no problem with intemperate language – against conservatives. Today we are outraged by intemperate language – against leftists. Yesterday we offer an apology and that should be the end of it. Today we demand an apology and when you offer it it’s not good enough. Yesterday we’re outraged you didn’t include our pet activist in your hearing. Today she’s the only one speaking at our press conference.

    The left is simply grabbing whatever rhetorical and emotional weapon is available for attacking anyone who would stand in the way of their agenda. So to say “only liberal apologies are accepted”, while maybe true, is to assume there’s some sort of consistent principle here. There isn’t.

    Comment by Rick67 — March 5, 2012 @ 7:02 pm – March 5, 2012

    The ultimate Achilles heel of the Obama Party and the “progressive” left is that people ultimately figure out their logic – which is twofold:

    1) Whatever I do is right, regardless of what you think

    2) Since whatever I do is right, if you disagree with me, you are wrong

    The reason liberalism is and remains so seductive to people like Cinesnatch is because it grants them the authority to effectively do whatever they want without fear of responsibility or repercussion.

    And the reason religion, logic, and morality are such anathema to them is that all of those introduce the concepts of responsibility or repercussion for behavior.

  11. I think what this demonstrates, more than anything else, is how faux is the outrage over what Rush Limbaugh said. The Dramacrats are polishing the rubes, and the rubes are lapping it up.

  12. I am becoming more convinced that Obama/Axelrod could take or leave a second term. But either way they are going to try to P*** off opponents as much as possible.

  17. Geena, you might be onto something. Facing another 4 years might take a toll on Obama. So letting Romney come in and try to get things might be a good option. But hey, everyone is and has been complaining about Obama even before he was sworn in with members on congress and other folk quickly dismissing him.

    But hey, With Romney, folk will still have the opportunity to complain and b**ch, during his tenure.

    Sad thing is, folk are going to put there political ideologies and Biases ahead of any plan to work together to get bak on track. Yes Obama did make some mistakes and fumbled about, but there were so many who were cheering for failure and lost sight of the real goal. Seems with the reluctance that is stewing with Romney, doesn’t seem to be ver promising, whether Obama or Romney take on the role.

  19. Once upon a time he came close to having that size of an audience, and we know how that went, which Maher has come to Limbaugh’s defense on.

    And, if you were actually funny, VTK, yeah, to answer your question, I’d probably give you a pass.

  21. Yes, I referred to him as disingenuous and lacking integrity, and, all of a sudden, I’m holding a sign that says, “God Hates Breitbart.”

    It seems if ILC just rose to the challenge that was presented to him, the thread would have been cut by 66% or greater (I believe that’s a mild estimate). After all, he was declaring racism and the onus was on him to prove it. But, afraid to get into the specifics and use actually quotations against reactions within the context it was being told, it was good enough for him to say, “I don’t need to prove anything, you just need to take my word for it or you’re A LIAR.” Kitchen-sink mind-reader!

    🙂

  25. Vince,

    You apparently have no concept of what constitutes moral relativism.

    Here is a clue: You have a raging case of it. In fact, you might even be the West Coast distributor.

  26. Sorry just have to interject. . .Heliotrope, don’t know if you caught my query a couple of posts past, but have you seen The Beginners with Evan McGregor and Christopher Plummer? Would love to hear your opinion and qrating of the film. Plu member received accolades for his performance.

    Thanks.

    Back to the topic.

  28. Rusty,

    I will certainly see the film on your recommendation. I am on the road until late June, so I may have to wait until I get settled back in my home base. Thanks for thinking of me and giving the head’s up. I appreciate it.

  30. it was good enough for [ILC] to say, “I don’t need to prove anything

    Not at all: What I did was state that I wasn’t going to litigate the matter with you, in that thread. You then proceeded to post transcripts that PROVED EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING. But, like a liar, you insisted that your own transcripts somehow didn’t say what they blatantly, visibly said outright. And how interesting (yet predictable), Cinesnatch, that you have lied here again, in misrepresenting the matter.

    I referred to [Breitbart] as disingenuous and lacking integrity

    No, Cinesnatch, you did not “refer” to Breitbart as that. If that was all you did – say, over just one or two comments – it might have been OK, as in, you needed to say your peace and you did it minimally.

    What you actually did, Cinesnatch, was something different. You declared *that you were determined* to slander Breitbart – like this:

    I’ve determined to depict him as disingenuous and lack integrity.

    …and you proceeded to slander him most insistently, over the course of a 170+ comment discussion. That’s the local GayPatriot equivalent of someone engaging in Westboro Baptist behavior.

    So yes, Cinesnatch: You acted as the moral equivalent, in that context, of Westboro Baptist.

    I’m just telling the truth about it. Your punishment is not up to me, and is not even something I want. But I know it’s happening anyway: namely, Cinesnatch, that you must now live in the stench of your own pathetic indecency.

  32. (Cinesnatch’s choice of the word “depict”, in his declaration of being determined to slander Breitbart, is interesting in itself. When someone really is a thing, you don’t need to “depict” them that way. To say you are determined to “depict” someone in a certain way, is to confess that on some level, you already know that you are engaged in wrongdoing.)

  33. ILC,

    I detect a mild rash of frustration coupled with a chronic bout of mental acid reflux. I suggest two Tums followed by copious amounts of adult beverages. If you don’t follow my prescription, would you mind very much if I do it for you?

  35. I have to say, Heliotrope: One of the things I find most amazing about that thread is that even commentors like Little Kiwi, Levi, etc. knew it was not the right place for dumping on Breitbart at length. I *think* Little Kiwi and Levi kept it to one comment each, while other leftie trolls did not show up at all. Cinesnatch gave a unique performance, revealing that is soul and tactics are worse than Little Kiwi’s (whom he periodically makes a show of denouncing), which I had not previously thought possible.

  39. ILC,

    Up late on left coast. Taking care of business in the Pacific time zone, mostly in the Northwest. I can’t do early morning! (Either 2am staying up or 5am getting up!)