Just caught this from David Axelrod:
Everyone should have stood up and said this was inappropriate as apparently many of Maher’s supporters now have said it was inappropriate.
I was kind of shocked, Anderson, when President Obama, all he had — all he had to say about the thing was, well, that isn’t language I would have used. What about the spirit of what was said? I thought that was a cowardly answer and it was a test of leadership and one that he failed.
. . . .
So I don’t excuse any of it. Now I will say this. There are very few entertainers who are as outspoken in attacking Republicans as Bill Maher does so regularly on his shown. I think one of the reasons why President Obama and others were so timid in speaking out is because Maher is the de facto spokesman for the Democratic Party, so to take him on would be to risk your own standing within the party’s left-wing base. And so that separates him from the others.
Oh, wait, sorry, I just substituted Maher for Rush, President Obama for Governor Romney and Democrat for Republican (with a few other minor changes to improve the flow).
Meanwhile, Axelrod still keeps making excuses for Maher who has yet to apologize for his “inappropriate” language–as Rush has done. The president couldn’t even bring himself to criticize Maher as Romney criticized Rush, not even in allegedly anodyne language Axelrod called cowardly.
If Romney’s response were cowardly, then Obama’s was more so (by Axelrod’s standard).
Indeed, in his news conference, the Democrat dodged the question on double standards. He would have been wise, Athena writes, to discuss the coarsening of our discourse:
He called Sandra Fluke, he explained, because he wants public life to be safe for his daughters, if they choose to enter it. He would have made a braver, truer, more meaningful statement if he’d noted that Bill Maher has become so rich on sexism he had a million dollars to give to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. And now, so as to discourage the bad treatment of women, Mr. Obama is handing it back.
That would have been a truly gutsy call. Too bad Obama didn’t make it.
NB: Changed the title.
You can get away with a lot, when the left-wing media covers for you relentlessly.
I thought Liebowitz was the de-facto spokesman for the democreeps.
Candidate Obama has one-million reasons not to criticize Bill Maher.
Peggy Noonan:
David Letterman would be the poster boy for this unwrapping of the mystique if Bill Clinton were not available.
Honestly, I do not care what liberal men who fear strong women have to say. They fear me because they know they cannot control me…I am expected to vote my gender and do as I am told, not actually use my brain to think for myself. I am a bitch. I wear combat boots to work. I have been known to pick a fight following the defeat of the Dallas Stars at the hands of the Colorado Avalanche (I think it must have turned my future husband on, since he professed his love to me for the first time that night), and can hang with the lowest of the low brows with verve and acerbic wit. I don’t tolerate weak men and men like Maher, Alec Baldwin, among others want to dominate the female (I am thinking they have *cough* esteem issues) illustrate their lack of machismo by resorting to crude vernacular to attack women they cannot and will never control or dominate. Rush screwed up and used a bad analogy…weaklings like Maher and Baldwin use it to attack those they loathe because they can do nothing else to their perceived enemies. Weak men, limp dicks…whatever the description, they only serve to highlight the fact that the Democratic party is not the party defending the rights of women (anymore than they defend and help other minorities)…their behavior and the subsequent embracing of it by their Party as “comedic art” and “free speech” when the same standard is not applied to conservatives demonstrates the hypocrisy of the liberal movement. I saw an interview of some gay Tea Party supporters…they described how the same venom was used against them by the LBGT movement. They were called “Auntie Toms” (um, racist much?) for daring to challenge the expectation that anyone who is gay must be liberal. So, the same movement (not all, I understand that but it seems to be an assertive element from my perspective) that wants homosexuals to feel empowered to come out essentially seems to want to put conservative homosexuals right back in that proverbial closet. (The reason I was drawn to this blog was to witness those discussions and debates.)
Men like Maher, Baldwin, and Clinton want no more than to put conservative women back in the kitchen, sans their Louboutins, and of course, not worrying their pretty little heads over politics. Hence the choice to use words like whore, cunt, twat, etc. to demean and embarrass women who dare challenge them. Those are the words of weak men with small minds (among other small parts.)