Presidential Exposure and our National Discourse

Posted by on September 21, 2009

Over the past couple weeks President Obama has been making the rounds on the various legacy media outlets trying to pitch his case for his Health Insurance Reform plan.  He doesn’t seem to understand that the case has been made and rejected by the American people.  Perhaps he does understand it and now he is simply trying to force his case by getting angrier and angrier himself.  President Obama is no fool.  He knows that the more he presses Americans the more we will rhetorically fight back.  The more we fight back, the more he trots out the “we should be more civil in our discourse” line.  Which is a pitiful attempt to change the subject.  We witnessed an excellent example of this during the President’s speech before the joint session of Congress.

It seems that the President wants civility in OUR discourse but doesn’t intend to model that behavior on his own.  In his speech he wasted little time on civility as he labeled all of us who disagree with his proposal as liars and extremists.  When Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) called him on it during the speech we all had to endure the next 48 hours of “beat up on Joe” even though he immediately apologized for his inappropriate outburst.  Please understand that the bulk of the outrage we saw after the speech was a political contrivance for the sole purpose of demonstrating the “lack of civility” the President and his cohorts(chiefly Speaker Pelosi) have been whining about for quite a while.  What Joe Wilson did was wrong.  It was a slap in the face to the Office of the President.  It was wrong when the Democrats booed President Bush and it’s wrong now.  Only difference is we expect it from this breed of Democrat.  Conservatives hold ourselves to a higher standard of behavior.  A standard that Mr. Wilson knew he had violated before the second echo of his words in the chamber.

Changing the subject is the last defense for the loser of an argument.  We’ve all used the tactic with the same result if the opposition is worth their rhetorical salt.  Even if successful, the loser of the argument is still a bit tainted for his effort.  How tainted is the debater who, rather than simply changing the subject, resorts to personal attacks and name calling?  I’m not talking about the Python-esque name calling of “Silly Kniggit” or personal attacks of “Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries”.  I’m talking about tossing out the racist grenade.

It seems that any opposition to the President’s policies is now labeled as racist.  We have lied about death panels.  We are heartless for the however many million Americans who currently have no health insurance.  We are in bed with the insurance companies.  But WE are the ones who are supposed to be civil.  The arrogance is astounding.

It seems that the more the President is on TV, the more we get lectured to about being civil in our lieing, heartless, corrupt laden discourse.  Mr. President, we are not stupid.  We are your boss.  You cannot brow beat us and we will not tolerate or participate in your 1984-esque media exposure.  Your rhetorical skills, however formidable, will not when our support unless the rhetoric makes sense to us lieing, heartless, corrupt legions.

Last modified on September 21, 2009

Categories: General
Comments Off on Presidential Exposure and our National Discourse

« | Home | »

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: