Absolute Moral Authority: Bristol Palin Wants To Know When Barack Obama Will Be Standing Up For Her?

I gotta tell you, I love this.

Well-played.

Make them live by their own rule-book.

I really do want to know-- when will he be calling her?

It's a very good question and the press should insist on an answer.

Dear President Obama,

You don’t know my telephone number, but I hope your staff is busy trying to find it. Ever since you called Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, I figured I might be next. You explained to reporters you called her because you were thinking of your two daughters, Malia and Sasha. After all, you didn’t want them to think it was okay for men to treat them that way:

“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” you said. “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

...

But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung. Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family. He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.”

...

If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.

Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.

But…

What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women… even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?

Barack Obama actually has already addressed this in his typical fashion.

After haranguing Limbaugh, Obama said he would not comment on Debbie Wasserman-Schutz's "war on women" rhetoric, because it's not his job to comment on every single thing a political actor says.

"What I can comment on is the fact that all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were made don't have any place in the public discourse," Obama said, regarding Limbaugh's insults. "And the reason I called her is because I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about. Even ones I may not agree with them on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don't want them attacked. Or called horrible names because they are being good citizens. I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her. And that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate. and we want you to be engaged and there is a way to do it that doesn't involve you being demeaned and insulted particularly when around private citizen."

But, when asked about Sharky McSnaggletooth, Obama suddenly couldn't be troubled to comment at all:

"Jessica, as you know, if I start being in the business arbitrating--"

"You talk about civility," Yellin interjected.

"And what I do is practice it," Obama replied. "I'll try to lead by example as opposed to commenting on every comment that is made by either politicians or pundits, I would not have time to do my job, that is your job to comment on what is said by them."

Obama is a very deficient thinker, or at least a very blatant liar. A guy like Clinton would at least have the chops at thinking, or at justifying hypocrisy, to spin some kind of distinction-without-a-difference to try to explain why he would comment on one but not the other.

Obama doesn't even try. He simply completely contradicts himself within, literally, seconds.

Like a child would.

A child would say, "I want the iPad now, I want it, because it's my turn."

The adult turns the iPad over.

Fifteen minutes later, the kid's brother also wants the iPad.

"Give it to your brother," the adult says, "It's his turn now."

"But I'm using it now," the child says, this rule about "Turns" no longer operative, completely irrelevant to the discussion. Now the new rule is about simple possession -- I have it, it's currently "mine."

A child doesn't even attempt to harmonize or justify these contradictory rules -- a child is rather shameless (because he hasn't learned shame yet) about the fact that he favors rules that inure to his benefit, and disfavors rules that help out his brother.

It makes no difference to a child with immature moral reasoning that he's being brazenly inconsistent. Who cares? He wants the iPad, damnit.

Now we forgive children this because they have not learned about morality yet, or about fairness, or intellectual integrity. About applying one rule for both Me and Not-Me.

We have to teach kids this stuff. And most kids do eventually learn it.

What's Obama's excuse?

He is a 50+ year old man.

Does he not yet understand that "Because I said so" is not an adequate explanation for self-serving hypocrisies?

posted by Ace at 02:06 PM

| Access Comments