Oh, nuts! Obama Speech Reax

I have not one, not two but three things I have to start writing for various deadlines, so I’m going to offer you a quick look-around from my email and a few sites and then tip the hat and ride off into the sunset for most of the day, pardners.

Obama was going to bring “his own plan” on healthcare to the Congress yesterday, wasn’t that the pre-speech meme?

“This is the momentism!”: Again with the Broadwayesque-Bombast. Every Obama speech is “the moment.” Say, isn’t that the big song from Jekyll and Hyde; The Musical? Mickey Kaus has many thoughts on many things. They’re all worth reading.

Obama’s big speech: I think Powerline has a pretty focused analysis.

James Pethokoukis calls it “The Speech that Didn’t Matter”.

But, as the president put it, “there remain some significant details to be ironed out.” And while that process continues, Obama is likely to grow weaker rather than stronger.

Why not iron out all those issues and bring it back, buddy? Again, what is the rush? Weren’t the Democrats all regretful about the “rush to war,” doesn’t the press continually beat their breast for not asking more questions, and allowing that “rush”? Shouldn’t we all have learned something from that?

Perhaps Obama should have done a dance? Come on baby, let’s do the twist!.

It’s Being touted as a presidency saver, or something, among those polled: 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. CNN ticker also admits at the end of the piece: “sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole.” So…pointless but useful, I guess, if all you really want is an opinion-manipulating headline, and not accuracy. Our modern press.

Ed Morrissey: If Obama merely wanted to fire up the left his speech succeeded. Otherwise:

Obama needed a new argument. Instead of changing out his old slogans, Obama changed out his reasonableness and his veneer of bipartisanship for an ugly, partisan tone, accusing his opponents of lying and demanding an end to “bickering,” which Americans used to call “debate” and “dissent”. He again accused his opposition of not offering any ideas, when Congressional Republicans have a comprehensive reform bill in committee and had copies of it in the chamber when Obama gave his speech.

But straw men are so much more inflammatory than paper, Ed.

Fact-checking: from the AP and Reason. Ed, always fair, takes a look at both.

The Purpose of the Speech: To give cover to the Democrats so they could go out and…make stuff up? “Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) said the speech was clear, concise and positive. “He gave us our marching orders,” she said. “He listened to the American people who have said in poll after poll that they support a public option…”

Really? Is that what Obama heard from the American people when he was simultaneously listening, allowing Pelosi to accuse them of carrying swastikas and declaring that he didn’t want those who disagreed with him “to do a lot of talking”.

UPDATE: Jake Tapper says some Democrat Senators who have been a little critical of health care, have been called to the inquisition White House.

“You lie!” – I have about 100 emails from people calling Joe Wilson “An American Hero.” Please. What he did was not heroic; it was stupid and -as a tactic- a mistake. Any time someone in opposition to Obama does something boorish, it only plays into the administrations hands, via the huffing, indignant press, who never saw a swastika or a rudeness from the left during Bush’s presidency, but are suddenly all shocked, shocked at the devolution of civility in our political arena.

This is the US Congress, not the UK Parliament and Wilson was correct to apologize for his inappropriate outburst. On the other hand, to say the Dems never treated Bush rudely during a speech is inaccurate. Brutally Honest pretty much covers the whole thing, soup-to-nuts and points out that the president stood at his bully pulpit and called a lot of people liars last night.

No, I don’t think Bush ever did that. I’m sure if he had, there would have been outrage, so I’d remember it. And by the way, if you listen to Bush in this video. He was right to sound an alarm that congress still will not honestly or ably address.

There will be outrage, somewhere, I am sure, over Sarah Palin’s facebook response. Outside the Beltway says Obama was deliberately poisoning the well. And, umm…not telling the truth.

Tucker Carlson says Obama sounds like a bitter old guy.

And while I applaud the capitalist urge, I think these are both ugly and dumb. But mostly ugly.

However my son can’t find a job, lots of people can’t find jobs. Obama is focused like a laser on health care but what people need are jobs. What happened to creating jobs? Since no one is talking about creating jobs, I can’t blame anyone for designing and selling ugly shirts.

But you know, if people are losing their jobs, and going on the dole, what a great way to get them enthusiastic about Government run Healthcare!. And government-run everything!

Speaking of which, is there a breaking ACORN scandal? I concur with Kim Priestap who wonders how anyone could take people in these costumes seriously.

American Exceptionalism: Obama’s Science Czar has the cure. It’s not more cowbell. We need to get rid of the czars.

Every Superman Needs a Crystal Cave: I think it’s time for Obama to stop talking and talking and talking about this healthcare bill and just do what he wants. He owns both houses and almost owns the courts. I think he should do his thing and own it. Own it all, and stop pretending that he actually gives a crap what anyone thinks. Then he can move on to currying the favors of dictators and despots in Latin America, and helping to fund oil-drilling in Brazil, but not in America. Priorities, priorities. Drilling for oil, getting at our natural gas reserves and shales would create jobs, you know. And that, apparently…would be bad.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • dry valleys

    Yes, if Obama wins back the support of the Democrats & even more crucially the independents who voted him in then he is a success. There was always a hard core of anti-Bush sentiment, but when he held the centre he was invulnerable to their attacks & won in 2004 despite their rage.

    I have been thinking on this matter. I think the Obama fan club (yes, yes, I’m trying to insult or at least gently mock them) made several mistakes, firstly thinking he’d magically transform the world. Well, I would have voted for him & I see no reason for regrets in this. But it is the public’s responsibility to organise & demand change rather than expect it to be brought about.

    They are realising that congress, which includes many conservative Democrats, meaning a paper majority never adds up to a huge amount, will have a great deal of power (rightly so: Thatcher & Blair showed how bad it is to have a legislature that simply licks on the executive’s ring & the US system is enviable in that way).

    If liberals realise how powerful the conservative lobby is, then they will hopefully start getting involved in campaigns themselves rather than expecting Obama to somehow magically do all the work.

    You find the person you view as best candidate. You get him/her elected, then your work is only just beginning. I’d be ashamed of myself if I wasn’t a member of various groups & doing various things to make my opposition to Brown known, & no doubt I’ll be opposing Cameron. The few sane ideas Cameron has, I’ll be doing what little I can to push him to act on them.

    What else did they think “yes we can” meant, if not that they’d be taking responsibility to bring about change themselves?

  • Ellana

    Speaking of crystal caves, look at this wonder of our Earth:

  • http://heyitsjustablogman.blogspot.com/2009/08/change.html Ted

    Obama was preaching to the choir last night. They swallow anything he feeds them, so his blatant lying is pretty much irrelevant. The propaganda machinery served their leader in their usual fashion. No news there either.

    The troops wanted a pep talk. They have no concern about reality, or truth, so long as they can hear their masters voice, they will be soothed. They really don’t care what was actually said.

    Those in their right mind were either not bothering to watch, watching to accumulate further evidence that Obama is an unbelievable crook and liar, or watching in the vain hope that he would actually change his stripes and say something honest or meaningful, or perhaps we were hoping the GOP or a Blue Dog or two might show some spine.

    No sane human bought any of it.

  • http://victor-undergo.blogspot.com/ Victor

    Hey Anchoress! I’m going to say a few more prayers for your President cause if he’s also got you UP SET then he really is in big trouble! :)

    God Bless


  • http://www.abookofeverything.blogspot.com Brian

    It is amazing how a man can stand there – and just lie, lie lie. What a talent!

    We have to keep on praying, and keep up the good fight. God IS on our side, He will bring good out of all things.


  • J

    Rep. Wilson, out of a large building of people supposedly doing THE PEOPLES’ business, represented me when he called obama’s nonsense a lie, especially after obama calling the citizens’ of this great country…liars. If all it takes is for good men/women to remain silent and evil will flourish….I want to hear more from people like Wilson, it shows a vigorous, vocal people willing to engage in the discussion of which way our country will go…..and not a group of sheep being led by a ruler. What ever happened to this country, for I am sure our founding fathers would have been on their feet shouting and pounding their desks in that insane asylum called the congress of the United States!

  • Bender

    Oh, nuts! Obama Speech Reax

    I supposed that complies with the swear word policy/commenting rules, but my understanding is that Gen. McAuliffe did not really say “Nuts” to the Germans request for surrender — that was the cleaned-up, family-friendly version.

    Even so, I guess it is appropriate for Obama — even if “the time for bickering is over.”

  • Kit

    I’ll tell you what was in Joe Wilson’s heart — he’s been forced to listen to crap being poured all over him and his own until he just couldn’t stand it one more minute. No, he didn’t make a careful political calculation, he just spoke from his heart. That’s the soul of being an American citizen. Let’s face it, if we were all lovely little ladies and gentleman and asked politely of the Democrats for another bowl of gruel, they’d pour crap on us anyway. You think you get brownie points for nice from these people? Time to kick some butts and take some names. You go, Joe.

  • Bobfan

    “The troops wanted a pep talk. They have no concern about reality, or truth, so long as they can hear their masters voice, they will be soothed. They really don’t care what was actually said.”

    I wonder if it’s ever occured to you that they think the same of you. I came here for a Cartholic Christian perspective, but most of what I’ve read has been indistinguishable in tone from what I hear from Limbaugh and Boortz, neither one of whom is a believer, and from Olberman and the smart alecks on Air America on the other side.

    As Christians, shouldn’t we sound different? Shouldn’t we be known by our love in the political sphere just as much as in any other sphere. Could we start with granting that most of our opponents are decent people, and that when they lie (Obama shading the truth on the cost of healthcare; Bush shading the truth about Iraqi WMD development) they probably in hopes of accomplishing good? Could we try arguing as if we’re the body of Christ? I don’t mean that we should never say tought and blunt things to each other, but when we see sin (or what we think is sin) in our opponents, can’t we remind ourselves of our own sin and try to see some good in them?

    [Definitely a conversation that could/should be had, just as soon as we can clarify whether believing the intelligence that everyone believed is in fact "shading the truth." I think it's really imperative that we finally state unequivocally that there is a difference between believing and acting on intelligence one is shown and "lying." If we can't get together on that, then we can't get together on much of anything -admin]

  • Bobfan

    I’m not entirely sure, but give that you write “Just as soon,” I guess the tone of your reply is sardonic, is that right, Anchoress? I hope I’m mistaken.

    You could have linked to other material that seems to show that Bush and Co. cherry-picked the evidence, that they pressured the CIA to suppress doubts and evidence that Saddam was not an immediate threat. But never mind. You’ll note that I credited Bush with good motives. But never mind again. I guess you’re happy hosting a site where people call Obama vile, work themselves into a righteous rage when he doesn’t do the will of the people (them) and instead does what he promised when elected, accuse the Democrats of wanting kill old people and pour crap on the rest of us, and fantasize about “the government” wanting to control us when there are other ways of understanding liberal thinking.

    As an old debate opponent wrote me the other day, “Look at how the word Socialism has been used to create fear in the populace and stifle dialogue. Look at Palin’s death panel remarks. Is this an honest attempt to create dialogue?”

    [Are you suggesting I censor people? Because I'm not about that. I believe people are entitled to their opinions and should be free to express them, even if I don't always agree. I only ask that they don't call any president by vulgar names, make fun of people's appearances, etc. Beyond that, I don't think it's my place to tell people what they should or should not say. So, in that respect, yes, I am happy to have a blog that allows people to say what they wish, whether I agree with them or not, as you yourself do. But how very interesting that first Rand and how you (two of my more liberal readers) come running to me objecting to the comments of others and wondering why I stand for them expressing themselves. Hey. I don't have to agree with my commenters. I very often don't. I am getting a little tired, though of the Alinsky trick (and the Ken-trick you do so well) of the attempts to "shame" me by pointing out what you deem to be unfitting a "Christian" or "Catholic" site. And I do not have to go out of my way to give exposure to the liberal side of things because I have commenters like you and Joseph who do that for me. That's sort of the point of having a comments section. If you think it would be better that I simply kick off everyone I disagree with, or whose tone displeases me, where should I start, exactly? And Obama is not doing "the will of the people." Polling data is always suspect but there is ample evidence out there that 53% or so of the American people don't want his healthcare plan and would prefer he try to create some jobs. He was not elected to just do whatever he pleased, and constituents be damned. But I am not going to get into with you, again, because you have boundless energy for argument, and I don't have same, nor time - I'm sure others will gladly engage you in debate. "See how the word "socialism" has brought fear into the populace? You've got to be kidding me. It did not come from nothing, it wasn't born from a vacuum. "Now that we're socializing healthcare..." (Maureen Dowd) Please. You and Bender can duke it out.

    I've said for a while that spiraling health costs and insurance costs could be drastically affected by allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state borders and if some sensible, not draconian, tort reform was put into place. I still think that's much more reasonable than giving the government this much control over our lives, or for that matter over so much of the economy. I also still argue that Obama's "rush to insure" should be regarded with at least as much derision and suspicion as was brought to Bush's "rush to war," which the press assures us they bear some culpability in, since they "did not ask enough questions." Seems they have not learned their lesson...because it is inconceivable that they have no questions about a plan this president wants to push through even as he admits "the details are not yet fully worked out." (Paraphrase). And yet...-admin]

  • Bobfan

    Anchoress, I’m not suggesting that you censor people, but who you rebut and who you don’t shows where your sympathies lie, and by your giving seemingly free vent to your own cynicism you encourage the same here. Ranting is not conducive to listening. How ’bout if we try listening to each other? What about the next time you post the most cynical take on Obama, you link to a more sympathetic take, just so that your fans might stop and consider it? A little “Fair and Balanced” maybe? Just a little. I’m not asking you not to come down on the conservative side of the _issue_, but what about acknowledging once in a while that there are decent and intelligent who do?

    Because otherwise– I will ask you directly, and challenge you on, yes, your very own blog, to have the humility to answer instead of threaten and scoff — where is Christ in your political threads? Where is manifest the underlying sense that we’re all sinners? Look at the kind of comments they inspire — most of these respondents are probably Christians, but if this weren’t a Christian site, who could tell? (I do respect the fact that you ask folks not to call the prez vulgar names, but “vile” might as well be one).

    You say you’re tired of the “Alinsky trick,” and of people like me trying to shame you. I have never read Alinsky, and my questions and comments are made in a respectful manner. We’re both Christians; if I think I see you in sin, what do I owe it to you to do? Stay silent?

    [Well, it is an Alinsky trick and I"m not going to fall for it. If you don't like the blog or the way it's written and run, I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head making you read it. Who YOU rebut and do not shows your bias as well, and I never said I did not have strong opinions or that no one should. I also never claimed to be "fair and balanced" like Fox News or prattled on about an "unbiased" conceit as the msm still tries to do. I'm a blogger with an opinion, and I have decided that this president - to whom I long-time readers know I did due deference during much of the campaign - has lost my trust. I do not trust him. I do not trust Mrs. Pelosi. But if it makes you feel better, I can't think of three people currently in office (or preparing to run for same) on the right I trust right now, either.

    I try to think the best of everyone until they prove to me by their actions or their rhetoric that I should be on my guard. If I am cynical sometimes, well, that's my failing, but it's something I'll take up with my priest, my husband or my Lord, and not with someone who I am not even sure is being straight with me, and who may in fact be gaming me. I find it remarkable that you - like Ken of old - like to bang the "I'm a Christian and I object to your insufficient Christianity" drum whenever the subject is Obama or his policies comes up, but only then. I am finding it tiring and somehow unconvincing. I have a pretty generous and tolerant nature as Joseph will tell you, but I also have boundaries. Also, this is getting boring. -admin]

  • Linus

    You can find the GOP plan at GOP.gov, it is called H.R. 3400. They have other ideas as well.

  • Bender

    Rush Limbaugh is an atheist?

  • Joseph Marshall

    On the other hand, to say the Dems never treated Bush rudely during a speech is inaccurate. Brutally Honest pretty much covers the whole thing, soup-to-nuts and points out that the president stood at his bully pulpit and called a lot of people liars last night.

    I stand corrected and apologize. I am enough of an historian that I should have remembered that our politics today are the default politics of American history. The politics I grew up with were the exception, not the rule. I do miss it, however. It was wonderful to grow up with even if we will never see it again.

    I will still congratulate you if you win. But if you win then nothing will be done about the cost of health care. Your party attempted absolutely nothing to address health care when it held a Congressional majority and a Presidency. And it will attempt nothing if that state of affairs returns.

    Perhaps this will benefit the country. Perhaps a Republican Congress will refrain from action from the noblest of motives, and the truest philosophy of government, because of their sincere belief that the problem will fix itself and not from any hidden agendas set by lobbying. Perhaps the problem will simply fix itself.

    So let me say that if it does benefit America to defeat this bill, I wish that those who opposed this bill to be the first to profit from it the most–for they will deserve it. If it is possible for their medical care to improve, then I wish for this to happen. If it is possible for their insurance to cost less and cover more may they save and pay less for better care. If it is becomes possible for them to have insurance then when they do not have it now, may they obtain it well before any major medical catastrophe occurs to them.

    As someone on Medicare/Medicaid I already live under “socialism” and am not likely to cease doing so. Hence it is pointless to wish such things for myself. For me, it is moot.

    And if I am wrong and Barack Obama proves to be the foulest, most deceptive, and least beneficial of Presidents; an unregenerate enemy of everything that is America and American; a canting hypocrite of “democracy” who merely wishes to turn dictator and rule by decree rather than govern; a politician who wishes to muzzle all dissent to his will and will stop at nothing to do so by proxy through a bedazzled and slanted national press; a man who asserts [or has his minions assert] the odious and unrestrained powers of a King for his Presidency; a man who has been secretly planning to imprison people in hidden camps indefinitely without fair trial, and thereby destroy his political enemies; a man who underhandedly corrupts schoolchildren by pretending he wants them to stay in school for their own best interests–if all this be so then may history never cease to honor those who sounded the warning call to all Americans that this was so.

    For they will deserve it.

    No one deserves to personally experience the consequences of all their actions, for some of everybody’s actions are inevitably not wise. But anyone who finds wisdom and successfully implements it, whether in public or private life, certainly deserves the wonderful consequences of this.

    Wisdom should not merely be its own reward, and folly inevitably is it’s own punishment, so there is no point in wishing the consequences of folly on anyone and there is much reason to desire that consequences of folly be averted.

    Which I do. For everybody.

  • Bobfan

    “I find it remarkable that you – like Ken of old – like to bang the “I’m a Christian and I object to your insufficient Christianity” drum whenever the subject is Obama or his policies comes up, but only then.”

    But only then? I don’t follow.

  • Lawrence S. Cunningham

    Apropos of the revolting Joe Wilson: Belloc has a quatrain that comes to mind but I quote him from memory: “Of courtesy it is much less/than greatness of heart and holiness/but in my walks it seems to me/the grace of God is in courtesy.

  • Karen May


    Just because a person is a Christian does not mean they must not call a spade a spade but be willing to allow all to be hearts even though they look exactly like a spade. To be a Christian implies a duty to speak the truth which has been discerned through a system of Christian values. A president who lies is to be denounced, not as a human being but as the leader of a free nation. We can call it as we see it and also pray for his soul. There is nothing non-Christian in trying to educate people and keep our nation a free republic as it was intended by our Christian founding fathers. Why do you insist on saying this blog does not express a Christian viewpoint? Christians can’t be truthful? You make no sense to me.

  • JuliB

    Hey bobfan – I have a suggestion for you… Why not pick a point you disagree with specifically, and debate it on the facts? It’s getting awfully old to read you bashing TheAnchoress again and again.

  • SallyJune

    Bobfan: where is Christ?

    Christ is the Way the TRUTH and the Light. Inasmuch as we honestly seek to ferret out the truth in any matter, we are following Him.

  • Bobfan

    JuiliB, I’ve picked many points.

    Over on the 9/11 thread there’s a woman who charges that this administration wants us to do service instead of remembering. Instead of? Perhaps while praying for the victims of 9/11 we should also pray for the heart and mind of someone who would believe, or at least say, such a ridiculous thing.

    Karen May, I agree that we’re called to speak the truth as revealed to us in Scripture and through the Holy Spirit. I said as much. But that starts with remembering that we’re sinners too, just like Obama. And we should also remember that most politicians lie to one degree or another. Bush and Cheney certainly told some whoppers — did they make you mad? Lying is a besetting temptation for people in power; I’m not excusing it, but when the outrage is all directed at one party, it’s partisan, not principled. And I said nothing to make you think I oppose educating people to keep the country free.

  • Bender

    Yeah you guys — get those specks out of your eyes!!!

    (Nevermind the old-growth forest in the eyes of some people.)

  • http://victor-undergo.blogspot.com/ Victor

    Hey Bender! You go to church to!? :)


  • Joseph Marshall

    I have a pretty generous and tolerant nature as Joseph will tell you, but I also have boundaries.

    Yes, indeed. And on the other side of those boundaries is a glittering holy terror.

  • Bobfan

    “You have a log in your eye,”

    “No, you have a log in _your_ eye”

    accusations are pretty pointless without specifics, Bender. I will say that if another Christian said to me, “you’re sinning in such and such a way,” my response would not be to scoff.

  • Bobfan

    On his blog over at Beliefnet, Rod Dreher comments on an article by John McWhorter entitled 9/11 and tribalism. Dreher writes in part: “I look at old photos of Southern white families who would go witness lynchings of black men as if were a lovely Sunday outing, and I think: that could be me. But I also look at the photos of the hanged men, and think: in another context, that too could be me. No race nor class nor religion escapes the tribalist temptation.”

    This sort of thoughtful honesty and humility is what I miss here. I don’t blame you for watching the Obama presidency through the prism of conservatism and objecting to much of what he’s trying to do. What I fault you for is your tribalism, your inclination to demonize, which is as obvious to the rest of us as the Left’s inclination to demonize you is to you (and to me).

    You folks like to pretend you’re scared of socialism, scared of how Obama wants to transform the country, and I’m sure that one one level you are. I understand and honor that. But from the looks of it, given all the venting, given the absence of any acknowledgement that good people come in various ideological flavors, you also love to be scared. You love to scare each other. You’re not having a nightmare, you’re having a party.You’re the righteous remnant, fighting the good fight against the most lying president ever! He doesn’t care about the poor — he just wants to take away your liberty! He’s not a fellow sinner — he’s vile! Onward Christian Soldiers, raise your glasses!

    We need a conservative Christian political voice in this country. We need it so badly for the sake of the unborn, the lost, the hopeless, the ignorant and indoctrinated. You could be that voice. But you’ll have to be honest with yourselves first.

    (And here’s my response to everyone who insinctively accuses me of being smug. It cost me nothing to say this. If I’m 100% correct, that counts as zip nada nothing for righteousness in God’s eyes. I’m not smug. I’m sad).

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Bobfan, I am being honest with myself, and you, when I say—most sincerely—that I really am afraid of socialism. I’m not pretending.

    Have you taken a look at Socialism’s history, throughout the 20th Century? There’s good reason to be alarmed by it. It’s not fun to be scared, and it’s no party; the 20th Century has been a bad time. Totalitarian governments, many of them with Marxist/socialist/statist agendas, have wreaked havoc throughout it.

    Obama is, indeed, a fellow sinner. He’s not a monster. Neither is he a messiah, above criticism, to be followed with unquestioning obedience. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to be able to read minds, or hearts, so I can’t say what he thinks or feels; I can only judge him by his actions, and speeches, and these, I find alarming. I’m not alone in this.

    If you find the Anchoress, and the posters here, so lacking in humility and honesty, why bother coming here at all? You could read Dreher, or any other blogger you’re more compatible with, to your heart’s content, all day long, and not concern yourself with our moral defects.

    Finally, you may, indeed, be sad, not smug, as you claim, but smug is, unfortunately, the way you come across most of the time. Are you being entirely honest with yourself?

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Bobfan, Bender is referring to something Jesus said, when He rebuked hypocrites who criticized sinners, while ignoring, and refusing to change, their own faults.

    The sins that are being referred to here are pride, and hypocrisy.

  • Bobfan

    Rhinestone, I know the verse he’s referring to. It would just be nice to know where I’m supposedly hypocritical, and how (read my last paragraph above) my being critical shows I’m proud. Otherwise the charge is just a kneejerk response. I have no idea what any of you are like offline, but I’m sure some of you are much better people than I am.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Bobfan, I believe he was referring to your habit of constantly lecturing the posters here for being imperfect Christians, for failing to live up to your standards for them, and for supposedly supporting only one party. You do this in many posts. Two specific ones are your response to Julie B. above, and the long post where the Anchoress herself takes you to task for all the long-winded pontificating. I suggest you go back and re-read it.

    Since you have no idea what any of us are really like, it might be a good idea for you to refrain from the lectures, and from accusations that we are all merely pretending to be worried, and just enjoy scaring ourselves, etc., etc., etc. Again, whatever the truth of the case, it comes across as smug, not sad.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    In fact, going back and double-checking, there are two longs posts where the Anchoress takes you down, quite rightly, in my opinion, for what she calls Ken/Saul Alinksy tricks. Please, go back and re-read what she says.

    And, if you still don’t get it, there’s no use trying to point it out to you anymore.

  • Dave (Barb’s other half)

    Its the height of, well, rudeness- to come into someone’s house as a guest, be invited to dinner, eat- freely– and then lecture your host that she hasn’t taken sufficient care to address the fact that you can’t stand the wine she chooses to go with fish, or that you would rather she serve coq au vin– and what does she have against the French anyway?

    And, implying, that by not taking your tastes into account, she is a bad host, or that the other guest’s tastes aren’t as refined as yours.

    You don’t have to come to dinner. You don’t have eat what the Anchoress is serving. Really… don’t ruin an otherwise interesting and satisfying meal for everyone else by constantly playing the food critic.

    Make your own meal, to your own tastes- and enjoy it. I’m sure others will too.

  • Bobfan

    Rhinestone, charity towards one’s opponent is not my own standard,”and lecturing” and “pontificating” are just judgmental words for criticizing. As I’ve said, I don’t pretend to know what you’re like offline. But once Obama became a serious contender for the presidency, the culture war heated up again, with a lot of people left and right yelling and not listening. And blessed are the peacemakers: you can press for what you believe in without being ugly. This site is a daily whinefest, often indistinguishable in tone from the nasties on talk radio. Don’t you think there should be something distinctively Christian about conservative Christian opposition? Am I missing it?

  • Bobfan

    Dave, I thought this was a discussion site.

  • Bobfan

    Rhinestone, I missed one of your posts before and I apologize, because I’m grateful for your heartfelt reponse. I understand your fear of socialism as it’s played out in the past, I just cannot for the life of me see any connection between bailing out banks so we can take out new house and auto loans, and caring for the least of these via the government (whether wisely or foolishly from an economic perspective) and totalitarianism.

    “Obama is, indeed, a fellow sinner. He’s not a monster.”

    I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to read that here.

    “Neither is he a messiah, above criticism”

    Agreed. Of course not. I understand your alarm at his actions, given your ideological opposition. And I respect it.

    “Unlike you, I don’t pretend to be able to read minds, or hearts,”

    A) Bush is lying for the sake of his agenda here (his agenda being what he, out of his love for this country, thinks is best for it).

    B) Bush is lying! He’s “vile”!

    Do these really sound the same to you? Take a look at the following comments posted here”

    “The troops wanted a pep talk. They have no concern about reality, or truth, so long as they can hear their masters voice, they will be soothed. They really don’t care what was actually said.”

    “Let’s face it, if we were all lovely little ladies and gentleman and asked politely of the Democrats for another bowl of gruel, they’d pour crap on us anyway.”

    “Obama was preaching to the choir last night. They swallow anything he feeds them, so his blatant lying is pretty much irrelevant.”

    Do these people sound like they’re loving their neighbors, or reveling in believing the worst about them? Well I had my moments to repent of today too,so I’m not better than they are, but my concern is that these sentiments are accepted and not recognized for the uncharitable, no-I-won’t-walk-a-mile-in-your-shoes sentiments they are.

    And what of this exchange:

    “We’re both Christians; if I think I see you in sin, what do I owe it to you to do? Stay silent?”


    “[Well, it is an Alinsky trick and I”m not going to fall for it}.”

    Huh? The Biblical injunction to go to your brother and confront him with what you believe — again, rightly or wrongly, but sincerely — as his sin is a 20th century Marxist trick?

    “Are you being entirely honest with yourself?”

    I hope so.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Bobfan, if you do not like many of the comments here, you are perfectly free to stop reading, and go to another blog you feel more in tune with, ideologically. Or, since you find the other posters here so bad, your time might be more usefully spent praying for them.

    Sadly, Obama has lost the Trust of many Americans. Some of them express this loss diplomatically, some are a lot more blunt—but the fact is, it’s happened. Is it somehow wrong, unchristian, uncharitable to discuss this? Or is the president to be regarded as a Caliph, or Pharoh—someone above the masses, immune from all criticism, to be followed unquestioningly, whether his programs seem to be good ones, or not? How is it “unchristian” to criticize a public official? Yes, public officials are sinners, and human, too, but they’re also men with power, whose actions need to be scrutinized, and discussed, lest they harm the rest of society. You don’t like it when Obama’s criticized; I didn’t like it when Bush was criticized, but I never thought Bush’s critics were necessarily, evil, unenlightened or unchristian for such criticism; wrongheaded, maybe, but not morally wrong. And Bush was criticized far worse than Obama has.

    You do realize, don’t you, that there are several people who post here, and that many of them aren’t going to agree with you, or each other, or the Anchoress? That’s how freedom of speech works.

    Furthermore, didn’t the Anchoress explain her stance on censorship, and why she doesn’t want to do that much of it, several posts back? Didn’t you read that? You seem upset that she doesn’t delete posts you don’t like, or ban posters you disagree with, but she’s explained her reasons for not doing so. Again—you’re free to stop reading this blog, if you wish. You’re not free to demand it be re-written according to your own lights. And, yes, harping on and on about things which have already been explained to you is an Alinsky style trick.

    You keep saying you don’t think you’re better than the other posters here, but your self-righteousness and anger indicates just the opposite. If you really are trying to be honest with yourself, you might want to think about that.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Hmmm, Bobfan, “lecturing” and “pontificating” are just “judgmental words for criticizing”—I see! You’re the only one around here who’se allowed to judge others. When you do it, you’re being an upstanding Christian, kindly showing others the error of our ways; not smug, oh no, never smug! When someone criticizes you, it’s just being “judgmental.” But that’s not because you consider yourself better than the rest of the posters here. I see.

    Believe me, I see.

  • The_Anchoress

    That’s enough. From everyone. What is not wearying is just boring. And both the aggressiveness and the passive-aggressiveness is pissing me off. Also, I’m going to say this one more time, and it’s for everyone: This forum is not a place for people to run around calling each other sinners and deciding whose Christianity is sufficient or insufficient. That includes mine, too. I’m more than tired of the sad-sighing about what a woeful Christian I am. I know exactly how sinful I am, thanks, and I confess my faults quite freely but I don’t think it’s anyone else’s job to take my inventory for me, especially when I do not do such a thing to anyone else. I don’t concern myself with judging the state of anyone else’s soul, and I don’t tell anyone here -that includes YOU, Bobfan, whether I think they’re doing enough for Jesus or not. Those sorts of comments by you -whether directed at me or anyone else- are going to stop, now, if you wish to continue commenting here. I don’t spend a lot of time telling everyone that I’m doing my Christian duty by telling them all the ways they’re falling short by my lights and agendas, and I’ll be damned if my commenters will do it to each other, or to me. So, consider yourself warned, and everyone else, too. If comments are going to devolve into people judging the state of each other’s Christianity (or whatever religion) then comments will be discontinued, but not before a few arses are booted out of here. We’re coming into Sunday, for crying out loud. Let us pray for each other, and move the heck on. Comments closed on this thread.