93 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackbacks off |
correction: I hope that critics of this administration are not consumed by the unprecedented, hateful hysteria that has surrounded our last two presidents. |
arj, that’s a bunch of nonsense. Clinton didn’t get it any worse than Reagan did. Clinton was just guilty of more clear cut problems; viz., caught in an unambiguous lie by DNA evidence. Bush has run the most scandal-free administration in 20 years — this is objectively true — but his opponents would have us believe he and his VP are the most corrupt executives in recent history. I’m really sorry that your side of the isle is so singularly laden with whack-jobs — the same of elected officials who told mainstream media outlets that Palen was sympathetic to Nazi promoters, that she was a secessionist, that she was retarded. Since you’re a non-whack-job on the left, I can understand why you find it embarrassing, and why you’re so anxious to find some type of parity between the misbehavior of your political allies and those on the other side of the isle. But the liberal whack-jobs really do denigrate our entire system. We’ll see how far they get trying to prosecute Bush. |
He botched his count in the first line of his inaugural address. Grover Cleveland was president twice, and rightly we count him as #22 and #24. But there have only been 43 Americans who have taken the oath of office. Some reporter for a talk show was going around trying to stump people in DC (”Which president will Obama be?”). Barney Frank got it right *and* pointed out that it’s only 43 individuals. |
It was actually Chief Justice Roberts who botched the oath, not Obama. |
I wonder if Roberts got flustered because Obama started to repeat after him before he’d finished the line? (But yes, John Roberts has ONE function at this event, and he blew it.) |
Christopher, Obama did flub it up, because he started to repeat Roberts before he’d finished. Roberts then tried to go with the flow, and offer Obama the oath from where he’d left off, and he started off with the wrong first word, corrected himself, and got underway. It could happen to anyone. Personally, I thought it was great, because the ultra-polished nature of ceremonies in general irritates me. Anyway, when I was writing this, I debating with myself whether to bring it up, because I suppose that there’s an “Obama can do no wrong” crowd out there that won’t countenance the fact that Obama is a mortal. |
That’s right, DKL, it was John Roberts who messed up the oath — Obama graciously paused to decide whether to repeat it as written (and practiced beforehand, presumably) or to follow John Roberts’ wording. |
Also, I agree with you that a definite highlight was the benediction. Wonderfully moving and inspiring prayer. I also really enjoyed the inauguration speech itself — great oratory. |
john f, Regarding the oath: The point of having the oath administered is that you repeat after the administrator. |
John Roberts’ first mistake in the oath was that he sped through too large of a phrase for a repeated oath. Then, he messed up the wording itself. Go figure. Maybe he should have used notes instead of winging it by memory. |
Just to add to DKL’s music trivia (because it was a quartet, not a trio): Anthony McGill, the clarinetist, is from Chicago and lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. He plays for the Metropolitan Opera, and is an incredibly nice guy and a remarkable clarinetist. There’s a great article on him here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0120-clarinet-mcgilljan20,0,4008347.story |
I think my last comment got stuck in moderation. Here’s the transcript: ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama… OBAMA: I, Barack… ROBERTS: … do solemnly swear… OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear… ROBERTS: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully… OBAMA: … that I will execute… ROBERTS: … faithfully the office of president of the United States… OBAMA: … the office of president of the United States faithfully… ROBERTS: … and will to the best of my ability… OBAMA: … and will to the best of my ability… ROBERTS: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. OBAMA: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. ROBERTS: So help you God? OBAMA: So help me God. (from Reuters) |
Oh, and he’s 29. I can’t imagine being able to play with such big-name classical performers at 29. |
So, the verdict: Obama started his name before Roberts finished his phrase. Roberts corrected himself on “faithfully”. Obama didn’t. |
Roberts tried to correct himself when he repeated the second line, but he didn’t get it right the second time either. In the end, neither of them ever said the oath correctly. |
Thanks DKL – nice summary. I too love “Stars and Stripes Forever” – it is a great song. |
It’s all ceremonial. As of noon, he was president, with or without it. |
I loved Aretha Franklin’s hat. Pure black church lady. I loved Rick Warrren’s prayer. I appreciated his invoking Christ in his prayer for America. Closing prayer was good too.Messing up the oath showed the human side. His speech was moving. No matter your politics, today is a great day for all Americans. Then it will be back to business as usual (sigh). I sure hope that Pres. Obama does not raise our taxes. |
By the way, speaking of the title of this post, the rendition of Hail to the Chief that was played sounded like circus music — that was too bad. |
Thanks queuno. This is the line that caused the pause: “that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully” — should Obama repeat it this way, as John Roberts has said it, or the right way? |
Sam B, thanks for adding the info on McGill. I hadn’t meant to exclude him. john f, wrong again. What caused the problem was that Obama broke in before Roberts had finished. In a call-and-response recital like an oath administration, the first person to screw up has to take the blame for any avalanche of screw-ups that occurs as a result. Obama interrupted Roberts’ recital, Roberts took a second to regain his footing, and the oath proceeded apace. |
DKL, |
Obama’s quick response may have thrown Roberts off, but Roberts has to take the blame for the fiasco that he initiated. Roberts was the first one to use the wrong words, and he never did regain his footing. He got “president of the United States” correct on the second try, but he never did master the correct phrase “faithfully execute.” |
DKL, Obama is mortal? Dammit. Thanks for ruining my day. |
Obama’s quick response may have thrown Roberts off, but Roberts has to take the blame for the fiasco that he initiated. Roberts was the first one to use the wrong words, and he never did regain his footing. He got “president of the United States” correct on the second try, but he never did master the correct phrase “faithfully execute.” Ah, postpartisanism. |
I just listened to a bunch of previous presidential oaths. Most often, the chief justice’s first stop is after “solemnly swear,” although at George W. Bush’s second inaugural, the first stop was after the name. So there is at least a recent precedent for the the form that Obama was apparently expecting. I don’t know if the two of them had any previous agreement as to how the oath would be administered. As to who screwed up first, a case could be made that Roberts’ cadence initiated the problem. Previous justices went all the way through “do solemnly swear” without pause. Roberts used a different cadence, with just enough of a pause to lead Obama to jump in earlier than Roberts intended. Interestingly, the first President Bush also jumped in early at the same point Obama did. However in that case, Renquist managed to complete the oath correctly. |
Great speech. Great prayer at the end. I would have been hard on Elizabeth Alexander if she was sitting across the table from me in a workshop somewhere. But who cares? God has blessed America with another peaceful transfer of power. |
Drudge posted this bit from Rev. Lowery’s benediction: “….help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right.” It seemed bitterly racist as well as odd since many “white” people voted for Obama. It also strayed from Obama’s message of personal responsibility that I enjoyed in his address. Can anyone provide any insight as to why no one seems to be offended by these words? |
not sure, macy. everyone i watched it with paused at that last line. “did he really just say that?!” it was cute till then (though “yellows” needing to “mellow” could also be considered offensive, not just for the labelling of “yellow”). when the oath was flubbed, i groaned. my husband’s grandmother will have new email forward fodder now that she’s exhausted her “he’s a terrorist!” and “he’s not even an american citizen!” arguments. i’m honestly waiting for conspiracy theories about how he’s not really the president. |
Christopher, 24: It’s true: Obama is mortal (DKL is the immortal). DKL: I said the same thing after the prayer by Lowery: that should have been the “national poem” (or whatever). Poet lady—I’m not even going to try to remember her name—was unbearable. Obama’s speech was really good (I am one of those “inspired by his rhetoric”), especially because he wasn’t interrupted every minute by applause. Macy, 28: I wasn’t offended because I knew his intent; no harm where none was meant. I just wasn’t sure why “yellows” need to be mellow—at first I thought, “Oh, yellow means European descent, so that makes sense,” but then he went on to mention whites. That makes “yellow” Asians? I’m not sure how they aren’t already mellow…? In other words, I was a little confused, but not offended. Did Lowery say “black will not be asked to give back” or “get back”? |
I would think anyone would take a prayer in which they are encouraged to embrace what is right, especially considering that he was working within the confines of rhyme. |
ARJ, surely you caught the clear implication that the day where white embraces right hasn’t happened yet? Not a major scandal, but an unfortunate choice of words. |
Thanks, BrianJ. And yes, “yellow” would be referring to Asians. The yellow with mellow is the reason why I hate the rhyme scheme with poems–forces some down illogical alleyways. What do you think his intent was, though? I can respect his history as a civil rights leader, but it seems he’s still stuck back in the 60’s, segregating and stereotyping us all just as much as the racist white man did back then. And I say this as one who has as much racial diversity as Obama. |
I agree with your feelings on the prayers and the music. That first prayer had absolutely no feeling of reverence for me. I did not vote for President Obama, however, I too have a feeling that his presidency will be different. Not because of his skin color, but because of the person he is – just watching him causes one to stand a little taller. I believe that he truly believes what he says, and even if he is a bit idealistic, maybe the strength of his expectations will help convince others. Do I think this is a new era? It is for me, for he is my age, and that has changed my level of interest in governmental matters. Somehow I am now part of it. I especially hope that he influences our youth – that they get the message that we have to pull up our sleeves and get to work, especially at helping others. I hope he will inspire them to make the most out of their lives, to hold their heads high and look others in the eye. I know he is already influencing some youth. My two youngest are watching the parade as I write this. |
JimD, I don’t know. Do you think that by “right” he meant right-wing politics, or do you think he mean righteousness? Has either been fully embraced? In any case, I would hope that his prayers for each color would apply to all of us. |
DKL (#2), I had assumed that you were familiar with the content of talk radio during the Clinton years. Certainly Bill earned a share of the “hateful hysteria” heaped upon him, but it certainly exceeded (and preceded) what was merited by his shameful conduct. Bush was subject to “hateful hysteria” from the start partially because of the fiasco that was the 2000 election. That wasn’t his fault personally, so he didn’t really merit it. After 9-11 he had enormous goodwill both in the country and around the world. It is a matter of opinion whether the way in which he squandered that goodwill and harmed his own party merits the more recent “hateful hysteria.” In any case I’m able to agree to disagree about whether we’ve had one or two administrations that were marked by either hate or hysteria. I certainly join you in your hope that critics engage this administration more constructively than in the recent past. |
DKL: Roberts seemed to recover from being cut off. But he said the next phrase wrong, and never fixed it. “Faithfully” goes before execute, not after. From the constitution:
Compare with Roberts (video, or as quoted in comment above). In the end, I agree with you DKL that I enjoyed how it brought a moment of humanity to an otherwise dry, formal ceremony. |
Thanks queuno. This is the line that caused the pause: “that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully” — should Obama repeat it this way, as John Roberts has said it, or the right way? I look it as like a blessing on a baby. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. (Obama was president at 12:00 noon, anyway. There’s no constitutional provision for what happens if he flubs a line.) I believe Obama should have just said it correctly, even if Roberts flubbed it. |
I have a dream, that one day national politics will move on from anything associated with the 60s and 70s. |
Macy: I found the color terms mildly amusing but certainly appropriate. The inauguration was a time (in part) to reflect on the past when such a setting would have been impossible—a time when all of those terms meant much more than they do now. I felt that Lowery was mocking those terms to some degree—having a little bit of fun with terms that yesterday were not fun at all—and for that reason I found no offense. I’m sure no one was cringing when he said “black,” and everyone was still okay with “brown,” but then we move into color terms for other people and it gets touchy. I think that’s part of the joke. Of course, I think it’s impossible to tell a joke without offending someone or something (the very definition of a joke, I think). This is getting a little off-topic now, but I remember reading about jokes among the Western Apache. They talk about teasing and joking as “stretching the leather.” Every joke strains a relationship to some degree: as with stretching leather, the goal is to pull hard enough to stretch it but not so hard that you cause a tear. If successful, the result is a piece of leather that is less brittle/is a friendship that is stronger. (Very close friends will often tease each other very harshly as a sign that their friendship is strong enough to withstand such insults.) Again, this is off-topic, but it came to mind as I thought how to discuss my reaction to Lowery’s joke. |
I didn’t vote for him either, but I really liked the theme of personal responsibility he spoke about today, and I do think he’s a decent man–very different from Bill Clinton, to be sure. Also, as he’s just slightly older than I am, it’ll be different having someone in the White House with whom I can identify, in many ways. Color me cautiously optimistic. |
Oops, I was responding to #34 above. |
Thanks, BrianJ. I understand where you’re coming from, although it’s easier to allow for such a perspective as yours if you voted for him. [apologies for multiple postings] |
Macy: [Reverend Lowry's references to color] seemed bitterly racist as well as odd since many “white” people voted for Obama. It also strayed from Obama’s message of personal responsibility that I enjoyed in his address. Can anyone provide any insight as to why no one seems to be offended by these words? I couldn’t disagree with you more about this appearance of racism that you allege, and I found the use of the color terms was absolutely appropriate. Reverend Lowry was offering a blessing on all races that was meant to capture the profundity of the occasion with a bit of light-heartedness, and the audience responded in that spirit with laughter. Furthermore, the fact that the occasion of reverence (viz., the inaugural benediction) was punctuated by appropriate laughter is proof that Reverend Lowry’s prayer was a joyful prayer, and it was as distant as one can imagine from any hint of bitterness. |
arj: I had assumed that you were familiar with the content of talk radio during the Clinton years. Oh, yeah. The vast right wing conspiracy and all that. Now I understand why the left is so comfortable with it’s partisan hysteria of hate: It convinces itself that the other side does the same thing. But more to the point, history will show that GW Bush was classier than his opponents — by a mile. Not so with the Clintons. arj: It is a matter of opinion whether the way in which he squandered that goodwill and harmed his own party merits the more recent “hateful hysteria.” This myth that he “squandered” his goodwill is all part of the hateful hysteria. I remember speaking with a close friend of mine in late 2003. He (with about 10 others) had recently been part of a personal policy briefing at the White House with President Bush. My friend had asked President Bush what he would do if the Iraq War became unpopular. President Bush looked him in the eye and said something to the effect of, “Right now, the war is popular. My people tell me that this popularity will last another 26 months. When that runs out, I’m sticking with this no matter how long it takes.” Of course, when the going got tough, Obama was ready to declare that American defeat was inevitable and turn Iraq over to the terrorists. (That’s why the left loves him — there’s nothing they like better than bemoaning American defeat.) If things are going to be different, then they’re getting worse. On the bright side, it looks like there’s going to be a lot more foreign policy continuity than Obama let on during the election. |
DKL: Thank you for providing the context. This is why I requested insight from you all. |
“Bush has run the most scandal-free administration in 20 years — this is objectively true” I Object! But surely this hinges on what events fall under our own personal definitions of “scandal” and I will jump ahead to the agree to disagree portion of this thread. FWIW Roberts apologized to Obama saying “It was my fault” at the Congressional luncheon. Maybe he was just being polite, but I also felt that it was his fault. As long as I don’t have to survive an avalanche of “he’s not REALLY the president e-mails,” it was no biggie. For those of you who did not recognize it, the benediction quoted extensively from “Lift Every Voice and Sing”–nicknamed the Black National Anthem. I also thought the concluding, somewhat irreverent and quite dated, lines some of you have been discussing were Civil Rights era rhymes that he was quoting to point out how far we have come and that we can finally say “amen” to that time, those divisions, and those ideas (remember how he invited 3 amens immediately after?). Anyway, that was my take on it. I think our society has lost its’ taste for poetry. Just want to echo DKLs comment about peaceful transitions–we do them right. Text for Lift Every Voice…: |
Nice recap, but I have to take issue with one item. Saying that Aretha’s rendition of My Country tis’ of Thee was the worst performance you’ve ever heard is like saying that a talk by Elder Haight circa 2004 was the worst general conference talk you’ve heard. Objectively, probably neither represents the pinnacle of their respective careers, but seriously, how could you possibly hate on Aretha or DBH in those situations? What’s next, you gonna tell us you hate ice cream and puppies too!? |
He does hate ice cream AND puppies. |
Geez, who cares who flubbed the oath? Honestly, it’s like arguing with an Evangelical over whether Joseph Smith ever said there were men on the moon. Relax guys. Obama’s presidency is still “true” – even if he did flub the oath. |
The references to the colors of people at the end of the benediction is a traditional line of humorous rhyming poetry/slang in African American communities (like the dozens), especially in speeches and prayers from the pulpit. Lowery was just giving a shout-out to his people. Those in the know would pick up on it immediately and laugh with him. He was trusting the rest of us to go along with it without being offended. |
FWIW Roberts apologized to Obama saying “It was my fault” at the Congressional luncheon. Maybe he was just being polite, but I also felt that it was his fault. As long as I don’t have to survive an avalanche of “he’s not REALLY the president e-mails,” it was no biggie. What’s he gonna do? Tell BHO that it was really his fault, on his big day? They both share in the blame. Too bad they didn’t practice… |
arj, It’s hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of anyone meriting “hateful hysteria”. It’s definitely there and a its huge reason why I’m not a Democrat (or a Limbaugh/Hannity fan). |
ESO: He does hate ice cream AND puppies. Yes! But more than simply hate them, I vow to abolish those twin relics of barbarism, ice cream AND puppies. ESO: …the benediction quoted extensively from “Lift Every Voice and Sing”–nicknamed the Black National Anthem. Thanks for the added context for Reverend Lowery’s prayer. |
Sam B: …the main reason I noticed [the omission of info on Anthony McGill] is because I know — or, at least, am an acquaintance of — the guy That’s very cool. It’s also nice to know that he’s a good guy. I may have a CD set with him playing — the 2005 DG recording of Le nozze di Figaro, with James Levine conducting the Metropolitan Opera. (It’s a terrific version, BTW. Levine errs on the aggressive side with his conducting, and Susanna’s giggle gets irritating, but other than that it is just as good as Böhm’s canonical and nearly perfect 1968 version with the Orchestra der Deutsche Oper Berlin in most respects. The main reason I bought the Levine/Met version, though, is that Anne Sofie von Otter is the best sounding Cherubino on any recording anywhere.) |
Obama wants to turn Iraqi security over their government not terrorist. Talking points of McCain or Mitt Romney campaigns are over. I will assure you the security of Iraq will be just find when Obama is President. Stay tuned my friends . More news about this will come out tommorrow. |
Pentagon says But nearly six years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the nation’s long-term stability remains threatened by disagreements among its power brokers, the report says. The quarterly progress report, required by Congress, was the final assessment submitted before President Bush leaves office next week. By the end of November, it says, security incidents had reached their lowest weekly number since the U.S. military began systematically counting attacks on military targets and civilians in January 2004. In Baghdad, the number of attacks declined 72% from the same period in 2007. “The security environment in Iraq continues to improve as violence has dropped dramatically in the last 20 months and normal life is returning to the country,” the report says. “Many residents now express greater hope for the future and are demanding a better standard of living.” The Pentagon reports initially were criticized as unrealistically upbeat, and became more grim and realistic over time. In the last year, as security across Iraq improved, the reports have grown more positive, but have retained a cautious tone. The basic findings of the latest report, the 14th so far, were broadly accepted by Iraq experts, but some warned that the situation remained fragile and that progress could easily be reversed as the U.S. withdraws its forces. “There has been unmistakable progress in Iraq,” said Vikram J. Singh, a scholar at the Center for a New American Security. “It is probably true the average Iraqi now has more concerns over the quality of life rather than mere survival. The danger is none of the underlying political challenges in Iraq have been addressed.” The Pentagon report acknowledges that political tensions remain and have continued to stall key pieces of legislation other than the recent U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, which set the term for America’s military departure. “The underlying sources of instability in Iraq have yet to be resolved,” the report says. “Iraq remains fragile because its major power brokers do not share a unified national vision.” The report is available at the Pentagon’s website, http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs. |
B. Tippetts: Obama wants to turn Iraqi security over their government not terrorist. Talking points of McCain or Mitt Romney campaigns are over. I will assure you the security of Iraq will be just find when Obama is President. Stay tuned my friends . More news about this will come out tomorrow. Nice straw man. Here’s what I said: “Obama was ready to declare that American defeat was inevitable and turn Iraq over to the terrorists.” Now that Bush has turned things around and proven Obama’s inevitable-defeat theory to be wrong, Obama is more than happy to continue the original trajectory of the war, which always involved the ultimate goal of turning Iraqi security over to their government — a conclusion which, by the way, has already been successfully negotiated under the Bush administration. The fact that, as you point out, “Obama wants to turn Iraqi security over their government” simply proves my point that Obama was wrong when he wanted to unilaterally withdraw. Of course there is more to be done — that’s why we’re not turning things over today, and that’s why it’s important to keep forces there for a while longer. The point remains: 18 months ago, Obama believed that it would be impossible to make the progress that we’ve made thus far, that the US couldn’t win, and that we should unilaterally pull out. Unilaterally pulling out would have left Iraq to the terrorist. Proof that Obama was wrong: He’s reversed his policy and no longer supports immediate, unilateral withdrawal. The left did the same thing with Reagan and the Cold War. The left declared Reagan’s anti-Communist agenda to be counterproductive and futile, opposing it at every turn. Then, once Reagan proved them wrong, they just pretended that they’d never opposed it so that they didn’t have to admit that they were foreign policy blockheads. As Democrat Senator Zell Miller said in frustration in 2004: Folks on the left “don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.” If you’re going to accuse someone of using campaign talking points, you need to be prepared to actually demonstrate that (a) she’s wrong, and (b) you have a grasp of the situation. When you have nothing to say that rises above the threshold of relevance (as is the case here), you undermine your own credibility. |
Oh, yeah. The vast right wing conspiracy and all that. Now I understand why the left is so comfortable with it’s partisan hysteria of hate: It convinces itself that the other side does the same thing. Ah, so when some on the left act poorly the entire left is at fault, but when some on the right do so not only is the right not at fault, but the entire problem is simply a figment of the left’s wild imagination. Classy. |
“Ah, so when some on the left act poorly the entire left is at fault, but when some on the right do so not only is the right not at fault, but the entire problem is simply a figment of the left’s wild imagination. Classy.” No, it is when the Right does it there are clear individuals that can be pointed out. When the Left does it there is a collective voice, press releases, public protests, and a whipping up of populist rhetoric. |
Yes, the left is a faceless mass of homogeneity. |
You can’t be serious, arj. You’re smarter than that, and you don’t need to oversimplify things to make your case. It’s not that the right is composed of individuals and the left is a faceless mass. It’s that you’ve implicitly adopted a double standard to justify the heinous and hateful misdeeds of your fellow partisans. Specifically, when the “right” does it, you point to talk radio hosts. When the left does it, it’s elected officials and mainstream media outlets. The double standard that you’ve adopted assumes that there’s some kind of parity between talk show hosts on the one hand and elected officials and mainstream media outlets on the other. |
I’m not the one justifying anything or making excuses. I’m not the one that’s adopted a double standard. If I were to point out one source of hate on the left it would be moveon.org or the idiotic huffingtonpost. The left’s online community is the counterpart to talk radio. Plus the right has nutty TV talk show hosts of its own. There has been plenty of hate to go around. I’m willing to admit to seeing it on both sides. |
I’m not the one justifying anything or making excuses. You started by saying that Clinton was the victim of hysterical hatred approaching what has been leveled against Bush. I think that’s so inarguably wrong and utterly preposterous that it’s not something I’d normally argue about. If anyone but you had said it, I’d have ignored it. a random john: If I were to point out one source of hate on the left it would be moveon.org or the idiotic huffingtonpost. You’re leaving out NBC, ABC, and CBS. You know, the evening “news.” And The New York Times and The Washington Post. Oh, and CNN. The hate politics of the left go back to the propaganda war against Joseph McCarthy. When he lived, he was the most beloved American Senator. He was given a state funeral that was attended by 30,000 people, and Robert Kennedy made him the Godfather of his daughter Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. But thanks to the hate campaign of the left (NBC, ABC, CBS, et. al.) everyone now thinks that sits next to Hitler in Hell. I have an English teacher who tried to teach the class that McCarthy was a member of HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) — a fact that most people believe to this day, in spite of the fact that it’s impossible for him to serve on a House committee; he was a Senator. Such is the nonsense that people believe about him (and this teacher, who was reflexively liberal, was quite the hateful bitch herself — but that’s another story…) Then there are the elected liberals, like Congressman Robert Wexler (D) of Florida, who was Obama’s Florida campaign chairman throughout the duration of the campaign. He charged Palin with supporting a Nazi sympathizer, implying that she was a Nazi sympathizer herself. Or Charles Rangel (D), Congressman from NYC, who called “Sarah Palin” disabled:
Or, contrast the recent transition of GW Bush to Obama (which was, by all accounts, cooperative and graceful on the part of GW Bush and his staff) with the transition of Clinton to GW Bush (where the Clintonites vandalized their offices and purposefully left everything a huge mess in order to stick their finger in the eye of the new administration). This is pretty filthy stuff. Regrettably, it’s also been the norm in American politics for so long that nobody bats an eye. Now, I realize that McCarthy and Palin are not GW Bush. I bring them up to demonstrate that the longstanding home of hatred in American politics is the left. Moveon.org simply carries that tradition forward more boldly. a random john: Plus the right has nutty TV talk show hosts of its own. Yes. Thanks to the recent ascension of Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly on cable, everything that the far left media (NBC, ABC, CBS, et. al.) has done for the past 5 decades is justified. a random john: There has been plenty of hate to go around. I’m willing to admit to seeing it on both sides. No, there’s conservative talk radio, which plays the same game that the mainstream media does, only they do it for conservatives. Then there’s the moveon.org crowd, which is worse by a whole order of magnitude than anything that Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al. do. |
My experience supports that the Left is far more hateful than the Right, generally more vengeful, cruel, and political against rivals. The Right has bad eggs, for sure, but the Left voice is louder and nastier, for the most part. I would credit many of GWB’s failures to failures of Dem congress to be bipartisan just as much as I credit Reps for being stupid. FWIW, I think Obama embodies something good about being a Democrat, where the polemic likes of Pelosi, who recently set herself at odds with Obama publicly, have been the mainstream Left for too long. Kudos to Dems for not putting HRC up for election. |
Nasamomdele, didn’t know you were a Democrat. |
One last thing about the Inauguration: Cheney totally looked like he was playing the part of Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life! |
Steve Evans, I didn’t know you cared. |
Very funny news just posted on Drudge: http://drudgereport.com/flashoaa.htm Apparently, an hour ago, Roberts re-administered the oath to Obama. |
My view is that Republicans came to hate Clinton out of frustration at the charming slimeball’s ability to get away with one thing after another. His allies had to take it year after year, listening to others bellyache about what a slimeball Clinton was, because what else could they do? Clinton’s sliminess is undeniable. When Bush took office, the Democrats were so ready for the shoe to be on the other foot, for payback, that they were primed to hate Bush before he had done anything. |
John Mansfield, I’d agree with your basic assessment but you have to mention the 2000 election (again, nobody’s fault, but a close loss is harder to take than a landslide) as being the factor that took it to a whole new level before his term even began. Remember the missing Ws on all the Whitehouse computer keyboards? |
DKL does have a point on the hate issue – the one thing that struck me at GWBs inaguration was the number of hateful protesters, while it was all love and giggles at Obama’s. I did not see any protesters at all. |
Devyn S., I’ll forward you an something so you can see how loving my neighbors were yesterday. |
a random john, have you seriously stopped to think about these sorts of issues beyond the irritations you feel with presumptuous Utah Republicans? There’s a deep double standard running through our society that accepts liberalism as the norm. Conservatives, by and large, get liberalism, because they are constantly besieged by it on TV, at the movies, and at social events (I can’t count how many people I’ve heard say something to the effect of how important it is to appreciate that Obama will move the country in a productive direction; seriously, like if you aren’t excited by the inauguration than you’re disappointed by the obvious improvement — which, of course, begs the question). One in five times, when I go to the movies, it’s preceded by some liberal message, like a montage of celebrities asking you to support gun control or embryonic stem cell research. On the other hand, Liberals, by and large, are a group of political ignoramuses who don’t know the first thing about conservatives or their values. As a consequence, many of the liberals that I talk to are innocent as children when it comes to political and economic views — B. Tippets is a sterling example. Many of them are also quite hostile when their views are subject to any serious scrutiny, because it can cause them to question their conviction they are independent and enlightened thinkers on account of their conformity to the liberal orthodoxy. Just a quick question: If prop 8 would have lost, do you think that the hate-driven, whacko right would have pulled the same kind of crap that the gay-rights crowd did when it passed? Of course not. But if they had, mainstream press outlets would have quickly condemned it and bemoaned it as hateful retaliation — and they’d have been right. But who in the mainstream press called the post-prop-8 antics hateful retaliation? Heck, most of the prop-8 supporters I know seemed to feel like the chickens had come home to roost. For my part, I don’t get hostile over disagreements. I don’t even get hostile over stupidity, because I’m happy to teach people. I just have a strong contempt for people who are stupid or ignorant, but who are, nevertheless, suffering from an unshakeable delusion that their political opinions are carefully considered or somehow sophisticated. And have zero tolerance for folks who present themselves as experts when they actually know nothing at all (in the past I’ve been called a bully for my expressions of contempt for them, as though I set them up as an expert in order to make my demonstration of their stupidity more dramatic.) I do have a lot of respect for liberals like you and Devyn, who actually do get political controversies and do have carefully considered opinions. |
No hostility or hate here . I oppose abortion on demand, gay marriage,etc and public attacks on religion ecen though I may be more progressive in foreign affairs or other domestic policies. Frankly I am beyond politics and rather dwell into theology and its ramifications upon society. We can learn from each other since Christians are to be tolerant concerning different opinions. Casting out labels, stupidity, or being ignorant only puts up walls. I am not here to say I have the truth but to present a perspective as I see it. Every one has a since of worth no matter if they may be misinformed. How about search for understanding instead of contempt. Teach with humility. Do good analysis , present facts to support ones positions then every one can learn from each other. To throw out generalizations nothing is to be gained. |
LDS Leaders are supportive for Obama to accomplish his great objectives (Deseret News, January 22,2009) After participating in two days of U.S. presidential inauguration ceremonies, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ First Presidency, and Elder M. Russell Ballard of the church’s Quorum of the Twelve left Washington, D.C., warmed as they witnessed not only a historic national event but examples of graciousness, hope and unity. The two attended Tuesday’s inauguration of President Barack Obama on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and joined him and other new national leaders at Wednesday morning’s National Prayer Service in the National Cathedral. “I left with a feeling that the people of America are going to unite behind this new president and his administration and that we need to pray for him,” Elder Ballard said. “We need to exercise our prayers and help him accomplish the great objectives that he has set.” Saying “it was wonderful to feel that unity of different faiths” as they joined Muslims, Jews and others of different Christian denominations at the prayer service, President Uchtdorf added: “We felt we were in the right place with all these whom we call brothers and sisters, to pray for this presidency, for this administration, and with them to pray for all the governments around the world to bring again peace and prosperity and unity to all countries.” At Tuesday’s inauguration, the Uchtdorfs found themselves seated next to a black couple. “When the oath was taken, this lady next to her (Sister Uchtdorf) just embraced her and gave her a kiss with tears running down,” said President Uchtdorf, adding that the emotions he sensed over the two days were not simply the result of the massive numbers witnessing the racially historic moment but rather a sense of graciousness displayed by a free democracy. “It was for the people of the world to have a chance to follow the wonderful example given by the United States in a transfer of powers in a democracy — the liberties, the freedoms and the justice for all — as it is presented in such a wonderful way from one administration to another.” “We could feel the deep emotion around us — we were surrounded by people of all colors, of all creeds and of all languages,” said President Uchtdorf in a phone interview with the Deseret News before catching a return flight to Utah. “It was a great experience we had — to see a unity there that I hope will last on and continue throughout the years of this administration.” President Uchtdorf — who was accompanied by his wife, Harriet — and Elder Ballard represented the LDS Church and President Thomas S. Monson in accepting the invitations to attend the inaugural events. They were seated front and center some four-dozen rows from the presidential stage for Tuesday’s inauguration and then just a couple of yards away from Obama and his contingent for Wednesday’s prayer service. |
ESO: I think our society has lost its’ taste for poetry. Are you saying that as a criticism of my dislike for Elizabeth Alexander’s awful poetry? Or as a criticism of whoever chose the awful poem for the inaugural. If it’s the former, would you like to place bets on how many people will be studying that poem in a few decades? I know poetry, and it was bad. Honestly, the Adolescent Poetry Generator writes poems far superior to her offering. |
I know nothing of Elizabeth Alexander or her poetry, just that she was asked to write a poem for the occasion, which she did, and no one but her husband had seen it before we all heard it. I think that Americans in general have lost an appreciation for poetry. I speak partly as an English teacher (not poetry! it’s soooooo boring!) and partly as a listener–we simply do not have the attention span to listen through verse not accompanied by stimulating visuals. I will not venture a guess at the study of that particular poem. It wasn’t my cup of tea, but I generally produce my worst work under duress (like being asked to write a poem for an inauguration), too. FWIW–I love the story of Robert Frost who had written a poem for JFKs’ innauguration and when he got to the podium, he couldn’t see it (the sun was too bright? forgot his glasses? I can’t remember) so he just recited an old one he knew by heart. |
Interesting analysis. Here’s mine: I agree that audiences don’t have an ear for much of the poetry that’s being offered, but I’m reluctant to blame the audience. Some time in the early 20th century, this notion developed that writing stuff that audiences enjoyed was somehow pandering. We don’t hear a lot of stuff like “Gunga Din” or “The Raven,” even though they’re a delight to hear. On the other hand, when it comes to really engaging poetry that challenges the audience, they aren’t offered the difficult stuff by John Donne (all they see of him is the simple but striking stuff). Add to that the simple statistical fact that most poetry is truly awful — scads and scads of it get produced every year, and just a handful of it is any good. In this sense, poetry isn’t any different from movies or books. The difference is that people are comfortable identifying which books or movies stink — even if they know that there’s no consensus. But people tend to be afraid of saying that they don’t like some crappy little piece of poetry for fear of being called a cretan. All because of this notion that great art is supposed to confound ordinary tastes — as though Shakespeare didn’t write play that illiterate people paid a penny to get into, or Dickens didn’t write novels to sell dime magazines. I’m not against difficult art. Heck, I listen to 12 tone music. But I detest the view that there’s something inherently superior about difficult art. Also, I wouldn’t be as hard on Elizabeth Alexander if the poem weren’t such a sanctimonious celebration of victimhood. That’s a great story about Robert Frost. I hadn’t heard that. |
There was this thread on Times and Seasons from a long time ago that I remember very clearly, thanks to the fact that it resulted in my being banned for the 2nd time from Times and Seasons. (The link is right here, but if you’re going to read the entire thread, make sure to insert my response to neil lebute after comment #22, which got deleted. I said to neil lebute, “At least Renee Zellweger never made anything of mine boring.”) In this thread, I offered my defense of accessibility in taste. It is comment #50, and it resulted in my being labeled a jingoist. I repeat it here:
|
DKL, I think you’ve lived in Massachusetts too long and have developed a siege mentality. Come live in Utah again and you’ll become a raving, hateful lefty, and start daydreaming about hanging out with domestic terrorists. |
a random john, that’s not even a response. None of the examples that I provided of left-wing hatred have anything to do with Massachusetts. |
Well I suppose that if you wanted to take it as something other than a joke then it wasn’t a response. |
Fair enough. |
DKL–good point about modern poetry not being as ear-catching as poetry once was. I have not laid eyes on the Elizabeth Alexander poem and I wouldn’t feel comfortable critiquing a poem I had not spent some time with. I think much of Obama’s speech was more poetic, more ear-catching, than the poem, though, and plenty of people would have said that we, modern Americans, had outgrown oral prose presentations, too. |
I taped the inaugaral and watched it yesterday. I loved the performance with Yo-Yo Ma and the other guys. I loved his speech. The rest, I didn’t care one way or another. I thought Michelle Obama acted funny, a bit stiff, in the dance. Maybe she was nervous, but he kept pulling her close and she kept pulling away. It seemed to me. She looked absolutely beautiful, though. |
Too bad the Yo-Yo Ma thing was taped… It was nice though. |
The taping thing isn’t a big deal. All kinds of live performances are pre-taped when done outdoors (yes, even the MoTab, on occasion). Sometimes the challenging logistics of the venue, time allowed to set up, and the complicated tangle of microphones and monitors required for just a halfway decent performance just aren’t worth the trouble. For example, many, if not most, of the BYU Homecoming Suck-tacular acts are prerecorded any given year (though not an outdoor venue, it’s still an acoustically ungainly basketball arena). When I was in BYU Singers, we prerecorded our whole set because we had to come on fast and perform right after a dance number. It would have been too much trouble to try and set the necessary choral mics that fast. Lots of the other groups had prerecorded stuff for similar reasons. The “live” aspect is often sacrificed to enhance the flow of the event, to make the spectator experience more “seamless.” Similar things are standard practice in Broadway shows and their ilk as well. As a rule of thumb, if you see headphones on the conductor, you can bet that at least something you’re hearing isn’t live. In any case, the inauguration wasn’t an Ashlee Simpson situation. With the acoustic instruments involved, the excuse about the cold isn’t a cop-out. As for the poetry, I like to think I’m an informed and open-minded critic. I’ll echo ESO in saying that I hesitate to say anything definitive about any poem without first “spending some time” with it. That said, the kindest thing I can say about it right now was that it was “unremarkable.” |
Another example about the live thing. If you’ve seen Savior of the World since around 2004, ostensibly a “live” show, the chorus is not amplified – they just sing normally and the same choir you hear on the recording is piped through the speakers; and the few live players in the pit are enhanced by a recorded orchestra track. |
Here’s Elizabeth Alexander’s poem, as transcribed by The Los Angeles Times:
Seriously, that would be insipid piece of crap even it were nothing more than a bloggernacle post. Honestly, I think that this poem automatically generated by the the Adolescent Poetry Generator is superior:
|
I know this discussion has run its course–but just so it’s on the record, I’m going to add a couple of things. Though I was thrilled to see Bob Bennett participating in the inauguration (I believe he was something like co-chair of the committee), he was not the only Latter-day Saint involved: Senator Harry Reid was heavily involved, including in the main inaugural ceremony and the luncheon afterwards. Here’s a link to his talk at BYU that includes his testimony and his life story (as well as some political stuff): Some on the list may know me as the husband of Margaret Young. She and I are great Obama fans (and resent being called “mindless,” by the way). To see photos and share in our election and inaugural festivities, you can go to Plus I have a political blog ( http://bruceyoung-election2008.blogspot.com ), which may not have persuaded anybody, but it helped some Latter-day Saints who were inclined to vote for Obama feel they could withstand the harangues (sometimes pretty hostile apparently) from friends and family. And in case any of you didn’t see these yet, here’s some Church related inaugural news: http://www.mormontimes.com/around_church/general_authority/?id=5918 Interesting bunch of comments here on Mormon Mentality, by the way, though sometimes incredibly nitpicky (but I guess that’s what blogs are for). I’m tempted to “correct” everybody I disagree with. But I think I’ll let that temptation go unheeded. |
Thanks for the links, Bruce. I’m aware that you and Margaret are huge Obama supporters, but I like you anyway And feel free to nitpick. If we didn’t care about the details, we’d just watch a 30-minute news broadcast. |
#91. Check out Mormons for Obama Yahoo Group and LDS LEFT Yahoo Group. Even though I voted for Obama I am not favor of huge deficit spending of one trillion dollars, his postiion on abortion . He also needs an exit strategy ; a winning strategy for our policy in Afghanistan. |