Comic Strip of the Day

CSotD: ‘We have to destroy the country in order to save it’

Kirkwalters
Speaking of "whining like little schoolgirls," how did the Republicans, and conservatives in general, go from preaching tough self-reliance to playing the victim card on every hand?

Kirk Walters poses the question and I don't have an answer.

In this particular case, I watched the Super Bowl Sunday with a friend who is so far into libertarian Tea Party kneejerk politics that we have agreed to discuss only football and dogs. We were rating the commercials as "good" or "missed," and this one got kind of a shrug.

Inspiring message but it didn't sell cars or particularly spotlight Chrysler. So it wasn't a miss, but it didn't feel like a strong hit, either. We shrugged and uncorked a couple more Grittys.

I'll admit that, given the GOP's endless moaning of doom-and-gloom, I was a little surprised to see Clint Eastwood –  generally a center-right type — delivering a message of "Chin up, there, Bucky," but neither of us saw it as relating to either political party, any more than, during WWII, a hearty rendition of "We Did It Before (And We Can Do It Again)" would have seemed like an endorsement of FDR.

In fact, like that song, it stressed the need to work together for the good of the country. Here, have a look:

 

When did an appeal to digging in and making an effort become an endorsement of a particular administration? Has working for the good of the country become the exclusive province of the Obama administration?

Apparently it has, because now we're hearing the weeping and whining of those who insist that "Don't give up; there is still hope for America if we all pull together" is a specific message of praise for Obama.

Knee-jerk (as opposed to thoughtful) conservatives still whine reflexively about "political correctness," but they are more steeped in it than anyone else, falling apart like a toddler having a tantrum in the toy aisle at Wal-Mart whenever the president or one of his officers uses an expression or image that offends their oh-so-delicate sensibilities.

And, if nobody does anything to make them cry, they'll simply make something up so they can be offended by it.

It's come to the point where these little mayflies and morningglories, these sunshine patriots and summer soldiers, are offended by the very idea of people coming together to do what's best for America.

Even when the message is delivered by Clint Eastwood, a self-described libertarian.

Apparently, any sign of positive developments, any result of the sacrifices and hard work that people and businesses have put in since the crash, is to them a disaster, and, as Rush Limbaugh has defiantly proclaimed more than once, they want America to fail in order to advance their own agenda.

What Mike Luckovich drew as a joke in 2009 has emerged as a sad truth about a failing people. We've genuinely lost track of the goal.

Crmlu091009

Mike Peterson has posted his "Comic Strip of the Day" column every day since 2010. His opinions are his own, but we welcome comments either agreeing or in opposition.

Previous Post
Cartoon Movement to publish ‘Army of God’
Next Post
Ali Ferzat joins prominent Syrian artists in signing resistance declaration

Comments 9

  1. Hi Mike,
    A little off topic…but I do read every post. And one thing drives me a little nuts. You’ll come across a theme where I will whole-heartedly agree, or any disagreement has more to do with details than with the general idea. In the same post, you will present something that makes me want to stand and scream.
    I’m not sure which would please you more. *chuckle*
    Sometimes the “agreement” part comes early. Other times it ends up towards the end or in the middle.
    It drives me nuts.
    In this case, the commercial….we agree. It wasn’t nearly as effective at selling cars as last year’s Eminem commercial was, IMO. Nor was it overtly political.
    I’d also agree that there is a segment of the right that likes to make things up just to be outraged. The same goes for the left; i.e. Sarah Palin.
    I’ve not listened to Rush in years. IIRC, what he said was that while he thought highly of Mr. Obama personally, he hoped that Mr. Obama’s agenda would fail because he felt that Mr. Obama’s agenda would be harmful over the long term.
    That is substantially different from hoping that America fails.
    Perhaps you have heard him say something that I haven’t heard?

    Regards,
    Dann

  2. Granted, Limbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail. But there is no discernible difference between Obama and Obama’s administration, and the only way for the administration to fail is for America’s economy to get worse, for the war to go badly, for things generally to degenerate.
    And if that were not true, Limbaugh would not now be whining over the Chrysler ad. He’s be praising it, saying that Boehner and McConnell deserve full credit for the recovery thus far, and we’ll all be rolling in gold (which he’ll sell you) once the GOP is fully back in control.
    Saying that he only wished failure for Obama and not the country is like hoping the school bus driver has a horrible accident. You can’t pretend to ignore what that would mean for the kids on the bus.

  3. That analogy only works if the bus driver’s driving habits and route would have led to a successful delivery of the kids to their destination.
    If the driver boarded the bus in a drunken stupor, was in the habit of driving across railroad tracks without stopping, did not slow around tight curves, and planned a route that was curvy and had lots of railroad crossings, I think we could all agree that the odds for a less than positive result would be significantly increased.

  4. Hi Mat,
    “I hope he fails” is not the same as “I hope the country fails”.
    B/R,
    Dann

  5. Dann, you’re engaging in pre-Enlightenment reasoning here — examining the facts to see how they can be put in service to prove your pre-determined theory.
    Your twisting of the bus driver analogy assumes that your party is better able to choose an executive than the people of the United States. That may well be your belief, but it’s hardly in keeping with the Constitution or the basic theory of democracy. (There are many places where elections are run that way, but I don’t think you’d want to live in any of them.)
    And, at the time Limbaugh made his statement, Obama had a majority in both houses. The only way for him to fail without damaging the country would be for the House and Senate to ram through multiple, important policies that he opposed and then repeatedly over-ride his vetos and enjoy success.
    This was indeed possible, but was most likely to occur after monkeys flew out of my ass. (No such monkeys flew, and no such damage-free failure occurred.)
    In the real world, there is no way to separate the failure of a president from bad experiences on the part of the nation he leads. If you can find one in history, please continue to press your point, but I certainly can’t think of one. No analogies — real historic examples of times when a president was an undeniable (un-re-electable) failure but the nation prospered.

  6. Hi Mike,
    A couple examples for you.
    1) Prohibition.
    I know of only one person in the world that thinks that Prohibition (of alcohol) was a good idea. It is almost universally derided as being one of the biggest legislative mistakes in US history.
    Since not everyone voted for Prohibition, I think it is safe to say that there were people that hoped that the pro-Prohibition forces failed. The pro-Prohibition forces were successful and the US experienced 14 years of significant damage.
    2) LB Johnson
    Who enjoyed a Democrat led Congress in both houses of Congress that helped pass the Great Society programs. I know we disagree about the utility of those programs. From my perspective they are at the heart of our current millieu.
    Having a majority of people on one’s side does not make one right. It makes one popular.
    3) WJ Clinton
    He started out with a fairly left of center agenda (relative to the US). In the end, that agenda cause the nation to give the GOP complete control of Congress for the first time in 60 years or so. Mr. Clinton was decidedly unable to enact his agenda after that point. From my perspective, the 1990s were pretty good for the country.
    Back to Mr. Obama, it is my opinion that his agenda of a more European style of governance will result in long term harm to the U.S. I do hope that his efforts to implement such an agenda fail.
    However, where his efforts will result in moving the nation forward, I enthusiastically hope that he experiences tremendous success.
    B/R
    Dann

  7. Dann, I asked for “examples of times when a president was an undeniable (un-re-electable) failure but the nation prospered.”
    1. Prohibition was an amendment, not a president. Completely irrelevant.
    2. Johnson stepped down because of the war, not because of his social programs. But, Dann, you can’t argue that he screwed up our country and then insist that we were better off at the end of his presidency. In my mind, we were worse off because of the war and attendant social unrest. In your mind, we were worse off because poor children were being educated and fed. Either way, you haven’t shown a failed president who, despite his failures, left the country better than he found it.
    3. Clinton served two full terms. As of 1951, that’s the most he was able to serve. He was not only electable in his second term, but he whipped Dole 349-159. Unelectable? If it were a prize fight, they’d have stopped it at 7 p.m EST.

  8. I think I’ll just disagree with your premise (and with the slight amount of goal post movement) and look forward to your next post.
    B/R
    Dann

Comments are closed.

Search

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get a daily recap of the news posted each day.