August 10th, 2008 by sepierce and tagged
LA Times,
Marxism,
Movie Star,
Obama,
Obamorons,
Obamunism,
Rock Star
The Washington Post might be the odds-on favorite for the D.C. base of “Big Brother” Barry’s “Ministry Of Truth,” but The L.A. Times is a leading contender for “The Left Coast Satellite Ministry.” Op-Ed writer Neal Gabler takes offense to the characterization of “The One” as a rock star. Apparently movie stars and Kennedies are deeper than rock stars and the emotional connections with their adoring fans are much stronger. Gabler’s five-star review of “Obamunism, Episode ” seeks to explain why feelings over thought should carry the vote for an Obamanation. This thinly veiled campaign ad is titled:
His ‘celebrity’ comes from an emotional identity with voters, not from ‘rock star’ hysteria.
That is indeed a relief! Instead of electing Ludacris as our next president we might be choosing Spicoli from “Fast Times At Ridgemont High.” The pieces of the puzzle are coming together. The Kennedy connection is there because Sean Penn was once married to Madonna, who fancied herself as the second coming of Marylin Monroe. Spicoli also shows a great fondness for the leaders of Communist and Socialist governments, the models on which Obamunism will be based.
My personal opinion is that an Obama presidency would be to The United States of America, what Teddy Kennedy’s bridge navigation was to Mary Jo Kopekne… hey, there is another Kennedy connection!
Back to the L.A. Times adoration:
Like all cliches, this one has some truth and a lot more gas. The last time the media carted out this theme was 40 years ago, when Robert Kennedy, running for president, attracted the same sort of frenzied adulation and also threatened to upset the political apple cart by assembling a coalition of the young, the disenfranchised and the well-educated. But for Obama and for Bobby, the characterization is insulting and
imprecise. It is insulting because it suggests that their devotees’ effusions are just a visceral reaction — the political equivalent of puppy love. And it is imprecise because Obama is — and Bobby was — more movie star than rock star, which is an analogy with a difference. Rock stars, with some glaring exceptions, typically whip up the crowd; the thrill tends to be short-lived. Movie stars, by contrast, tend to create a long-standing emotional identification with their audience. It’s a difference that may have a bearing on the outcome of this election as voters weigh the advantages of being a movie star against its disadvantages. Movie stardom can be confused with mere celebrity, which has connotations of insubstantiality.
Well, if the reactions of the drooling Obamorons aren’t “the political equivalent of puppy love,” then they are certainly symptoms of very basic and severe disdain for liberty among many Americans. If the latter is the case, “hope” is certainly not a reasonable platform for Obamunism. Imagine what Obama supporters might be seeking if their devotion is more than that of fan to celebrity. The prospect is horrifying! This would mean that all these Obamorons believe that Marxist principles should be applied to our government. The Obamorons would have profits earned by those that are productive in tangible and useful endeavors confiscated by “Big Brother” Barry and distributed to his adoring fans (sounds like vote buying to me.) Of course this disdain for profit is strictly applied to the productive, while rock stars, movie stars, and the like truly earn and deserve their profits. Any reasonable person would be offended by the call for the theft of profits from”big oil” without corresponding calls for theft of profits from “big movie,” “big music,” “big publishing,” “big sports,” or for that matter “big food.”
Can it be that the Obamunists believe foreign policy should consist of “carrot and stick” payoffs for our enemies and invasions of our allies? Is it conceivable that they accept his admission that supply affects energy prices (why else would it be reasonable to tap strategic reserves) but ignore his resistance to increasing the supply of domestically produced energy? This makes sense to some degree since increasing our own supply would mean an increase in jobs, which would be counterproductive to the typical lazy Obamoron that seeks to be cared for by “Big Brother.”
Gabler issues a somber cautionary note in his last paragraph:
Obama faces that obstacle too. It is the downside of being a star. What this election may finally come down to is a choice between politics and movie stardom, between the safety of what we think we know and the expansiveness of what we dream, or, in more prosaic terms, between good old John Wayne and the less predictable but more exciting Will Smith. In any case, rock stars need not apply.
The L.A. Times is terrified that a majority of the American electorate will opt for tangible experience and policies over celebrity and an ability to read (not speak off the cuff, because at those times Barry comes off as orally incompetent) a speech. The Times laments that we, as a nation may choose to cling to our beliefs, our liberty, and our Constitution a little longer. The Left Coast applicant for Obama’s “Ministry Of Truth” would pray (if that weren’t counter-agenda) that the voters don’t choose the lesser of two evils and decide to vote for the less liberal John McCain.
Posted in Celebrity Libiots, Global Warming Libiots, Illinois Libiots, Libiocracy, Libiot Candidates, Libiots On Abortion, Libiots On Immigration, Marx Worshipping Libiots | No Comments »
