The right-wing response to Obama's SOTU address: "jerk," "arrogant," cocky"
Conservative media figures reacted to President' Obama's 2010 State of the Union address as usual -- with attacks on Obama and fellow Democrats. Media Matters for America has compiled some of their reactions.
Attacks on Obama: "jerk," "arrogant," "fake"
Hood: "[J]erk"
In a January 27 post on National Review Online's The Corner, John Hood wrote:
One Way to Put It
Is simply this: The president looks like a jerk tonight.
Hood: "[G]rating," "flippant and arrogant"
In another January 27 post on The Corner, Hood wrote:
Ugh. We're only a couple of minutes into the president's address, and the cadence and rhythm of his speaking voice is already grating. They come across as flippant and arrogant. Hasn't anyone ever told him that?
NRO's Lopez: "[T]hin skinned"
On her Twitter account, NRO's Kathryn Lopez wrote that Obama is "thin skinned":
Lopez subsequently wrote that Obama "really thinks this song is about him":
Erickson: "[C]ocky and snide"
RedState.com's Erick Erickson wrote: "What you did not know at home listening to Barack Obama's speech tonight is that he inserted a few quips that were not in the prepared text. They were cocky and snide."
Stossel: "'Gee, I'm so sorry. I was arrogant'"
Before the address, Fox Business' Neil Cavuto asked: "What do you want to hear out of the president tonight?" Host John Stossel replied: "Well, I'd like him to say, 'Gee, I'm so sorry. I was arrogant. We were arrogant. We thought we could reshape the world to my vision. So we wasted lots of your money." After the address, Stossel reacted by claiming Obama "certainly didn't sound humbled, I agree."
Stein: "We'll see Obama with his fake modesty and his fake humility"
Discussing his expectations of the State of the Union address on Fox Business, Ben Stein stated: "Well, we'll see a lot of promises, and we'll see Obama with his fake modesty and his fake humility and his fake fighting aggressiveness. But he's just going to be his same politician. So, he's just a politician. I'd love it if he said, 'I'm not the messiah; I'm a politician. I don't know very much. I'm going to take a year off until I learn more. And I'm not going to interfere and screw up people's lives anymore.' "
RedState: "Obama the Patronizing Lecturer"
RedState contributor Dan Perrin described Obama as "the Patronizing Lecturer," writing: "It was more like a lecture that combined a chest-beating tone that he is doing the tough work of saving the nation and he expects Congress and the nation to follow him."
Nordlinger: Obama "looks arrogant," has an "upturned chin"
On The Corner, National Review senior editor Jay Nordlinger wrote: "Obama looks arrogant, whether he's arrogant or not. I don't think he can help it: It's the upturned chin. When actors want to preen and so on: They turn that chin upward. Yikes."
Marc Thiessen: Obama address "defensive, arrogant"
On washingtonpost.com, author and former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen wrote: "Instead of acknowledging these concerns [about terrorism], Obama dismissed them. It was strange, defensive, arrogant -- and un-presidential."
Personal attacks against Democrats
Kennedy
From conservative blogger John Hawkins' Twitter account:
Pelosi and botox
From NewsBusters' managing editor Ken Shepherd's Twitter account:
Shepherd subsequently highlighted a Twitter post from someone claiming, "I can't get over how ugly that lady [Pelosi] behind obama is."
Pelosi's looks
From conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg's Twitter account:
On The Corner, Nordlinger wrote: "Could you bounce a quarter off the House speaker's face or what? That thing just might shoot back at you and put your eye out."
Adoptions of Joe Wilson's "You lie"
NewsBusters' Sheppard
From NewsBusters associate editor Noel Sheppard's Twitter account:
From Weekly Standard editor Michael Goldfarb's Twitter account:
False, dubious attacks
Obama "forgot to thank the troops"
On her Twitter account, Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros claimed that "Obama remembered to blame Bush but forgot to thank the troops."
However, in his speech, Obama stated: "Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world -- must know that they have our respect, our gratitude, and our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home."
Fox, Wash. Times bloggers in disbelief over Obama's "true" SOTU line that he "cut taxes"
In response to Obama's State of the Union assertion that "we cut taxes," live bloggers at foxnews.com and washingtontimes.com reacted with incredulity. However, Obama did cut taxes for most Americans: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included $288 billion in tax relief.
Lopez on "unpresidential" Obama
On The Corner, Lopez wrote: "I actually try to give the president of the United States the benefit of the doubt. But the blaming of the past administration is pathetically unpresidential. And last week suggests it's a pretty dated line of attack." However, in 1982, President Ronald Reagan devoted significant portions of his speech to attacking President Jimmy Carter's administration for "the situation at this time last year."
Wallace claims Obama "participant ... in building up" trillion-dollar deficits over last year
Previewing Obama's State of the Union address on Fox Broadcasting Co., Chris Wallace asserted that Obama was "a participant in the last year in building up" "multi-trillion-dollar deficits." In fact, the FY 2009 deficit, which totaled $1.4 trillion, was already estimated to be $1.2 trillion when Obama came into office and "virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years" are due either to policies implemented under President Bush or to the recession, which began during Bush's tenure, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Nothing substantive if you have your fingers in your ears and a stick up your b*tt.
You know; like the moron who stunk up the peoples' house from 2000 to 2008.
Oh... wait, sorry...
--------------------------------------------
awkwaaaard!
Thanks, Publius 39.
Funny how its returns of late have seemed to slacken some.
Randy
Also no mention of "smoke 'em out", "stay the course", or "git 'r done!". We had President Larry the Cable Guy for eight years, now the grown-ups are in, you might want to go outside and play with your transformers for a few years.
"Islamofascist" is sort of a golden oldie, I didn't even knoe anybody was still using that one.
There also seems to be a division on a couple of conflicting talking points - I've seen complaints that Obama talked only about himself and that he only talked about Bush. Probably will see both complaints from the same person.
As far as I'm concerned, he was showing waaaay too much collegiality toward his former Congressional colleagues.
As far as I'm concerned they are unworthy of further consideration. Even so, we must all speak out against it.
This site is criticizing members of the right for their reaction to Obama's SOTU. What did they expect? I imagine Olbermann gave a stern lecture or two to Bush after his SOTU. What's the difference?
I'm noticing a pattern to the way leftists on this site debate: avoid direct confrontation with logic and challenge everything that isn't backed up with 3 different sources as proof.
I'll try again. What was the reaction like from the media analysts after the Bush SOTU? Do you honestly think Olbermann applauded and said, "If presidential leadership were only about giving speeches, the jackhammers would already be at work on Mt. Rushmore"?
You haven't made a point, you've made a supposition. It's up to you to back it up. We don't have to do your homework.
I'm noticing a pattern to the way leftists on this site debate: avoid direct confrontation with logic and challenge everything that isn't backed up with 3 different sources as proof.
When you get around to making a point, we'll deal with it. It's your side that's notorious for being unwilling or unable to debate.
I'll try again. What was the reaction like from the media analysts after the Bush SOTU?
I'll answer it again--go find out for yourself. If all you want to do is deal in guesswork, I'll throw out my own--there was nowhere near the level of superficial vitriol directed at Bush, even though he was much more worthy of it.
Do you honestly think Olbermann applauded and said, "If presidential leadership were only about giving speeches, the jackhammers would already be at work on Mt. Rushmore"?
Probably not. After all, Bush was just as inept with his speeches ("put food on their family," anyone?) as he was with his governing.
Look, MagCynic, there are examples of cheap smears, many of them laden with inaccuracies, from seventeen right-wing media figures above. Why do you think you can pull a hypothetical statement by Olbermann out of thin air and somehow declare that the left is just as bad?
If you really want better debates on these threads, then for goodness sakes, do your part.
Right-wingers criticized Obama's State of the Union speech. MMFA feels it is necessary to post about it in some attempt to prove something. What that something is I'll never know. Is Obama beyond criticism? By "smearing" Obama - if you can call it that - does it ruin conservatives' theory of less government? I think not.
Left-wingers criticized Bush's State of the Union speech. I'm not gonna go back and dig up every single posting by Huffington or DailyKos smearing Bush. It's surprising that any of you even doubt that those two sites would smear Bush, but whatever. I will however post this link. It's from 2005 when the Democrats heckled Bush during his SOTU. But, again, what's the point? Who cares? Does it dispute any political ideas on either side? No. Does it make any ground in any sort of political debate? No. Does it score political points for either party? I would say not really.
You claimed that pundits on the left did similar things. You've yet to provide even a single example of that behavior!
The link above isn't even close to documenting similar behavior. It was an objection to the distortions Bush was pushing about Social Security. It was about his behavior, and there's a vast difference between attacking someone's behavior and making an ad hominem attack. There's a difference between expressing accurate disagreement with flawed policy and making fun of someone because you think they've used Botox.
One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong.
You're simply going to make a allegation, and when a demand is expressed for you to back up your allegation, you're going to refuse to do so.
Yes, you should have to post them. It's your job to provide the evidence that you're claiming. Your refusal to do so only shows the bankruptcy of your argument.
So MMFA posts 17 "cheap smears" from various right-wing sites. Does that mean I have to go back to the last Bush SOTU and find 17 "cheap smears" from various left-wing sites to make a point?
Yes. Your original claim was this: "It's not any different to how Democrats or liberals reacted to Bush's SOTU addresses." (my emphasis) Now it's your job to back it up in some way.
Furthermore, I said nothing about "various right-wing sites." In fact, at least two of the examples were from broadcasts. I'm starting to wonder if you actually read the article.
I don't have the resources to post archived video of Olbermann, Schultz, Matthews, or Maddow posting smears of Bush after the SOTU.
So you admit you can't prove your point. That's progress, I suppose.
Do you doubt that they didn't belittle Bush?
Yes, I doubt it. I don't know if Schultz was even a media figure at the time, and Matthews was probably lauding it (he did, after all, say that only "kooks" on the left disliked Bush).
Do you doubt that DailyKos, HuffPost, and even MMFA didn't try to smear Bush?
Yes. MMFA doesn't smear, they deal with documented facts. As to the others, I couldn't say, since I'm not a regular reader of them. If you likewise aren't, then you can't make the claim, either.
Or did Bush deserve it so it makes it ok?
You're still trying to use as an argument that which you haven't come close to proving. Also, your childish tone is noted.
Regardless of your answer it's fine for right-wingers to criticize the President just like it was fine for left-wingers to criticize Bush.
No one ever said it wasn't. There is always a place for legitimate criticism. By all means, let's have some, since the current crop of neocons in the media don't seem capable of it.
I don't see why it necessitates an entire posting on MMFA. What's the point? What does it prove?
It proves that many media people on the right are using blatant falsehoods and ad hominem argumentation to attack the president. As such, it falls under the umbrella of "conservative misinformation." That's why there's an "entire posting."
I firmly believe that Bush was far more deserving of criticism than Obama. But let us not pretend that there was this gentelmanly decorum from liberal bloggers and liberal personalities when it came to George Bush. You know its not true, so why do you insist on making the argument that it is?
The fact that there were a few times when a few commentators on the left participated in namecalling doesn't an equivalence make.
And your Pearl Harbor analogy falls flat. Apples and oranges. If someone was claiming that the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor was equivalent to what the USA did when they bombed a city, and someone disputed it, then they'd need to provide links to document the similarities that were being alleged!
Clearly you were living in an entirely different world when Bush was President. Really?! You only think it was a few commentators making fun of Bush?
You are dead on in your post. Only those who refuse to admit reality ask for proof, they know they are being disingenuous.
Right, and those that ARE shown proof and ignore it in favor of their partisan views are just willfully ignorant.
No, achrispage, that's not my argument. MagCynic said that the Democratic response was not any different (his words) than what the Republicans are doing now. He has been challenged to provide evidence, and has come up empty. I have never said that there was no criticism of Bush, or anything like it.
To me, it is ridiculous to demand proof that petty sniping and name calling from liberals did in fact occur against Bush. We all know it did.
Fine, but again, that's not the point I made, right ON's empty cheerleading notwithstanding.
I just have to ask how many of these Conservative flippant responses yesterday are reflexive of that, and how much is genuine. I ask, because much of what I hear Conservatives angry about is what they perceive to be happening, while ignoring what is actually happening.
For the record, I think Keith Olbermann is very intelligent and I sometimes really respect his analysis. HOWEVER, that dude is completely melodramatic and makes an ass of himself way too often. It's not uncommon that he derides a conservative for engaging in namecalling and then turns around and does it himself. So yeah. I, personally, do not look to Keith Olbermann as any example of helpful political discourse.
As for Obama, great. I think a president who is a little arrogant and cocky is a good thing. I want confidence, that comes across to some as arrogant. I want determination, and to some that is cocky. Better than milquetoast tread-lightly politicians who are afraid to ruffle anyone's feathers.
Well put! I'll take Obama's "arrogance" over the uninspiring Mondale/Dukakis/Harry Reid type any day.
And I wish KO would quit abusing the phrase "begging the question", that's just a pet peeve of mine.
Ummmm, challenge = direct confrontation. Like right now.
The reason we demand you back up your assertions/accusations/whatevers is that conservatives are notorious for making up stuff whole cloth. Liberals tend to deal with facts and reality, not "my gut." So when you say things like "the left did exactly the same thing!", we scratch our head, think "Pointless personal insults instead of critiquing policy? That doesn't sound right..." We want proof. Otherwise we chalk it up to usual conservative lies and ignore it.
You want to be taken seriously? Bring the proof or risk having your (possibly) valid point dismissed out of hand.
Snoop, you've gotta give some points for sheer cheekiness here. Do you understand the precedent Mag was trying to set here, and how that would have affected wingnut debaters everywhere, had it gone unnoticed ?
All future Items could go like this;
MMFA: Conservatives did [X] (backed with documentation)
Wingnut : Well, I imagine liberals did it too.
Let's call it a draw.
Extra points for reacting to having this pointed out by accusing others of avoiding logic.
Remember his "constituency"; The "Haves and the Have mores"?
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am really sick of hearing this tripe from them.
Talk to me when the economy's booming again, and we'll see. I'll buy you a Coke if the deficit isn't reduced significantly in that year. You see... Bush had good economic years and bad ones. It's no vice to run a deficit, even a record one, in a recession. But to run one when the economy is booming, or AT A MINIMUM to not REDUCE it significantly and work towards a surplus (as both Carter and Clinton did, in MULTIPLE YEARS) yeah... THAT'S inexcusable.
Bush did it EVERY year, good or bad, up or down. If Obama not trying to right things once the economy's back on track then FINE, I'll grant you that he's as bad as the last THREE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS in that department.
Just remember that the last two Presidents to balance thier budgets were both Democrats - one did it lean years (that's Carter, and the results show why that's a bad idea, when your in a recession!) and the other, Clinton, show how it's done in good years.
-------------------------------------------------------------
But until your grasp of Macroeconimics is better than your handle on recent history (1976-2008) I don't want to hear YOU complaining about the deficit.
Obama's State of the Union speech was magnificent as most of his speeches are. Those who have a problem with Obama's ability to deliver the goods could never match his skills, or come close, yet like Martin Lawrence once said, "critics criticize people for things they can't do".
Republicans and conservative are so predictable; we all knew they would find fault with Obama no matter what he says. True to form these idiots did just what is expected of a childish mind.
It was refreshing to hear Obama tell these Republicans bastards that "voting against everything may be short term politics, but it is not leadership". This was absolutely POWERFUL and it was something that needed to be said. It will be lost on these defiant Republicans because they are filled with hate.
Anyone who would support or follow a party that betrays democracy and their responsibility as elected officials are FOOLS. They are putting politics and their own ambitions ahead of the American people.
Republicans do not engage Obama and the Democrats, constructively, because they want the President to fail. Is this not un-American?
Folks its far time we stop letting those with evil intent define our President. You know who they are by now. Rightwing pundits, conservatives and Republicans have shown us what they are willing to do to undermine, discredit and criticize this president. This includes making up things and outright lying.
There is no excuse for letting these devious haters confuse, misrepresent or mislead you any more about Obama. All you have to do is judge him for yourself. Your good book of guidance (Bible, Koran) tells you to judge a man by his character and deeds. You are equipped to do that on your own (common sense). Speak truth to power.
Obama is no where close to what he is portrayed in the conservative media.
---------------------------------------------
IMHO
much respect....
Very good--and great post, by the way--but I prefer this observation by Brendan Behan: "Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves."
Thanks and I agree with you...
I'm surprised they didn't use the word "uppity".
"Rick, I think we all know who #2 is."
Overlooking speech substance for false talking points....check.
Ben Stein reminding the rest of us why his career peaked with "Bueller....Bueller....Bueller"......check.
Showing signs that a President using words bigger than five letters and two syllables causes head to explode......check.
Well....I see that the right's doing all of these. Guess that proves it. That was a damn successful State of the Union.
I fail to understand why BHO wants to charge "banks" for unrecovered tarp funds(especially those that have paid back the (forced) loan, with interest", but neglects fannie, freddie, aig GM hmmm... pathetic.
Yes it is true. YOU DO FAIL.
You are on here constantly, but have YET to make a valid criticism.
Calling everyone with whom you disagree "pathetic" is not an argument: it's a child on the kindergarten playground calling others names.
If Obama were even remotely serious about deficit reduction he would cancel the remaining unspent portion of the political slush fund known as the stimulus bill. His "freeze" does not even constitute a drop in the bucket.
THis is classic Cloward-Piven. He is intentionally trying to drive us into bankrupcy. He is still trying to foist a government takeover of healthcare and cap & tax on us. Note to Obama, "global warming" has been debunked, move onto your next fraudulent conspiracy.
There's a lot of BS in your post, but it's all dwarfed by your dismissal of the death of thousands of Americans on 9/11/2001. You make me sick.
Up is down. Black is white. War is peace. I think I understand now.
A group of communist thought it up as a means to attack private industry and redistribute wealth. The earth is not warming. This is a complete lie.
I trust scientists like Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, and Dr. Christopher Horner who all say it is a hoax.
The climate-gate emails prove that your side is complely making it up. It is time to move on to your next hoax, because the gig is up on this one.
Earth made in seven "days". How do we know how long a day is. Perhaps a day is 24 hours, perhaps in God's time a "day" could be 100,000 years.
The earth IS warming. The warming causes severe WEATHER, including extreme cold. It has to do with ocean currents. You seriously need to read credible sites on this.
I really wish people would stop putting gate on everything they think is a scandal. Their e-mails didn't prove anything, except to the uninformed eager to deny climate change.
Don't think the Bible needs to be defended. Yes, a "day" can be an eon. A lot of the Old Testament is symbolic.
In the 2000s the government of Russia brought these stations back on-line and the global mean temperature returned to its historic average.
This was probably done intentionally to perpetrate teh scam. The Communists seek redistribution of wealth. THey conspired to make it appear that mean global temperatures were rising in order to create a pretext for global socialism.
The earth is not warming - it is a hoax and a scam.
This from someone who didn't realize that 9-11 happened during Bush's tenure. Lot's of credibility here...
He kinda expressed support for nuclear power and drilling for OIL... hmmm... not-pathetic....
Try to get your talking points straight, zombies.
I thought those words were reserved for Bush. That's unfar to use them on Obama.
Amazing charge: yet President Reagan WAS 'presidential,' right? But Reagan did nothing but blame President Carter in HIS first SOTU. Repub's are STILL blaming Carter, CONSTANTLY harping about how "Carter was the worst president..." blah, blah, blah.
As to President Obama being "cocky" and "arrogant," what could possibly be the point? These were two of the most treasured attributes of their ongoing love affair with President GW Bush!! So the President must do this heinous thing with his face during those periods when he is not being "pedantic and professorial," right? Yet whenever President Obama is polite or considerate of another culture, whenever he behaves with modesty; he is assailed as "apologising to the entire world"?!?!
In the words of conservatives following every election in which a repubic candidate wins: "GET OVER IT! AN ELECTION WAS HELD... YOU LOST!!"
When well neo-cons, stop the endless fount of pathetic, hyperbolic, hypocracy? Typical conservative transferrance and projection.
Another Stimulus?
Written by the same guys that gave us 17% unemployeement?
If he want a fight, we will fight for our Country!
mediamatters, please pass/spread this link to others. This is good news on healthcare bill.
Thanks & keep up the good work.
http://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_53508788-0b88-11df-99e6-001cc4c002e0.html
Methinx the wingnut pundits are really intimidated by a President who can speak in complete sentences.