Uncle Jesse hates Obama, too

The Oklahoman's letters section is an embarrassment to the state. It is heavily slanted towards the right, and the views expressed often parrot easily-debunked lies about progressive views and politicians.  Just as bad, however, is the style that these letters are written in. You often see poor use of sarcasm, tired sports analogies, and, as in the case of today's letter from George E. Sneed of Oklahoma City, the simplistic use of what might politely be called "country witcisms" to get a point across.

Mr Sneed writes:

President Obama must not have attended an elementary school in this country. Otherwise he would've learned the serious consequences of misjudging Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by double-dog daring him not to use chemical weapons against his own people or we'd militarily meet that crime against humanity. Assad hasn't only accepted the challenge but has murdered hundreds of civilians by using poison gas. He, with Russia's support, has triple-dog dared Obama to strike him with an air attack, and has threatened to counterattack with terrorism on a grand scale.

Is this guy for real? "Double-dog daring"? "Triple-dog dared"? Should any serious newspaper publish this?

It is tempting to give Mr Sneed much more credit here. After all, he begins with a dog-whistle line about how Obama "must not have attended an elementary school in this country"--  lest we forget, he spent four years in Indonesia (when he was training to be a secret Muslim Manturian candidate). So let's make sure we remind the old white people in Oklahoma that Obama is a brown person who has had life experiences outside of the United States-- that's bad!!! Xenophobia is a powerful tool...

Anyhow, perhaps Mr Sneed, in embracing his "elementary school" zinger, has decided to write the rest of his letter as though he were actually in elementary school. But that still doesn't exclude the lunacy of this letter. Did Obama "dare" Assad to use chemical weapons? Of course not-- indeed, when you look at the context of the actual quote (this is hard for a lot of Oklahoman readers to do) you see that the meaning was far more complex, and referred more to chemical weapons "falling into the hands of the wrong people" than anything else. In fact, it seems like Obama-- perhaps naively-- was assuming that Assad wouldn't use them, but the rebels would. Either way, this certainly wasn't a "double-dog dare" as Mr Sneed suggests. 

So, uh, nanny nanny boo boo? Or something.

Anyhow, Mr Sneed continues:

At that point, Obama realized that he had let his mouth overload his behind and ran squealing like a pig stuck under a gate for Congress to rescue him from his self-inflicted injury. Congress has declined to do so. Then Russian President Vladimir Putin threw Obama a lifeline by promising that Russia would arrange for Syria to surrender its chemical weapon stocks to the U.N. This from a country that slaughtered millions of its own citizens during the last century. Russia's history of genocide makes Syria look like a piker.

Holy hell. Seriously? He actually wrote "he had let his mouth overload his behind and ran squealing like a pig stuck under a gate"? This sounds less like an elementary school kid and more like Uncle Jesse from the Dukes of Hazzard! This aside, it always makes me laugh when Oklahoman writers assume to actually know what was in the mind of someone else, and then construct a narrative (always negative) relating this mindset.

In any event, it's hard to see what the problem is. Obama clearly stated that the use of chemical weapons would "would change [his] calculus" and "would change [his] equation” in terms of military intervention. When chemical weapons were used, he went to Congress to ask for this, which isn't exactly a crazy thing to do, given how war-weary Americans were. The only reason Congress seemed to go against it was because, well, it was a brown Democrat asking, and they tend to hate anything he does.

Did Putin really "throw Obama a lifeline"? It seems much more likely that they were saving their own skin from international backlash given that they were the ones who had supplied the weapons in the first place!

And someone PLEASE remind Mr Sneed that the Soviet Union dissolved about 20 years ago. Invoking something that Stalin or Lenin did as some sort of "history of genocide" given that there is an entirely new form of government in place just makes you sound like some sort of Oklahoma version of Rip Van Winkle. "The Commies, son! The COMMIES!!!!!!!!"

And what the fuck is a "piker"?? I'm too tired to look up country witicisms like this. It's an embarrassment. Memo to the Oklahoman: some readers are under 70.

Uncle Jesse concludes:

The Obama administration has been the most corrupt and hapless one since Warren G. Harding's presidency. We've now lost all face with our allies and have become a laughingstock to our enemies. I shudder to think what may happen during the remainder of Obama's presidency unless Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court do something to rein in his hubris.

Ha! It's hard to imagine how one can be both so clever as to engage in all sorts of corruption (surpassing Bush, Reagan, and Nixon) but at the same time also be completely hapless. Right wing nut jobs want to have it both ways. Fortunately, they seem to excel at cognitive dissonance and so it's not much of a problem. (There's also a bit of irony in highlighting the Harding administration, given that his economic policies were definitely something the right wing would love-- even though he is regarded as a terrible president.)

And finally, what is Congress and the Supreme Court going to do?? Is this code for impeachment? Whichever. It doesn't matter. While Mr Sneed's letter isn't the worst letter the paper has ever run, it is still an embarrassment to the state. Why not just write "I hate Obama and liberals!" and spare us the juvenile elementary school taunts and lame folksy quips?

Miller's hit parade

As has been established, Tom Miller of Oklahoma City hates Hillary Clinton. We know this, because he's a regular writer to the Oklahoman. Given how much the Oklahoman hates Clinton, this relationship is a match made in heaven, and it explains why today we yet another Miller letter complaining about-- yes-- Hillary Clinton.

The letter itself is a shitty example of writing:

In light of how President Obama constantly blames others for his failures and problems, I'd like to hear him behind closed doors. In the tradition of the old comedy duo of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, I can just hear Obama saying to or about his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, “Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten me into,” ...

This sort of rhetorical writing has its place. But in a 250 word letter, it's clumsy and less effective than just making a more straightforward point.

In the end, he ends up doing this, putting out the tired right-wing list of non-scandals that somehow should be considered scandals:

Resetting our relations with Russia. It now appears that they've turned our relations into “Cool War” days. 

Handling of the Benghazi tragedy of Sept. 11, 2012, and the apparent attempted cover-up.

Clinton's complicity in the “Arab Spring” mess and the resulting gassing of hundreds of innocent women and children in Syria.

 We can already cross off the Benghazi non-scandal since it's been demonstrated that it is, well, a non-scandal. But what's this about Clinton ruining relations with Russia? The reality is-- of course-- far more complex than blaming one person, but if one person were to be blamed, it's hardly Clinton (and much more the former KGB agent who has done everything he can to stay in power in Russia...)

And how is an American Secretary of State "complicit" in a bunch of Middle East uprisings? Again, the "Arab Spring" is and was a very organic series of events that the US has and had very little control over. It's hard to imagine a more stupid assertion than that it's Hillary Clinton's fault that the Syrian government gassed its own citizens.

Would any real newspaper run this rubbish?

Mr Miller closes by saying

When will the mainstream media wake up and hold Obama and his administration accountable for their total incompetence and bungling of international affairs? His leading from behind, indecisiveness and always attempting to blame others will be Obama's legacy.

We need real “Hope and Change” in Washington, not “Another Fine Mess.”

What IS this? Tim Miller constructs a straw man wherein Obama blames Clinton for everything, and concludes by saying that he always blames others? It's completely stupid. Yet, this sort of drivel is exactly the sort of thing the right-wing plutocrats at the Oklahoman want to push on their hapless readers, and so hacks like Tom Miller continue to have their poorly-written, parroted propaganda letters published. It's truly an embarrassment to the state.

Childish insults

Would any real newspaper run a letter like today's letter from Patrick Gentis of Bethany? He writes:

In “Looking for love by bashing Hillary” (Commentary, Aug. 23), Clarence Page reported that NBC and CNN were planning a movie or miniseries depicting the life of Hillary Clinton. Page said that no one in the Hillary camp expects either of the networks to produce a puff piece about her. Really? For starters, how about the report that the beautiful and vivacious Diane Lane was approached to play the lead role? I suggest that the networks look to either Rosie O'Donnell or Roseanne Barr for the lead. They both have Clinton's personality and demeanor.

Holy crap.

Mr. Gentis is talking about this piece from Clarence Page, where, as noted, some proposed made-for-TV movies about Hillary Clinton are discussed. The column itself is a smart piece that uses the proposed Clinton movies as a jumping off point to talk about larger issues of party politics. Mr. Gentis, though, frothing over "media bias"after years of watching Fox News and listening to AM talk radio, and who no doubt has limited reading comprehension skills, latches on to the "puff piece" line and runs with it.

All of this is a set-up, though, for what can only be described as a childish insult. While he disguises this by saying that Clinton has the "personality and demeanor" of Rosie O'Donnell or Roseanne Barr (as though he has any idea), the real comparison is in looks-- no one would consider either of these two women to be attractive, seeing as they are short and overweight. Notice how he describes Diane Lane as "beautiful and vivacious"-- nothing about her "personality and demeanor" is mentioned.

We all know that the Oklahoman likes to run hit-jobs on Clinton-- they've done it for years. But would any real paper run a letter that amounts to "Clinton is fat and ugly"??? That's schoolyard stuff and something that major newspapers would be above running. But the Oklahoman isn't a real paper and any chance they get to attack major Democratic players like Clinton, they'll take it.

It's truly embarrassing.

Healthcare propaganda

One great indicator of how far right the right-wing has shifted in the last 20 years is its approach to the healthcare problem. The current system is woefully inefficient (despite claims from low-information voters to the contrary), and it is all too easy for ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people to fall through the cracks. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is an attempt to address some of those problems and, as has been well documented, the main aspects of the program were drawn up by the right wing Heritage Foundation think tank.

Fast forward a few decades and all of a sudden, "Obamacare" is now more or less socialism in the eyes of right-wingers. Of course, much of this is due to the propaganda from the plutocracy's media machine-- including the Oklahoman. And as today's letter from R.W. Boyer of El Reno shows, the propaganda is still going strong. He writes:

The Obama administration and members of Congress expect citizens of the United States to accept Obamacare while they themselves refuse to have much to do with it. They make a lot more money than most citizens do and they say that they can't afford the cost of Obamacare? What makes them think that everyday “Joe Plumber” can afford it?

As usual, we have someone talking about an issue that they are clearly ignorant of. Mr Boyer is talking about how

U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.

This sounds fishy, but it's not. Previously, these people were covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-- the insurance that covers millions of Americans employed by the federal government. And indeed, getting insurance through an employer is how it works for most Americans.

Strangely, though, as the ACA was being drawn up,

an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The amendment's author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it.

This doesn't make any sense and it is mind-boggling that Congress would do this. Forcing people off of their employed- provided insurance isn't the point of "Obamacare" so claiming otherwise is, well, a mistake.

Realizing this, Congress has now allowed the federal government to pay for 75% of the premiums for these individual plans that they shouldn't have to get in the first place.

Mr. Boyer totally doesn't get it. Indeed, he writes that

This administration and Congress are trying to pass off a dangerous and inferior product as something good for us yet bad for them. Their refusal to have anything to do with Obamacare for themselves and their families should be a huge red flag of concern for everybody!

Again: "Obamacare" isn't a product. It's a series of regulations that do some basic things to improve the healthcare industry. Unfortunately, Mr Boyer-- like many Americans-- is clueless about what "Obamacare" is and rails against it only because he's been told lies by right-wing media outlets like the Oklahoman. A real newspaper would try to inform its readers. But for the plutocracy, they can only survive by spreading propaganda, and so we get newspapers like the Oklahoman. It's a disgrace.