The Loathsome Left

After you’ve read this bonus article, Burt hopes you’ll enjoy The World According to Obama.

Inasmuch as Obama has suddenly begun referring to the Clinton years as the good old days, I feel it’s only fair to do the same. I was not a fan of Clinton, but at least he had enough good sense to allow himself to be reined in by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and the newly elected Republicans in 1994. By balancing the budget, reforming the welfare system and dumping HillaryCare, it even helped Clinton win re-election in ’96.

Back then, I was no fan of the Democrats, but I merely thought they were all wet on the issues. In the years since, they have mutated like monsters in science fiction movies. They are no longer merely mistaken; rather, they are evil creatures against whom death rays should be employed. For the hopelessly literal-minded, I don’t actually mean they should be vaporized. Instead, they should all be evicted from the White House and Congress in November. Of course if that doesn’t come to pass, vaporization shouldn’t be ruled out.

For those of you who remain unclear about the clear and present danger these arrogant morons pose to America, I’ll remind you that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is coming up on his 73rd birthday, had the following to say about his political opponents: “Karl Rove and the Republicans are looking forward to a breakfast the day after the election. They are going to assemble 17 angry old white men for the breakfast, some of whom will slobber in their food, some will have scrambled eggs and some will have oatmeal, because their teeth are gone. But those 17 angry old white men will say, ‘Hey, we just bought America. Wasn’t so bad. We still have a lot of money left.”

I acknowledge being an old codger, but I’m still 34 days younger than Reid, and I resent his caricature of elderly Republicans. Being blessed with all my teeth, including my rear molars, I am willing to bet that, with 32 in my mouth, I not only have more teeth than the man born to be a mortician, I have also retained more of my marbles than Senator Reid.

But, then, Reid, who owes his political career entirely to Las Vegas casino owners and Nevada’s public sector unions, has always been known for his classy rhetoric. Some have even compared him to Churchill. Not Winston, of course, but Ward.

As you may have noticed, the Democrats have attacked Romney relentlessly for his connection to Bain Capital. What’s odd about this is that under Romney’s stewardship, Bain invested in such successful all-American enterprises as AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Domino’s Pizza, Dunkin’ Donuts, Toys “R” Us and Staples. Obama, on the other hand, has squandered billions of our tax dollars on Solyndra, Ener 1, Beacon Power, Abound Solar, Spectra Watt and Eastern Energy. The two things that all these green companies have in common is that they have all gone bankrupt and they were all generous contributors to Obama’s election campaign in 2008.

When you compare the investment records of the two candidates, I would imagine that the expression about people who live in glass houses would inevitably spring to people’s minds. But, naturally, that would be limited to those who have minds. Liberals, on the other hand, come equipped only with echo chambers that resonate with talking points supplied ad nauseam by the likes of Obama, Jay Carney, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, David Axelrod and the aforementioned Harry Reid.

They aren’t even embarrassed to parrot the same line. I mean, even if they wanted to make hay out of Romney’s honest appraisal of the London Olympics, wouldn’t you think that some Democrat would have come up with something besides “gaffe”? If I thought that Obama had, as usual, said something stupid, I might have said he “stuck his foot in the mouth,” “tripped over his own tongue” or “foolishly opined,” but once David Axelrod or one of his lap dogs in the media used “gaffe,” none of the faithful dared veer off even slightly from the party line. I swear, if the Soviet dictators had been able to maintain this kind of discipline they’d still be going strong.

In the wake of the Chick-fil-A dust-up, the owners of every other fast food operation must be kicking themselves for not coming out in support of traditional marriage. In the wake of the threatened boycott by homosexuals, combined with the craven mayors of Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and Chicago, all threatening to ban the franchise, it’s a wonder that there’s a chicken walking around anywhere in North America. Whereas people used to say that a popular item was selling like hotcakes, they now say it’s selling like Chick-fil-A sandwiches.

All that Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-fil-A, did was take advantage of the First Amendment to say what the majority of Americans honestly believe. He didn’t say that he wouldn’t hire gays or serve gays, so for homosexuals to insist that this was somehow akin to the Civil Rights movement proves that a great many of them are not only vicious and bigoted, but lack even a smattering of commonsense.

These dumb clucks seem to believe that the First Amendment gives them the right to insult and bully with impunity. Moreover, they are convinced that, thanks entirely to their odd sexual practices, they are entitled to a special status that allows them to be America’s moral arbiters.

As is typical with those on the Left, they assume, whether they’re trying to put a chicken franchise operation out of business or shout down conservative speakers on college campuses, that the same Constitution that gives them the right to spew fatuous nonsense also gives them the authority to deny freedom of speech to those of us who regard them as loudmouth ninnies.

In threatening Chick-fil-A, Mayor Rahm Emanuel claimed that the company wasn’t welcome in his city because it lacked Chicago values. I must confess that was a real head-scratcher. Chicago values? Try as hard as I could, the only things that came to mind were corrupt politicians; dead people getting to vote in local, state and national, elections; and having the distinction of being the “Murder Capital of America.”

I know that Mr. Cathy is extremely fond of his illiterate slogan, “Eat Mor Chikin,” but he might consider adopting “Our Chickens Don’t Have Chicago Values.”

Now Burt hopes you’ll enjoy The World According to Obama.

Author Bio:

Burt Prelutsky, a very nice person once you get to know him, has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile. Talk about being well-rounded, he plays tennis and poker... and rarely cheats at either. He lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he takes his marching orders from a wife named Yvonne and a dog named Angel.
Author website: http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
  • Tsav672000

    Two lines that always come to mind when liberals talk about free speech. Free speech for me, but not for thee. And all of us are equal, but some of us are just a little more equal.

  • sjangers

    I think you may be giving Nancy Pelosi too much credit when you suggest that she is helping to supply Democratic talking points, Burt.  As far as I can tell, the only original Pelosisms always include the adjective “wonderful” gushed in front of whatever crack-brained leftist program/philosophy/politician she is flogging to that American people that particular day.  If it’s a (gush) “wonderful” law, a (gush) ”wonderful” value, or a (gush) “wonderful” post-partisan President, then Nan may have originated the phrase.  If not, it probably involves concepts a little too sophisticated for her one-way brain to follow.

  • Sassyo

    Burt:

    I enjoy your work and viewpoints.  I believe Obama is intent on redistribution as he sees fit.  He seems like an angry, petty, win at all costs candidate to me.  I am worried for our country.  I am worried about his success in pitting Americans against each other.  I sincerely hope we get a new administration in the upcoming election and I hope somewhere out there in cyber space the Romney/Ryan campaign has time to read your posts.

    • BurtPrelutsky

       Sassyo: I hope so, too.  But whether team Romney is reading my stuff, I hope and pray that the majority of Americans will wake up in time to rescue America from those on the Left who seem bent on destroying it.

      Burt

  • Concernedmimi

    Obama is no slow learner. He and the rest of the dems and looney left are hell bent on  fundamentally changing America into their utopia of socialism.

  • JoelnVA

    Burt,
    Great read, as always.   I continue to have hope that the further this administration drifts to the left, the more the middle comes to it’s senses.  Spot-on regarding the Clinton comparisons.  What we’re seeing are simply the results of someone with merely community organizer leadership experience, underpinned by a very liberal group of mentors.  I believe the DNC’s recent addition of same-sex marriage to their 2012 platform will come back to haunt them, but maybe they’re seeing it as a necessary Hail Mary?  For now, I’m hoping it’s 1980 all over again.  And, oh yeah…Vick’s Vapo-Rub…hated when Mom slathered me up with that stuff. 

    • BurtPrelutsky

       JohnVA: One of the remarkable things about Obama is that he got to run as a former community organizer, a term that sounds so benign that it makes him sound as if he had been an ombudsman.  In reality, he was a left-wing agitator, promoting ACORN and the SEIU, two of the most corrupt groups in America.

      The one thing that Vick’s Vapo-Rub had going for it is that it had such an overpowering smell.  I think the message the stench sent to the brain is that Vicks was working very hard and that the body should be doing its part to speed up the healing process.  More often than not, it seemed to work.

      Burt

  • Brendan Horn

    Burt,

    Even though Bill Clinton is a lecherous degenerate, he had intelligence when it came to the economy and was capable of making sound economic decisions. Barack Obama, I think it is fair to say, is an economic idiot. He has no clue how the economy operates and there is no evidence that he is capable of learning when it comes to the economy. I think Obama thinks he is trying something exciting and new, but really he is pushing policies that have failed everywhere they have been tried. He is trying to imitate Greece when Greece is failing utterly. I think there is a word for exceptionally slow learners. I will not use it to describe the president, but I think it applies in this case.

    • BurtPrelutsky

       Brendan: I don’t agree that Clinton was any more intelligent when it came to economics than Obama or he would not have pushed ObamaCare.  The difference is that the GOP took control of the House and Senate.  Clinton toed the line, took credit for the dot.com phony economy, and came out smelling a little like a rose.

      I would agree that Obama is more of a radical ideologue than Clinton was, but that in no way  accrues to Clinton’s credit.

      Regards, Burt

      • Brendan Horn

        I think the greatest achievement of both Clinton and Obama was that they were so unpopular after two years that they lost the House of Representatives for their party. Clinton learned from this and was able to work with the Republicans which helped the economy and got him reelected. Obama, on the other hand, is incapable of working with the Republicans. He has demonstrated no ability to achieve compromise of any sort, and is satisfied to just blame the Republicans and hopes he can demonize them enough to get reelected. I think part of his failure is that he had no executive experience and has no idea how to get things done. 

      • BurtPrelutsky

        Sorry, that should have been HillaryCare that Clinton was pushing, although, come to think of it, he also promoted ObamaCare years later.

        Burt

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

     

    If companies are people and people vote with dollars then
    the destination of the restaurant’s donations are open for public debate.  It very well should be an issue as to where
    peoples’ hard-earned money goes after the chicken goes down their gullet.  This issue has made our little feathered
    friend the modern martyr as Chick-fil-A laughs all the way to the bank.  Watch the poultry be nailed to the cross and
    pierced by the spear of destiny at the hands of those devious cows on my
    artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/08/holy-rollin-poultry-on-cross-chick-fil.html

  • GlenFS

    Mayor Emanuel offered up a nice oxymoron with “Chicago values”, and Burt, you weren’t prescribing the sort of “vaporizor” my mother would bring out of the closet, fill with water and a glob of Mentholatum when one of us kids took ill, are you? 

    It never made me feel any better, but Mom did somehow.  I don’t think it would cure what ails the left-minded either.   Does this make me literal minded?

    • BurtPrelutsky

       I’m not sure if it makes you literal-minded, but it makes me suspect you’re not as young as I thought you were.  Mom would just rub Vicks directly on my chest, no fancy machines for her.  I guess it must have worked okay; I’m still alive.

  • JohnInMA

    For me the most glaring change for liberals from the time of Clinton to now with Obama is the transition to the more rigid, harder left progressive ideology.  Clinton was more concerned with popularity and elections, which in the end is less damaging for the electorate at large.  When ultimately the politician who worries of image and electability responds to the will of the governed, the outcome is more likely to be good for the largest numbers.

    Today, there has been a cleansing, it seems, and only the progressives or those willing to go along seem to be left standing.  And their governance is purely ideological, where immediate or current sacrifices are tolerated (expected?) for the gain they see in the long term vision.  A less productive but more ‘equal’ culture via use of law (force) is an accepted outcome.  Some openly describe it as a desired outcome.  Lower use of resources, less energy consumption per capita, and their view of ‘fair’ separation between the highest and lowest earners can all be engineered simply by writing laws and enforcing them through regulations, in their minds.

    Clinton, I think, really believed in the power of the people, so to speak, in his own way.  He was willing to trust the public at large to follow aspects of their good nature.
    By contrast, the current progressive view is one where ONLY laws and enforcement can bring about the appropriate and desired results – and ultimately the society they want.  And the only sector of the public they trust are the ones on board and perhaps working towards those goals (e.g. activists, party supporters, community organizations, public employees, etc.).  The rest, including the wealth generators are distrusted  and the actions MUST be modified by law.  We only need to look at statements like those highlighted by Burt or from any Obama campaign stop to see that the modern liberals, progressives all, aren’t even interested in speaking to anyone but their like-minded equals.  The rest of the population is somehow unworthy of notice or only due vocal derision.  That’s a far cry from Bill Clinton in my view.

    • BurtPrelutsky

       John: I think you’re seeing Clinton through rose-colored glasses.  I’m not suggesting he wasn’t better than Obama in a great many ways, but he and Hillary were quite prepared to push HillaryCare down our throats until the ’94 elections saw Newt Gingrich and his fellow Republicans take control of Congress.  They reined in Clinton, enabling him to spend the next six years pretending to be a
      moderate, while devoting more time to chasing young women.

      Burt

      • JohnInMA

        I guess I see your viewpoint, especially regarding Clinton’s personal foibles.  But I recall Clinton being infinitely more concerned with his immediate image and the will of the people.  Obama seems totally unconcerned with both, even though he is quite thin skinned and unable to take much criticism.  He is committed to his vision of the “fundamental transformation.”  

        After all, we have a number of unscripted hot mike moments in addition to scripted political-speak moments as evidence that Clinton is not impressed with Obama’s deal-making ability (or lack) nor his economic policies.  Clinton, in my view, understands the art of compromise while still keeping the upper hand.  He could get things done.  Obama, lacking an absolutely obedient Congress, is ineffectual at best.  But, then, he continues to find new ways to move forward with his “transformation” without Congress.

  • cmacrider

    Burt:  For the reasons expressed in your article, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is nothing more intolerable than a liberal yapping about “toleration.”

    • JohnInMA

      There is nothing more intolerable nor more DUBIOUS in my mind….

    • Bruce A.

      Liberals are very tolerant of speech.  Only if agrees whth their view of things.

    • BurtPrelutsky

       cma: You’re correct.  It’s like college professors and college students yapping about diversity when all they mean are people with different pigmentation, never, God forbid, different politics or different religious beliefs.

      Burt