Fauxrage Watch: Obama Bows. America Doomed.
Apr 5th, 2009 | 18 responses
You may not be aware of it unless you follow the correct news sources, but America’s best days are behind her. We sit disgraced and dismissed by proper nations after our virtual submission to our betters by the President of the United States, who is apparently a clueless loser. Yes, my friends, worse has come to worst because Barack Obama bowed at the waist while meeting King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. (Should you wish to watch the downfall of America, you may do so on YouTube here.)
Fortunately for all of us, the guardians of American excellence, dignity and exceptionalism are ever vigilant! And now, to the Fauxrage list!
Clarice Feldman clucks her tongue and finds it “most unbecoming” that a president would bow to a “slave-keeping Arab King.” (Wait a minute… isn’t this the same slave-keeping Arab King that’s an important ally in the Global War on Terror and Everything Else, not to mention a vital partner in global economics and trade?)
Michelle Malkin is at least even handed in her disgust for GWB cozying up to the King, but also that Obama is “bowing and scraping.”
The Jammie Wearing Fool poses the poignant question, “Is Obama that stupid he doesn’t know only his subjects bow before him?” (Errr… actually, no. His subjects are forbidden to do it.)
Gateway Pundit seems more incensed that Obama would bow before King Abdullah, but dissed the good monarch. “Proper protocol is to bow before the Queen of England.” (You guys really need to hold a conference call before posting. Your friends are all busy saying the President bows before nobody!)
Speaking of royalty, one of the more potty mouthed queens of Right wing sanctimony opines that, “it looks like he’s sucking his *****.” Stay classy, friends. Stay classy.
Sadly, the judges in the Fauxrage Olympics must award the winning score of 9.7 to the generally reliable Hot Air, which has been all over this story like a cheap suit on a hobo. In a mere 48 hours, they managed to post not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE feature articles on this world shaking subject. Descriptions included conclusions that this proved the new president to be “weak” and “disgraceful” and “obsequious,” not to mention demanding that the “national media” report on this atrocity! (For the record, this is the same site complaining during the same time period about the manufactured outrage against Mike Huckabee.)
The real mystery is how all of these these defenders of American pride and deportment missed the real stories from Obama’s trip to Europe. Did you know that he nodded to Nicolas Sarkozy but nodded and waved to Gordon Brown?!? What’s this guy got against the French? Even worse, when shaking hands with Angela Merkel he only pumped her hand up and down twice, but Hu Jintao got three pumps! How we’re not at war with Germany already is a mystery to most observers.
Look, I didn’t vote for the guy either, but this is so much manufactured outrage over a momentary show of respect – even if it was somewhat politically tone deaf – that it shoots right past funny and fully into the Twilight Zone. There’s plenty to be concerned about regarding Obama administration policies, (such as the recent budget passed in the dark of night and a lack of interest in entitlement reform) but this Fauxrage is just a distraction, and a rather silly one at that. Or do you see it differently? How much significance to we need to assign to every single gesture and syllable coming from the Oval Office now? Is it the end of the world and I just don’t know it?
Let’s close by revisiting some past moments with this “slave-owning king” who deserves nothing but the back of Obama’s hand rather than a bow at the waist.
(Note: Fauxrage Banner courtesy of T.G. Studios)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to “Fauxrage Watch: Obama Bows. America Doomed.”
My big screen is on the way and Ive ordered up a ton of Orville Reddenbahers.
Missed in all this is that the King of Saudia Arabia is our enemy. Not our friend. He keeps us sucking his oil. He most likely kicks back a lot of money under the table to auto execs to make sure they DONT make battery cars.
But thats okay. We are stupid Americans for being outraged that a president who ran on cutting our foreign need for oil should then go to the Saudia's and grovel at their feet in a show of humility that belies the truth in his campaign speeches.
There is no FAUX outrage in me. Im flat out po'ed.
Continue to defend everything Obama does. The Obama lovers look mysteriously like the Bush lovers of just a few years ago. It would be comical if it wasnt so partisanly sad.
It doesn't have to be 'fauxrage', but U.S. Presidents, as a Head of State themselves, and the U.S., having no subservience to any Monarchy or other Head of State, should not be bowing to ANY Sovereign. Period.
End of the World as we know it? No. But a curious decision by 'The Smartest President Ever' to break with protocol this way.
Anytime the President of the United States does something stupid, we're reminded that it's not the end of the world. After the last 8 years, that's Change indeed.
Hey, it was only a diplomatic mission. Why nitpick about how he conducts, y'know, diplomacy?
I dunno, Jazz. I was so apoplectic about Michelle touching the queen that I nearly missed this outrage. Luckily, many of those same sources cited (and a reliable posse of others) can be counted upon to report all such horrors these days.
The guy on the left of the ODS logo is clearly meant to be Buckwheat and I am outraged.
At least Obamama did show his “man love” of the King and kiss him in Chi-town. Now a real man give a head of state a back rub.
(2009-04-03) — When the most powerful man in the world bent at the waist, and lowered his gaze to greet a Muslim monarch at the G-20 summit in London this week, he could not have known how the gesture would catch on back home. But that’s just what’s happened.
The so-called ‘Obama Power Bow’ has become a new craze embraced by the rich and famous, as they continue to emulate everything about their chic new American president.
Saudi Arabian King Abdullah received the traditional expression of fealty and servitude from the U.S. commander in chief with evident glee, smiling broadly — his grin superseded only by that of French President Nicolas Sarkozy who looked on with apparent admiration and a touch of envy.
Now, from the offices of Wall Street to the corridors of power in Washington DC, executives, senators and corporate leaders have taken to kowtowing to their subordinates as an expression of ultimate power.
“When you approach a man and lower your head like that,” said one unnamed CEO, “and you expose your unprotected neck, it’s like you’ve got swagger on steroids. If the guy had a sword, he could chop your head off and you’re saying, ‘I’m not afraid of you’.”
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president was not actually bowing, but “merely assumed the position before the Arab king in an effort to see if he could find common ground.”
at least “braindead” is aptly named. I think the Right is doing a tremendous job of making Obama electorally invincible. It is like the “brains” at Move On suddenly started advising the Right how to alienate normal people.
I hope the Right keeps this story alive until Obama's Second Inauguration. Thanks Braindead!
And missing from the angry Conservatives, who lately are always mad about something, is any talk of what Policy differences Obama has with previous Presidents. Did Bush isolate Saudi Arabia? Did Clinton? Did St. Ronald Reagan?
So Mr. Treacher's critique is all on style, as though when George W. Bush held hand or kissed the Prince on the lips, that was great statesmanship.
It is an absurd faux controversy, but you right wing guys boiling rage is all too real. But rage wins no votes or friends or arguments.
Braindead, “The Obama lovers look mysteriously like the Bush lovers of just a few years ago. It would be comical if it wasnt so partisanly sad.”
As I recall Bush was (is) hated by most of the world with his cowboy “diplomacy” and forcing other countries to show a token of support of his policies.
It seems that when Obama travels through Europe that many countries are turing out to cheer him, not protest him (as they did with Bush). It's nice to have a president that the rest of the world does not view as a world dictator.
Showing respect to world leaders will serve Obama far better than the actions of a president who can divine Putin's soul by looking into his eyes and falling in love with him. Or (as tjproudamerican beat me to it) holding hands and kissing Saudi royalty.
http://www.slate.com/id/2117517/
I don't much care for the article on this link below, but the pictures are worth a thousand words.
http://marcovilla.instablogs.com/entry/kissing-…
So I say if Obama believes it necessary to show a little respect to the Saudi King, then let him. Many Republicans believe that Obama can't stand up to world leaders when negotiating in America's best interests. Well it doesn't seem that Bush was standing up to the Saudis, choosing instead to act like a high school teen goofing around with his best friend…. After all he couldn't even get the Saudis to reduce their oil prices a year ago.
Jazz, great post- you seemed to strike the right balance between “fauxrage” and sarcasm. I think the best approach for this topic, if one is going to discuss it at all.
Stockboy here's what I'm seeing that kind of relates to braindead's comment – there seems to be an inability (mainly from Obama supporters) to discuss Obama without comparing him to Bush. I think this does two things. One is that it's almost a reverse-straw-man argument, in other words since Bush was so unpopular comparing the two will usually work in Obama's favor and he will be portrayed in a positive light regardless of the issue. The other is that it changes the argument from the issue itself to how Obama compares to Bush, discouraging attention to the issue itself. I'm not saying you do this, actually I don't think you do, but there is some truth in what braindead (I know that's his username but I still feel mean every time I write it) says.
Part of the reason the GOP went wrong was blind devotion and a lack of skepticism from the rank and file. I now see some of the same attitudes coming from the left and can't help but think it will end badly. Obama/Reid/Pelosi aren't any more deserving of blind allegiance than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.
DaGoat said, “there seems to be an inability (mainly from Obama supporters) to discuss Obama without comparing him to Bush.”
I think that's a true statement. But it only covers part of the equation. I've seen a great deal of “imagine if Bush had done this!” from the non-Obama supporters (can't easily say who they support).
I've also noticed, in commenting around and about, that one cannot make observations that reflect negatively about the left or the right without being immediately hit with a demand for equivalency. (But the other side said thus and so / was-is worse).
Negative sum debates in all of it lately. The partisanship is incredibly bitter and hostile — which is no doubt partly responsible for some of this rather ludicrous fauxrage.
I think you're right Polimom. For every derangement syndrome there is a corresponding knee-jerk defense syndrome on the other side, and I certainly have been guilty of both at some point. Much of political debate now consists of accusing the other side of hypocrisy.
DaGoat, “…there seems to be an inability (mainly from Obama supporters) to discuss Obama without comparing him to Bush.”
That's a pretty good observation and I think it's fair. But I also think it's fair that people will always compare presidents with past presidents. We like to think of ourselves as a nation with the freedom to choose our leaders so I think it is inevitable that comparisons will occur. ANd I think you're right…. all to often people get caught up in the comparison without looking at the policy or action in question.
What I liked about Ron Paul was his principled stand. During the debates when the moderators asked him questions you knew what the answers (at least most of them) would be because Ron Paul believes in the philosophy he espoused. The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to only find their principles if those principles are the opposite of Democratic Party. The Democratic Party (on yet another hand) is a pluralistic party drawing from the diverse population in the US, each with their own needs, so it's harder for them to coalesce around a set agenda.
The GOP still believes in blind devotion and if you disagree with them, then you're out. It's interesting that brought up Obama/Reid/Pelosi, representing the executive and legislative branches, but then on the Republican side you mention just the executive branch (depending on which side of Cheney's mouth you agree with- whether he's executive or legislative). It seems that people think of the Bush years as the Bush years (and forget about the complicity of their own Republican elected officials), yet when it comes to a liberal agenda the feeling is that Pelosi and Reid will set the agenda and write the bills, and Obama will pass them. I suppose that's a natural reaction since Obama hasn't been strong with setting an “optional” agenda…. Meaning that he's responding to events, such as the economic crises, rather than creating events like the Bush tax cuts, or the Bush decision to invade Iraq even though the intelligence wasn't there to support it, or Bush's decision to bring up gay marriage as a wedge issue during previous elections…. We all know where Obama stands on the issues (or where he says he stands) and that he is working on getting the economy back on track and responding to other needs, i.e. Gitmo…. but what IS Obama's “optional” agenda, those items he wants to accomplish without a pressing need? I think we all knew when Bush went into office in 2001 that he would cut taxes, though there wasn't a need to, except to become more politically popular…. But can anyone think of anything similar for Obama?
“So Mr. Treacher's critique is all on style, as though when George W. Bush held hand or kissed the Prince on the lips, that was great statesmanship.”
I didn't like that stuff either, but it was a concession to their culture. And in their culture, it was not a sign of subservience. Bowing the way Obama did is.
But you're the expert, so if you don't think these things matter in the realm of international diplomacy, I'll take your word for it.
[...] the United States’ No Runny Eggs: Barack HUSSEIN Obama bows to his master The Moderate Voice: Fauxrage Watch: Obama Bows. America Doomed. Obi’s Sister: Is There a Lemon Law for Presidents? P.U.M.A.: Obama Refuses to Bow To The [...]
For sure next time our President Obama will bow Mr Kim Jong Il ( North Korea) Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ( Iran) Mr Fidel Castro ( Cuba) and Mr Hugo Chavez ( Venezuela. Just wait and see.