Newsweek finally goes where none have gone before

posted at 4:31 pm on May 13, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Are you kidding me? I get that Andrew Sullivan is a man with an agenda and I completely support his right to make his opinions heard. I also understand that Newsweek – like any other publication – is in business to make a profit and that frequently involves pushing the envelope in terms of catching the public’s attention. But at what point is too much simply too much? When is the shark definitively jumped and the daily bread burned past any reasonable definition of being toast? Ladies and gentlemen, this would be that point.

First Gay President Large

Politico “explains.”

“‘Let the games begin,” Tina Brown said last week after Time Magazine released its controversial breastfeeding cover.

Brown, whose tenure as editor at Newsweek has seen an array of controversial covers, will respond with the above, pegged to Andrew Sullivan’s piece on Obama’s support for same-sex marriage: “The First Gay President.”

The poster that comes from this is going to sell millions. Take that to the bank.

I’m not such a political neophyte as to suggest that this is unique in politics, but the bold faced, brazen machinations and ham handed plotting which have characterized this “evolution” in the President’s position on the subject at hand are rather breathtaking. And I’m not saying that people don’t actually “evolve” in their positions, beliefs or ideology. I know that my own attitudes and beliefs in my twenties were a far cry – in some instances at least – from where I stand in my fifties. Very few of us spring out of the halls of high school fully formed with all of the opinions we’ll hold until the grave.

But these evolutions generally take place over a long period of time, as exposure to new people and different ideas are examined and experimented with. Some are kept, others are rejected. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has gone in the course of less than a decade from full throated support of gay marriage to full opposition on religious grounds, back to full support. Are we really supposed to be buying this?

Apparently Mr. Sullivan thinks so. And Newsweek is more than happy to jump on board with a cover which will probably go down as one of the most ridiculed and satirized efforts in the history of magazine publication. (But I wouldn’t mind a piece of the sales from the poster, though.) Yeesh.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6

Shouldn’t there be a diamond stud in his ear?

CoolCzech on May 13, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Would you wanna draw any more attention to those pitcher handles?

Lanceman on May 13, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Lol! Now that is funny!

Susanboo on May 13, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Are You Gay Enough?

redridinghood on May 13, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Don’t forget today’s handy internet tip:
 
Metaphor = When I insult you.
 
Ad hominem = When you insult me.
 
Tune in next week for more web time-savers. Until then,
Forward!

rogerb on May 13, 2012 at 11:45 PM

I’m pretty sure James Buchanan was the first gay president. But Obama is by far the gayest.

The Rogue Tomato on May 13, 2012 at 11:49 PM

Shark jumped. Bridges burned. Bread toasted.
-Jazz Shaw

You forgot, “salad tossed.”

cane_loader on May 14, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Weird man, weird prsident

Saturday, Feb. 25: “His warmth can be deceptive. Tho he speaks sweet words and can be open and trusting, there is also that coolness — and I begin to have an inkling of some things about him that could get to me.”

When she told him she loved him, he replied, “Thank you.”

The gay community, forgiving all prevarication, was electrified. As the “Will & Grace” co-creator Max Mutchnick put it on the CBS morning show, there are now little boys who can dream of both being a president and marrying a president.

The entire country is eunuchy and Starnesville.

Schadenfreude on May 14, 2012 at 12:02 AM

They finally outed the SOB.
It is about time. Guess his “body man” will be happy.

Delsa on May 14, 2012 at 12:19 AM

cane_loader on May 13, 2012 at 10:26 PM

 
It’s mostly just keeping up with the “quote” button. Has to be used sparingly, too. It can get out of hand really quickly and make some annoyingly huge posts.
 
Select the post with a quote already in it to respond to, copy/paste it into the text box, and then select/highlight the first quote. Press the quote button above the text box. Then select everything and click the quote button again. There should be a quote in a quote.

rogerb on May 14, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Well, he certainly loves the [Seriously, I'd feel bad about writing that word on a blog I respect this much, but it rhymes with clock]

JimmyMack on May 14, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Barack.

Golem called and he’s looking for his ears.

profitsbeard on May 14, 2012 at 12:26 AM

I wonder. Do we really KNOW what he meant when he said he eats dogs?

Ronnie on May 14, 2012 at 12:31 AM

rogerb on May 14, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Thank you! Noted and saved. I will try your “advanced math” the next time the situation arises :)

cane_loader on May 14, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Look at those ears of his. Every swish male I’ve ever seen has weird ears. Just sayin’

SaysWho on May 14, 2012 at 12:40 AM

So let’s add ‘em up. He’s gay, shoves girls, eats dog, snorts coke… all of this attempted smearing of Romney is sure helping!

cane_loader on May 14, 2012 at 12:43 AM

I wonder if Obama shared his gayness with Aunt Esther and the girls?

Delsa on May 14, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Best this will go over well with Muslims…

albill on May 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Just so you know, Muslims couldn’t give two sh**s about being gay. They practice it!

Delsa on May 14, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Muslims are NOT Christians.

Delsa on May 14, 2012 at 12:54 AM

This has to be the most misguided move of the campaign.

To quote Heatseaker, a lot of people of all colors and creeds don’t want gayness shoved down their throats…

CorporatePiggy on May 13, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Phrasing

sandbagger on May 14, 2012 at 1:04 AM

Hawkdriver wants a strong Conservative Party with candidates who can defeat the Republicans and the Democrats. What’s not clear about that?

Gelsomina on May 13, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Well, you didn’t get it.

I don’t want to defeat Republicans. Just Progressives. Wherever they reside.

hawkdriver on May 13, 2012 at 10:38 PM

That makes absolutely no sense. You don’t purge the Republican Party of Progressives by joining another party. The moment you leave the GOP you have lost your voice. Whatever they do is not your business anymore.

Gelsomina on May 14, 2012 at 1:17 AM

At least you are on to it, Hawk.

When Reagan left town, the Progressives took over the GOP, disguised as the Bush Family.

The GOP hasn’t won a landslide election since.

victor82 on May 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM

And he is going to save the Republican Party by joining the Conservative Party? How is that going to work?

Gelsomina on May 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Out of the White House, into the streets!

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 14, 2012 at 1:50 AM

Jumping the gay shark.

Or is it humping the gay shark?

hepcat on May 14, 2012 at 1:58 AM

I did not have time to go through all 5 pages of comments, so this might have been said already.

If the National Republican Party had a half a lick of sense [I know, we are in fantasy country already with that], they would be gathering every copy of that issue that they could and leaving them in Black and Hispanic barber shops and beauty shops in the piles of magazines to be stumbled upon. May not change a lot of votes, but it might make a number of people less than enthused about going to the polls, and that is almost as good.

However, knowing the RNC, and Romney, they will probably denounce NEWSWEEK [and any Republicans who point out the NEWSWEEK cover] as being uncivil.

*sigh*

Subotai Bahadur on May 14, 2012 at 2:48 AM

“LOL”, “ROFL”? Are you 7 years old?

So how are you going to old Obama’s feet to the fire after doing everything you can to make sure he’s re-elected?

Chuck Schick on May 13, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Well this poster sounds like my nephew when he doesn’t get his way and he’s 8.

Yeah Obama unchecked for four years. I’m sure he’ll be “real” easy to control. EO’s for everybody. I swear the radical ABR’s are just as bad as the radical Obama supporters.

gophergirl on May 13, 2012 at 8:07 PM

ddrintn on May 13, 2012 at 7:39 PM

You get to a point where your comments sound more beneficial to the Democrat Party. Is that what you were going for?

hawkdriver on May 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Yes. The as8hole will feel vindicated with an Obama win and then blame everyone else for the fallout.

CW on May 13, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Why the pressure to conform? Romney hasn’t earned it.

I understand those willing to vote for him because Obama is so bad, but that doesn’t make him a good candidate.

We have two parties in power. The Democrats are pushing progressivism for all they’re worth, and they’ve completely ruined the economy. The Republicans are resisting at least the extremes of progressivism, and hoping to put us on a better course.

But right now, as bad as Obama is, he has completely failed to move the nation to the left. In fact, his extremism has the GOP resisting him and pushing back.

Now replace the president with a moderate leading the GOP who is willing to compromise with the left, and you can easily have the whole nation moving to the left, because the GOP Congress won’t want to resist him.

Mitt Romney could easily move us further to the left as a nation than Obama ever could. That is a very real danger.

And as repulsive as the suggestion of a Justice Eric Holder would be, it doesn’t take screaming liberals to lead to us watching helplessly as our Constitution is undermined. All that requires is moderates who believe in a living Constitution. Some of the Justices troubling our nation were appointed by Republican presidents.

So I hope more people keep the pressure on Mitt Romney. He shouldn’t be able to count on our support unless he’s willing to take the right positions. Taking a stand against same-sex marriage is a good start, but you know he’ll try to nuance that issue and many others.

The best position is neither to offer unstinting support nor unstinting opposition, but to make clear that Romney will have to take conservative positions if he wants conservative support.

And above all, get as many conservatives elected to Congress as possible. Mitt Romney will need the pressure from the right even more than Obama, since there’s at least a chance Romney will listen.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 14, 2012 at 2:53 AM

who even buys and reads this magazine?
anyone??

envycat on May 14, 2012 at 2:56 AM

Oh great. Gabriel Obama. What will the liberals do next. Seriously, surround him baby angles playing harps.

WTF!

rubberneck on May 14, 2012 at 3:08 AM

Barney Frank loves the cover. And to celebrate. He wont eat beef tonight, and will stick to the other white meat.

Gedge on May 14, 2012 at 5:09 AM

YEEE GAD !!

Fairy’s, trolls, and demons and runnin’ the gubbamint ??

WE need a CHANGE in NOV 2012!!

BigSven on May 14, 2012 at 5:49 AM

Now replace the president with a moderate leading the GOP who is willing to compromise with the left, and you can easily have the whole nation moving to the left, because the GOP Congress won’t want to resist him.

Mitt Romney could easily move us further to the left as a nation than Obama ever could. That is a very real danger.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 14, 2012 at 2:53 AM

Exactly what I’m afraid of and more well-said than I could ever manage. Like you, I will probably vote for Mitt. Doesn’t mean I will ever trust him or let him go unchallenged. His agenda cannot be allowed to become the American agenda. It’s only marginally less destructive than Obama’s. The Mitt-bots believe his election will finally kill off Conservatism. They are stupid and short-sighted.

swinia sutki on May 14, 2012 at 6:32 AM

Saint Barak? Wouldn’t that be a demotion for him from messiah?

MJBrutus on May 14, 2012 at 6:33 AM

A sexual preference is not a race. My take.

kingsjester on May 14, 2012 at 6:35 AM

I think the breast feeding cover will be mocked more.

Besides, nothing can beat the toddler sucking at the teats of the Statue of Liberty for accuracy, in 21st century America.

MNHawk on May 14, 2012 at 6:48 AM

At least you are on to it, Hawk.

When Reagan left town, the Progressives took over the GOP, disguised as the Bush Family.

The GOP hasn’t won a landslide election since.

victor82 on May 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM

And he is going to save the Republican Party by joining the Conservative Party? How is that going to work?

Gelsomina on May 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM

That’s not the problem. He’s going to join the Conservative Party and help put together slates of national candidates to defeat Republicans and Democrats AFTER helping the Republicans to a smashing victory in November. Now, help me out here: is it going to be that the GOPe is going to be so very demoralized and vulnerable after that victory that there will be an opening for this Conservative Party to step into?

I expose the idiocy of such “thinking” and it makes some of you mad as hell. I don’t care. Deal with it.

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 7:18 AM

May 13, 2012 the day the MSM officially went beyond parody.

This Newsweek Cover, the Time Magazine “breastfeeding” cover, the Mitt Romney was a bad boy WaPo FRONT PAGE story.

It’s over, they’re done.

Jocon307 on May 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM

It’s official: Newsweek is the New MAD Magazine–but without the humor.

Years ago MAD did a spoof of Newsweak. Which fits now more than ever.

RandyChandler on May 14, 2012 at 7:22 AM

So, as you are an experienced, long-time commenter, I read that you are OK with 0bama getting 3 more picks to the Supreme Court.

Either you’re a plant or you are extremely short-sighted and unwise, or you do not know the function of the judicial branch of the federal government.

Your position will doom America.

cane_loader on May 13, 2012 at 11:07 PM

No, I’m not voting for Obama. And I’m also not going to fall for the usual “We’re all going to die if you don’t vote for the lousy candidate the GOPe throws out there!!!!” It’s not MY position that’s dooming anything. Obama wouldn’t have had ANY SC picks if McCain hadn’t been the nominee in 2008. Or if Bush had been just a wee bit more consistently conservative. So quit blaming us rubes for the shitstorms and dilemmas the GOPe finds itself in.

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 7:23 AM

who even buys and reads this magazine?
anyone??

envycat on May 14, 2012 at 2:56 AM

Hey, the current owner bought the whole operation for one dollar – less than the cost of a single copy – and lost a couple million the minute he did it, because he had to assume its liabilities.

Circulation continues to spiral downward, as does advertising revenue. The cover is a gimmick to sell it for souvenirs, since that doesn’t depend on there being any content inside worth buying.

Adjoran on May 14, 2012 at 7:27 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 14, 2012 at 2:53 AM

Exactly. Very well stated. Now sit back and let CW and other assorted morons tell you about 54 times to get a life, ya loser.

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 7:28 AM

A sexual preference is not a race. My take.
kingsjester on May 14, 2012 at 6:35 AM

Another goodie, KJ.

pambi on May 14, 2012 at 7:29 AM

Another goodie, KJ.

pambi on May 14, 2012 at 7:29 AM

Thank you!

kingsjester on May 14, 2012 at 7:31 AM

It’s official: Newsweek is the New MAD Magazine–but without the humor.

RandyChandler on May 14, 2012 at 7:22 AM

But they did keep the jug-eared mascot.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2012 at 7:48 AM

The cover is a gimmick to sell it for souvenirs, since that doesn’t depend on there being any content inside worth buying.

Adjoran on May 14, 2012 at 7:27 AM

That and to put mini campaign posters in every single grocery checkout.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2012 at 7:49 AM

great piece KJ

cmsinaz on May 14, 2012 at 7:51 AM

great piece KJ

cmsinaz on May 14, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Thank you, ma’am!

kingsjester on May 14, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Repeating a comment I submitted to the headline version of this story

‘The First Gay President’

Literally. Barry grew up in a Muslim culture that promotes “Bacha Bazi”, as a teen was close to sex addict Frank Marshall Davis, and as an adult was a member of “Man’s Country” in Chicago along with Rahm Emanuel.

Yes, Barry is the first gay pResident.

ITguy on May 14, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Bacha Bazi Barry…has a nice ring to it, eh? Maybe he can MC a queer strip joint once his butt meets the curb this fall. He can call it “Commander in Briefs”!

LOL!

insidiator on May 14, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Tune in next week for more web time-savers. Until then,
Forward!
rogerb on May 13, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Heh.

Jaibones on May 14, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Don’t forget today’s handy internet tip:

Metaphor = When I insult you.

Ad hominem = When you insult me.

Tune in next week for more web time-savers. Until then,
Forward!

rogerb on May 13, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Oh, by the way, you forgot:

not being Mittbot = O-bot socialist!!!

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Someone please tell me how Obama’s sexual history is news. Just Google “Man’s Country Chicago Obama” or “Larry Sinclair Barack Obama” and it’s all there.

OhioCoastie on May 14, 2012 at 8:14 AM

hawkdriver on May 13, 2012 at 10:38 PM
That makes absolutely no sense. You don’t purge the Republican Party of Progressives by joining another party. The moment you leave the GOP you have lost your voice. Whatever they do is not your business anymore.

Gelsomina on May 14, 2012 at 1:17 AM

You’re a progressive in the GOP and you seem to have a say. I guess I’ll still have mine as a Conservative outside the GOP.

I expose the idiocy of such “thinking” and it makes some of you mad as hell. I don’t care. Deal with it.

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 7:18 AM

Not sure why you find it so important to be so vitriolic. I didn’t start out talking to you like that. I do wonder if you entire plan is begging people to believe you’re not going to vote for President Obama and then spend literally hours here describing no plan whatsoever yourself.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Someone please tell me how Obama’s sexual history is news. Just Google “Man’s Country Chicago Obama” or “Larry Sinclair Barack Obama” and it’s all there.

OhioCoastie on May 14, 2012 at 8:14 AM

It isn’t news, and it won’t matter any more now than it did in 2008. Everyone knew instinctively that Obama is pro-gay marriage, regardless of his rhetoric…just as well all know instinctively that Romney is pro-individual mandate regardless of HIS rhetoric.

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Newsweek was sold for one dollar. soemone overpaid.

Four years ago, it was Obama “The Redeemer”, now it’s St Barry!

Spare me!!!!

patch on May 14, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Not sure why you find it so important to be so vitriolic. I didn’t start out talking to you like that. I do wonder if you entire plan is begging people to believe you’re not going to vote for President Obama and then spend literally hours here describing no plan whatsoever yourself.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 8:15 AM

No, you’re the one with the plan. So tell us: how are you going to defeat those progressives everywhere while helping to ensure that Romney wins in November? What leverage are you going to have? I’m certainly eager to know.

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 8:19 AM

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 8:19 AM

I’ve already saud what I think Conservatives should do. Let’s see, your plan is to run around here hysterically talking about not voting for President Obama and then talk like you think Mitt Romney is worse?

Can I just cut and paste that when you ask what my plan is?

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 8:24 AM

If I wanted to curse someone, it would go something like: “May you be outed as gay on the cover of Newsweek.”

SurferDoc on May 14, 2012 at 8:26 AM

I’ve already saud what I think Conservatives should do. Let’s see, your plan is to run around here hysterically talking about not voting for President Obama and then talk like you think Mitt Romney is worse?

Can I just cut and paste that when you ask what my plan is?

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Your plan? All I remember is “Uhhhhh my plan is to defeat progressives everywhere!!! But first we MUST elect Romney…” I asked how you intend to defeat progressives everywhere while working hard to elect Romney…and what you think your leverage is going to be come 2014 and 2016 to effect change in the political landscape. Are you going to threaten to stay home and really mean it this time? Third party and really mean it this time? Write-in and really mean it this time? Or are you just going to hold your breath until you turn blue? What?

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 8:28 AM

^ I mean, come on. I heard the very same bold, brave, “we’re not going to take it EVER again!!!!” crap in the wake of 2008. And lo and behold, many of those very same people are (unsurprisingly) on the bandwagon for the next Next In Line and helping to beat back dissenters. It will never change. It’ll probably take collapse to bring any sort of change.

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Not only does he suck on the economy hahaha

Conservative4ev on May 14, 2012 at 8:34 AM

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Your argument is to ignore the major content of what people have said and then repeated ask them the same question again and again until they get irritated at you?

What is the purpose of your debate here? Are you trying to depress the vote for Mitt Romney? Is that your plan? If you think President Obama winning would be such a great thing, then vote for him. Like I said in my first comment in this thread, I don’t have a right to tell you what to say or think, but you know that comment was directed to you. If you were effective in your debate, big if, the result would tend to accomplish exactly that, depressing support for Mitt Romney by people sitting on the fence. Is that your plan?

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 8:37 AM

repeatedly …

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 8:42 AM

I don’t get the big to-do over this Newsweek cover. Why is it in any way unprecedented? It’s the same old, same old. Jazz Shaw thinks this proves they jumped the shark? Newsweek crossed the bridge of no return A LONG time ago with regard to taking a liberal position and expressing it in an attention-grabbing way on the cover and in a way that would appeal to liberals. Have you guys seen some of the Newsweek covers in the last 2 years? They’re all about trying to get attention and coming from a clearly left-wing point of view.

This cover is obviously just a take on the silly idea that Clinton was “the first Black pres” and it also, in a way, kind of mocks the Obama as Christ/saviour imagery from the 2008 election. But, make no mistake, it is meant to be flattering of Obama because the target of the cover is clearly liberals who “get” the Clinton reference and who are going to understand that the magazine isn’t literally saying Obama is a homosexual.

It’s not even THAT provocative a cover. They could have had Obama dressed in a stereotypically gay way or waving a rainbow banner or leading a gay parade march or presiding over two gay men’s union ceremony while the two kissed or maybe Obama opening up his suit and shirt (in a Superman-style pose) but instead of having the Superman logo being revealed underneath it would be a gay pride symbol being revealed… but I guess those things wouldn’t be exactly the point of the piece, though they might have been more provocative. To me the cover as is just seems kind of… plain and obvious for the message they’re trying to get across and for the readers they’re targeting. It doesn’t seem all that memorable.

bluegill on May 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Isn’t a gay halo oxymoronic?

tomg51 on May 14, 2012 at 8:55 AM

It’s the economy stupid, don’t be distracted

Conservative4ev on May 14, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Yes, but lets change that to “its the stupid economy”

tomg51 on May 14, 2012 at 8:58 AM

What is the purpose of your [ddrintn's] debate here? Are you trying to depress the vote for Mitt Romney? Is that your plan? If you think President Obama winning would be such a great thing, then vote for him. Like I said in my first comment in this thread, I don’t have a right to tell you what to say or think, but you know that comment was directed to you. If you were effective in your debate, big if, the result would tend to accomplish exactly that, depressing support for Mitt Romney by people sitting on the fence. Is that your plan?

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Jilted and disgruntled Palin superfan-turned-Obama supporter ddrintn doesn’t listen to what anyone says. He isn’t truly interested in hearing others’ opinions. Ddrintn is a whiny, victim-card playing baby who now vindictively campaigns against our presumptive Republican nominee (and hopes for an Obama win) in order to soothe his petty, seflish sense of victimhood after being upset at what he thought was mean treatment of Sarah Palin, which he says caused her not to run. For ddrintn, if Palin can’t be the nominee, then he wants to take his ball and go home and pout. Never mind that Palin is a grown woman who made the choice not to run, even after she teased her supporters after months and months. (sidenote: though I respect Palin, I know there is no way that woman could have ever won a general election, so I think she did the right thing by not running.)

Ddrintn gives Palin fans a bad name and HotAir an even worse one.

Anyone who is not for Romney at this point is supporting Obama’s reelection. Now, does that mean you have to agree with Romney 100%? Of course not. We’ll never have a candidate we ALWAYS agree with. But campaigning for Obama merely because of some silly idea you have that your preferred candidate was mistreated by a few comedians or because some people on a message board criticized you in the past is beyond childish.

bluegill on May 14, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Looks like the makeup is wearing off his forehead.

JeremiahJohnson on May 14, 2012 at 9:03 AM

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Republican primary voters disagreed with you. That’s how voting works. It’s time for you to move on and see the bigger picture.

Thankfully, Republican voters made the right choice. We have a candidate who can actually win the general election, and I’m happy about that. Now, you may have preferred Newt or Santorum or maybe someone else who didn’t bother running, but that’s all water under the bridge at this point. I didn’t vote for McCain in 2008, but I accepted his victory in winning the nomination and knew that it was important to defeat either Obama or Hilary by electing McCain.

Ddrintn, you and other poor sports need to grow up and realize that it’s not all about you. There are bigger and more important things at stake here.

bluegill on May 14, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Metaphor = When I insult you.
Ad hominem = When you insult me.
 
rogerb on May 13, 2012 at 11:45 PM

 
Oh, by the way, you forgot:
 
not being Mittbot = O-bot socialist!!!
 
ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 8:13 AM

 
This is why that is funny.

rogerb on May 14, 2012 at 9:13 AM

It’s Newsweek. They must have run this by the WH and the WH must be OK with it. So then it’s looking even more like this guy regards the presidency merely as a way station en route to a lucrative post-presidency. He’s obviously not caring too much about getting reelected, but in his presidential afterlife he will be showered with gold, honors and…more gold. but unlike the victorious Roman generals who would be reminded that fame is fleeting, we will be annoyed by this street flunky forever. You think Carter’s post-presidency is annoying. Just wait.

curved space on May 14, 2012 at 9:14 AM

i honestly do not know how you heterosexuals have not completely lost your mind over this 24/7 gay stuff. i’m “gay” and i’m about to puke if i hear another thing about it.

GhoulAid on May 14, 2012 at 9:16 AM

The problem is that ddrintn and not just a few more like him have had help moving in that direction by some pretty caustic commenters here. I don’t agree with his position, but if he’s genuine, it’s not hard to understand how he got there.

That’s the real puzzle though, isn’t it? It’s hard to understand who is actually who (or what) they say they are anymore on Hot Air.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM

♫♪ Ding Ding Ding ♫♪
Thread Winner!

Shark jumped. Bridges burned. Bread toasted.
-Jazz Shaw

You forgot, “salad tossed.”

cane_loader on May 14, 2012 at 12:00 AM

I really needed a chuckle this a.m. Thanks!
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on May 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM

And the media finally drops the last pretense of objectivity.

RightOFLeft on May 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 8:13 AM

You want to call anyone who knows that Obama must be defeated (and that our only chance to do that is by electing Romney) some kind of “bot”. You are calling virtually all Republicans, including conservatives, very conservative voters, moderates, Tea Partiers, most independents and others all “bots” while you present yourself as somehow being able to see some supposed light.

Sorry, ddrintn, but you’re just a self-obsessed, Obama-supporting fringe nutter who has no place calling other people names.

How can you even pretend to be a conservative while you support Obama’s reelection campaign? Your hero Sarah Palin would be the first to call you out on your childish, vindictive behavior.

bluegill on May 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM

The problem is that ddrintn and not just a few more like him have had help moving in that direction by some pretty caustic commenters here. I don’t agree with his position, but if he’s genuine, it’s not hard to understand how he got there.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Anyone who is so pathetic and weak that they base their decisions regarding how to vote on the way they are treated by anonymous message board commenters is a fool not worth taking seriously, as far as I’m concerned.

The whole, “Supporters of Candidate X didn’t agree with me and insulted me on a message board, so I’m not going to support Candidate X” routine is becoming more than a little lame and tired.

Are some of you such babies that people have to constantly tiptoe around you, mind their manners and treat you with kid gloves when disagreeing with you, lest you will threaten to run off and vote for Obama? Pulling out the whole “be nice to me or I’ll vote for Obama!” card should disqualify anyone, especially a self-described conservative, from being entitled any respect.

bluegill on May 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I can’t believe nobody has noticed the “gaylo” around his head.

Someone must have thought that up already, right?

Dilophos on May 14, 2012 at 9:37 AM

bluegill on May 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I’m just wondering, who the hell do you think you are? Do you take some inherent right in acting exactly like I described, because this is all anonymous message board commenting? These are real people you’re addressing.

For the record, I would have never left the GOP because of a candidate I preferred losing a primary. I stayed with the GOP after my preference (Romney) lost to McCain last time. I supported McCain vigorously even though I thought he was the absolute last person who should be running. I would have loved a more conservative contender this time but we didn’t get one. So whether I’m still in the GOP or not, I’m going to try to help Mitt Romney win. As a member of The Conservative Party. But the reason I’m there though is becasue of people like you. You’re not the GOP I joined in the 70s when Reagan was even inspiring Democrats to vote for him because of his genuine Conservatism. I’m Conservative Party now also because it’s been increasingly hard to be a religious conservative in a party that social issue wise is indistinguishable from the democrats. People here herald the fact that they think this election is the final and complete defeat of people like me in the GOP. To quote Reagan, I didn’t leave the GOP, it left me.

And you, BG?

It’s surprising anyone remained in the Romney camp after having to deal with comments like yours during the primaries.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Your argument is to ignore the major content of what people have said and then repeated ask them the same question again and again until they get irritated at you?

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 8:37 AM

I’ll ask again, what leverage are you going to have to effect any change within the GOP or advancing the cause of some Conservative Party? And you still didn’t answer the question, because you and I both know that you will be voting GOP in each and every cycle as long as there is a GOP and as long as there’s enough pressure to make you feel as if you’re a Che Guevara fan if you don’t vote for the latest Next In Line GOPe-anointed squish.

The whole, “Supporters of Candidate X didn’t agree with me and insulted me on a message board, so I’m not going to support Candidate X” routine is becoming more than a little lame and tired.

Are some of you such babies that people have to constantly tiptoe around you, mind their manners and treat you with kid gloves when disagreeing with you, lest you will threaten to run off and vote for Obama? Pulling out the whole “be nice to me or I’ll vote for Obama!” card should disqualify anyone, especially a self-described conservative, from being entitled any respect.

bluegill on May 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I don’t care for Romney’s politics. I couldn’t care less about his dumbass Internet posse. They’re good for laughs.

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 9:57 AM

bluegill on May 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Oh do give it a rest bluegill. I may disagree with ddrintn, but I can definitely see the logic of his position and understand his fears. You have done nothing but spout how great Romney is since your first post on this blog. Nobody respects your opinion because you are to Romney what Newsweek is to Obama.

On the other hand, I think ddrintn is a guy Romney has to win over though actions, not campaign promises. I’m there with him to an extent, but I fear Obama more than Romney (yes ddrintn, I understand your argument of how Romney is worse, but I don’t fully buy it). I’m holding my nose and voting hard right down ticket.

Pattosensei on May 14, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Dilophos on May 14, 2012 at 9:37 AM

See page 1 of the comments.

Pattosensei on May 14, 2012 at 10:03 AM

You think Carter’s post-presidency is annoying. Just wait.

curved space on May 14, 2012 at 9:14 AM

I don’t care if Obama’s post-presidency is annoying. I just want it to begin on January 20, 2013.

The astonishing thing about the Newsweek cover is that these liberals are so detached from reality that they actually do not understand the political damage they’ve inflicted on their cherished Messiah.

matthew8787 on May 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I don’t care if Obama’s post-presidency is annoying. I just want it to begin on January 20, 2013.

With you there, and I do believe this will be the case.

curved space on May 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Look, I’m not going to try my best to be reasonable and objective in conversation here just to have you beclown my comments and have you presuppose what you think I’m going to do. I try not to name-call and I try to be respectful of everyone’s opinion. Mostly. I’ve mounted what any reasonable person would recognize as a defense of your right to say what you’re saying and I’m sure not a favorite of the heavy-duty Romney shills here. So, I don’t get how you pidgeon-hole me with the rest of the folks here.

I think we might have reached a point where our comments exchanged are a waste of both of our time. I hope you find some peace with your situation.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Look, I’m not going to try my best to be reasonable and objective in conversation here just to have you beclown my comments and have you presuppose what you think I’m going to do. I try not to name-call and I try to be respectful of everyone’s opinion. Mostly. I’ve mounted what any reasonable person would recognize as a defense of your right to say what you’re saying and I’m sure not a favorite of the heavy-duty Romney shills here. So, I don’t get how you pidgeon-hole me with the rest of the folks here.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM

LOL…uh, so, am I wrong?

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM
LOL…uh, so, am I wrong?

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I’d have to know what you’re actually trying to say before I’d know if you were wrong or not.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Dude!

claudius on May 14, 2012 at 10:15 AM

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM
LOL…uh, so, am I wrong?

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I’d have to know what you’re actually trying to say before I’d know if you were wrong or not.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM

You took exception to my comment of 9:57. I want to know how it’s wrong.

I have work to do. I’ll see later if you showed how I’m wrong, or merely offered more “you’re so mean!!!” delection. I’m thinking the latter.

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I have work to do. I’ll see later if you showed how I’m wrong, or merely offered more “you’re so mean!!!” delection. I’m thinking the latter.

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Don’t waste your time looking. I think we’re done here, Troop. Again, the point was about being respectful and not mischaracterizing what people say. I didn’t say anything about anyone being mean. Points like that make it difficult to discuss things with you because you’re all over the place.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Well, I’d heard rumors to that effect…but I dismissed them as nutty conspiracy theorist delusions.

krome on May 14, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Obama is not hot enough to be gay.

stingray9813 on May 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Look, I’m not going to try my best to be reasonable and objective in conversation here just to have you beclown my comments and have you presuppose what you think I’m going to do.

I think we might have reached a point where our comments exchanged are a waste of both of our time. I hope you find some peace with your situation.
hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM

..perhaps you understand — a little — why folks here get irritated with ddrintn? You mount a noble defense of his right express an opinion and — wham! –you are “beclowned”. The basic problem is that it’s a vicious circle. A statement of support for a candidate (Romney) begets a fusillade of mean-spirited rebuttals that cause a reaction.

The commenters who are out over the edge — particularly the late AngryEd (who has seemingly and mercifully disappeared) — see their mission as merely taunting and antagonizing peolpe to get a reaction.

To his credit, ddrintn, while at times infuriating can be instructive. I personally have reached a point (in this thread, ironically) where I will not respond to him anymore.

That said, your sentiments are honorable and bear considerable moral weight here. It’s just hard to remain Christ-like when trolls and meta-trolls are so frivolous.

The War Planner on May 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM

No, I’m not voting for Obama. And I’m also not going to fall for the usual “We’re all going to die if you don’t vote for the lousy candidate the GOPe throws out there!!!!” It’s not MY position that’s dooming anything. Obama wouldn’t have had ANY SC picks if McCain hadn’t been the nominee in 2008. Or if Bush had been just a wee bit more consistently conservative. So quit blaming us rubes for the shitstorms and dilemmas the GOPe finds itself in.

ddrintn on May 14, 2012 at 7:23 AM

Exactly. Sorta like healthcare; Mittness wants to put us in hospice to manage the pain and I want to put the US in an agressive treatment program. The cure may kill the USA, but in that case, she was already doomed. But hospice care is no cure whatsoever. Yeah, by managing the pain, we may survive a little longer than expected, but it’s still terminal. As you and I are aware, there are many a “conservative” that fear the pain that must come and are willing to pick the lesser of two evils, when in actually, we have 3 choices.

AH_C on May 14, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6