President Disparages Disabled
During his appearance on The Tonight Show:
Towards the end of his approximately 40-minute appearance, the president talked about how he’s gotten better at bowling and has been practicing in the White House bowling alley.My Comments:
He bowled a 129, the president said.
“That’s very good, Mr. President,” Leno said sarcastically.
It’s “like the Special Olympics or something,” the president said.
When asked about the remark, the White House had no comment.
“Having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will surely ...” never try to sound witty or clever or "cool" at the expense of the disabled and the programs that benefit them such as the Special Olympics. Right?
I'm wondering whether the Shrivers and Kennedys - who founded the Special Olympics - will offer any criticism. I kinda doubt it. But woe to George W. Bush had he committed this faux pas.
UPDATE
But pay no attention to the leader of the free world who goes on national TV to comment about the "weight problems" of a young woman during a Super Bowl interview and pokes fun at the athletic ability of Special Olympians during a Tonight Show appearance. We have more important things to worry about, such as some person on the radio who used the words "plus-size" to describe the nobody-who-thinks-she's-somebody offspring of a failed presidential candidate.
Labels: Obama, What the ****?
posted by Pro Ecclesia 7:26 AM
23 comments
23 Comments:
The post should be called:
"The President Disparages His Bowling Abilities"
So if I disparage my own looks by saying "I'm as fat and ugly as Meghan McCain" that's okay?
For the record, I think Ms. McCain is neither fat nor ugly, but is actually quite attractive. I only use her as an example because her physical appearance has been the subject of much controversy lately.
You know Craig, the next time your idiot President is fumbling around for something to say because he suffers from hoof and mouth disease without his teleprompter, I hope he leaves my son and all other disabled kids alone.
Because we all know dutiful Obama supporter craig would be posting the same comment if Bush had been the one cracking wise. His devotion to the President would be touching if it weren't so creepily predictable.
That said, I think the "what if Bush had said it?" approach works well for both sides as a benchmark for how to react to this problem.
If Bush had said it, would I assume there's a cancer in his soul regarding the disabled? Nope. But I wouldn't be denying that it was a grossly insensitive thing for which he should apologize.
BTW, craig, the President apologized for his grossly insensitive remarks. You can safely criticize it now.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20268.html
Political Correctness bites the hand of its master.
Obama's attitude fits with his pro-death ideology.
Your supposed outrage over Obama's off-hand comment about his crappy bowling is quite something.
If Bush had said that, I doubt anyone would have even noticed or cared since he was never, ever known for his eloquence.
BTW, Mr. McClarey, I have a disabled daughter I didn't even consider mentioning until I read your reply.
She bowls in the 60's and we are fine with that.
The main problem with the president you troll for Craig isn't his lack of eloquence. His main problem is that he is a smug, narcissistic S.O.B. without an ounce of compassion for anyone other than himself. His lack of a teleprompter on Leno merely allowed his essence to dim forth.
Nevermind Bush; imagine if Sarah Palin had said this.
Mr. McClarey, the problem with the ex-president you troll for wasn't his lack of eloquence, either.
It was the way he took the keys of a country that was in really great shape in 2001, drove it off a cliff and blames everyone but himself for totalling it.
It was the way he took the keys of a country that was in really great shape in 2001, drove it off a cliff and blames everyone but himself for totalling it.
You know, you can pretty much distill the essence of liberal stupidity with this one sentence.
1) It's a non-sequiter.
2) Craig thinks the country was in great shape in 2001.
3) Craig attributes behavior to George Bush (blaming everyone but himself) that is actually much more of a character trait exemplified by the current president.
Rubbish Craig, but I expect little else from an Obama troll. It may has escaped your notice, but your guy is President now. Blaming Bush everytime Obama makes a jackass out of himself in public will only work now with your fellow worshipers of President Teleprompter.
"It may has escaped your notice, but your guy is President now." should have been "It may have escaped your notice, but your guy is President now."
BTW, craig, the President apologized for his grossly insensitive remarks. You can safely criticize it now.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20268.html
DP,
I don't have to criticize it. I managed to understand what he meant without being morally offended.
PZ,
1.) I bow to your far superior logical abilities.
2.) The country was in better shape in 2001 than it currently is.
3.) Here is a statement from Obama on March 18th that I never heard from Bush:
"Ultimately, I am responsible. I am the President of the United States," Obama said.
link:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200903182116DOWJONESDJONLINE001030_FORTUNE5.htm
DM,
I am not blaming Bush for Obama's poor little joke on the Leno show at all.
If you think Bush was somehow a better speaker than Obama, with or without a teleprompter, you are entitled to your opinion.
craig:
You endearing little lickspittle, you. I imagine shaking the pom-pons all the time keeps you in shape.
He has hurt many families in America. He needs to say he is sorry in the public, not to some organization.
During the campaign for the White House in 2008, the media criticized Palin for being ‘common,’ and ‘not presidential.’ However, compare Sarah Palins attitude in this video created three weeks ago for the Special Olympics in Boise, Idaho.
You decide the more ‘presidential’ among them:
http://tinyurl.com/ccz6nj
Wow -- lots of uproar over a throwaway line for which he has apologized for. Which is worse, which will have a long lasting negative impact on the life of disabled children -- Obama's weak attempt at humor, or Palin's refusal of stimulus money that could be used to fund programs for disabled children?
Still a proud Catholic voter for Obama!
What are you proudest of, Martin? Preservation of extraordinary rendition and the state secret privilege in defense of same? Keeping the troops in Iraq on the same timetable as President Bush? Stepped-up Predator attacks in Pakistan? The surge into Afghanistan? Pumping of $100s of billions into corporations without oversight? Entrusting torture to continued "study" by a committee to see if it might be necessary? The Mexico City abortion policy? Funding of destructive embryonic stem-cell research and ending the funding of non-destructive pluripotent SCR? Provoking a trade war with Mexico? Appointment of a federal judge to the Court of Appeals who was rebuked by his peers for blocking a parental consent abortion law in the face of clear precedent authorizing the same?
Share with us the carefully-considered Catholic analyses that led to your unflagging pride on these points.
And, if you have a moment, also explain, using Catholic social principles, the wisdom of accepting temporary federal funding of social services on a state with a budget dependent on the market price of petrofuels, when the federal funds expire under their own terms in two years.
DP said:
"You endearing little lickspittle, you"
Stay classy, dyspeptic one.
I'm sorry, craig--I apparently missed the part where you *stopped* regurgitating partisan talking points reflexively defending the President and attacking his opponents.
My bad.
Funding of destructive embryonic stem-cell research and ending the funding of non-destructive pluripotent SCR?
To be fair, he didn't end the funding of iPSC, he just revoked the mandatory funding of it. The NIH still can choose to fund that research, there's just no requirement.
While it effectively defunds it (since there's a limited amount of money to go around, and the mandatory funding of destructive research means ESCR will get the lion's share), he didn't ban federal funding. He'll leave some spare Change for the most promising research while he Hopes killing babies will produce something in 20 years.
Martin, they're not "disabled" children, they're children with disabilities. They deserve to be treated with dignity, not used as a "throwaway" comedic line. It's another example of the lack of concern the President (and his supporters) seem to have for children.
Post a Comment
<< Home