Patrick Ruffini calls Obama a “douche”. As I said, these are the same old people, it just comes on computers now.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
TheNextRight, Same As TheOldRight
June 21st, 2008
47 Comments
Heh. “Brazen” AND “presumptuous”!
You have to wonder why they just don’t come out and say that he’s uppity and doesn’t know his place. It’s not like they’re doing a good job of hiding the racism now.
As political name-calling goes, that doesn’t even get above the horizon. There are much better reasons to dislike Ruffini. Start with his arrogant announcement that his site was going to revolutionize conservative politics.
How’s that going, Patrick?
Remember, living well is the best revenge, and if you compare your traffic to TheNextRight, you will be amused by their lack of any.
What campaign did Ruffini work on in the primaries?
Take the NextRight and keep going straight til you get to the ocean. and then keep going.
Ruffini=FAIL.
Again, this is a non-issue that doesn’t deserve any real attention. Just a distraction.
Shake it off.
Of course, the best part of all this is if we get enough people all hot and bothered about what Ruffini called Obama, we can all pretend that the actual point he rose — that Obama’s appropriation of the presidential seal is both incredibly arrogant and illegal — doesn’t exist.
And no, you can not paint that as racist. The same would hold true about any presidential candidate who “adapted” the Seal of the President Of The United States (which is protected by law — see 18 USC Sec. 713).
That he had to use lousy Latin grammar to get “his” motto in there… well, that’s just tacky.
J.
(Who knows two dirty Latin puns)
Remember, living well is the best revenge
I’ve heard that. Don’t see it used for many opera plots, tho.
After the evil Prince Rudolpho kills his entire family in Act I, Seigfried gets his revenge in Act II by living well…
Is that a real logo in the photo? Seems badly photoshopped
The seal is not illegal. That meme is the dumbest thing you guys have come up with this week, however.
Oliver, I bet you’re about as much of a lawyer as I am (to wit, none), but here’s the actual text of the law:
Obama’s seal is clearly derivative of the seal of the President — enough so that I suspect that copyright lawyers would have a field day with it, tossing around such terms as “look and feel” and the like.
The intent is clear: to get people to start associating Obama with the presidency, months before the election. Sound political strategy, but only lacking in a few things — like laws that specifically forbid similar uses, and a sense of ethics that say “you don’t use that seal — or even a photoshopped one with a crappy Latin version of a campaign slogan — until you’ve earned it at the ballot box and taken the oath of office.”
J.
JT, I’m no more a lawyer than you or Oliver, but from what you posted it seems to me Obama wouldn’t be in violation. “in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States”
I think a very good argument could be made that Obama’s use of the that image is going to give the hypothetical “reasonable man” an impression that his campaign is sponsored or approved of by the Government.
Any more than the use in The West Wing was meant to convey that Bartlett was sponsored by the Bush administration.
“I bet you’re about as much of a lawyer as I am (to wit, none) …”
Gosh, Jay Tea, thanks for the parenthetical. I don’t think any of us would have ever guessed what you meant if you hadn’t included it.
Obviously the Obama campaign wants their man to appear presidential and I think the faux seal is a pretty tacky way to do it. I’m rather surprised that the campaign would be so hamfisted about it given how well they’ve presented Obama so far. Of course, I doubt it’s illegal. I’d love to see the McCain campaign push that one, especially since his campaign seems to have a problem coming up with original imagery themselves: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/mccain-rips-off-obamas-sl_n_105266.html
At worst, the faux seal is as lame as Bush’s faux military jacket from a few years back: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/gems/bush-military-jacket.jpg
Illegal? Possibly, but it’s unknowable since I doubt any prosecutor in the country has enough stones to bring charges.
Tacky and Inappropriate? Without a doubt!
Obama’s seal is clearly derivative of the seal of the President
Operative word is derivative. If it was the actual Great Seal, you might have something, but it clearly is not.
Next.
Are you saying, Jay, that The West Wing was in violation of the law? Or any other movie or television show that used the Seal of the President?
Why are there no charges pending?
Apparently JayTea can’t read the entire law. It clearly isn’t illegal.
Or, perhaps, Aaron Sorkin and company had approval. They did have connections through DD Myers and Pat Caddell.
Yes, I am, Duros. That’s why there are 29 warrants out for Dennis Franz’ arrest, for 29 separate counts of impersonating police officers.
I guess if you want to use the “fiction” defense for Obama, that he’s only an actor pretending to be president, that’s OK with me.
On further consideration, I’d have to say that Obama’s use of the Seal is probably not illegal. Tacky, arrogant, presumptuous, unoriginal, and borderline plagiarism, but probably not illegal.
But for Obama, par for the course. Reminds me, vaguely, of how he won his Illinois Senate seat (getting his rivals disqualified) and his US Senate seat (the unsealing of private divorce and child custody records of his opponents). In those cases, like his “adopting” the seal of the presidency, waiting for icky, annoying formalities like elections was just too much to ask of him.
J.
“…for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof”
case closed.
Duros: Are you saying, Jay, that The West Wing was in violation of the law?
I think I was the first one to mention The West Wing, not JT, and clearly as an example of use of Presidential Seal that did not run afoul of the law as quoted.
JT: Reminds me, vaguely, of how he won his Illinois Senate seat (getting his rivals disqualified) and his US Senate seat (the unsealing of private divorce and child custody records of his opponents)
First I’m hearing of those. You got some links I can follow to find out more?
Obama’s first election
And you don’t remember the kerfuffle when the guy who married that Seven of Nine chick dropped out of the race because it was alleged he took her to swingers clubs in Paris? It’s how we wound up with Alan Freakin’ Keyes.
Sean, I’ve posted links twice, and they keep disappearing. Go to Wikipedia’s page on Obama and follow the links to the articles on “Illinois Senate Career of Barack Obama” and “United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004.”
Those will give you the bare bones, and you can use that to verify the details from other sources you trust. As far as the US Senate race, look up Blair Hull (Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination) and Jack Ryan (his Republican opponent).
J.
I think I was the first one to mention The West Wing, not JT, and clearly as an example of use of Presidential Seal that did not run afoul of the law as quoted.
Indeed, you were. I was just asking if Jay thought any laws were broken.
“In those cases, like his “adopting” the seal of the presidency, waiting for icky, annoying formalities like elections was just too much to ask of him.”
Jay Tea, reading the wikipedia links and other sources, it’s pretty clear that the pressure for Ryan to release his divorce records began during the Republican primary when his Republican opponents made them an issue in the campaign. Pressure also came from journalists who wanted to see what was in the files. Obama himself officially stated that he didn’t think the records should be opened or injected into the campaign. You can believe him or not but it’s bullshit to suggest, as you do, that Obama was the driving force behind and solely responsible for releasing the records.
Of course you’re attacks on Obama with regards to Ryn sort of reminds me of your first comment in this thread:
Of course, the best part of all this is if we get enough people all hot and bothered about what Ruffini called Obama, we can all pretend that the actual point he rose — that Obama’s appropriation of the presidential seal is both incredibly arrogant and illegal — doesn’t exist.
Maybe if we get enough people thinking that Obama is a power hungry politician who will do anything to win public office, we can all pretend that Jeri Ryan didn’t seek a divorce from Jack Ryan because, as she said, he demanded she have sex with him in public sex clubs and bars.
As for the contested petitions of Obama’s rivals for the state legislature, so what? The challenges were perfectly legal and upheld by the Board of Elections. You say that’s hypocritical, I say that’s hardball politics and it’s about fucking time we had a democrat on the national ticket willing to play hardball.
SaveFarris: And you don’t remember the kerfuffle when the guy who married that Seven of Nine chick dropped out of the race because it was alleged he took her to swingers clubs in Paris?
Yes, I remember that. Don’t recall ever hearing Obama being described as the person who made Ryan’s divorce papers public.
JT: Go to Wikipedia’s page on Obama and follow the links to the articles on “Illinois Senate Career of Barack Obama” and “United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004.”
Did that. The relevant text reads: “As the campaign progressed, the lawsuit brought by the Chicago Tribune to open child custody files from Ryan’s divorce was still continuing. Barack Obama’s backers emailed reporters about the divorce controversy, but refrained from on-the-record commentary about the divorce files.[8] On March 29, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider ruled that several of the Ryans’ divorce records should be opened to the public, and ruled that a court-appointed referee would later decide which custody files should remain sealed to protect the interests of Ryan’s young child.[9] A few days later, on April 2, 2004, Barack Obama changed his position about the Ryans’ soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats to not inject them into the campaign.[8]”
From which I don’t see Obama actively did anything wrong. It was the Trib that filed a lawsuit to get the divorce papers made public, not Obama. It was Obama that said they should not be injected into the campaign.
I don’t think you’re really suggesting that a candidate should be blamed when his opponent does something embarrassing that costs him the nomination.
I don’t think you’re really suggesting that a candidate should be blamed when his opponent does something embarrassing that costs him the nomination.
That’s exactly what he’s suggesting.
Sean, I didn’t say Obama did it, only that he benefited from it — twice in a row. Unlike the disqualifying of his opponents in the state Senate race, which was done by his staff.
Also, look at that quote you cited:
Oliver, your newfound distaste for calling opponents a “douche” is touching. Can you specify exactly when you reached this conclusion? Was it immediately after you called Joe Lieberman and Mickey Kaus douchebags?
Oliver Willis: “Joe Lieberman is a douchebag.” http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/11/08/joe-lieberman-is-a-douchebag/
Oliver Willis: “Mickey Kaus is a douchebag.” http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/10/27/mickey-kaus-is-a-douchebag/
Or was it just in the past few days, when you saw an opponent using the word?
“Sean, I didn’t say Obama did it, only that he benefited from it …”
And so he should be held responsible for Ryan pressuring his wife to have sex with him in public sex clubs. Yeah. That makes sense.
JT: Sean, I didn’t say Obama did it, only that he benefited from it — twice in a row.
So we’re blaming him now for having opponents who screwed up?
What you’d said: “In those cases, like his “adopting” the seal of the presidency, waiting for icky, annoying formalities like elections was just too much to ask of him.”
How about formalities like making sure you have all the proper filings required to get your name on the ballot. Should we ignore those? Because in his initial race Obama didn’t. He did what was required and got his name on the ballot. Others didn’t, he pointed it out, and they got left off.
Jay, I agree keeping your opponent off the ballot thru basically legal maneuvers isn’t the most admirable thing. But it was how the game was/is played in Chicago. And I can’t see a real problem with doing unto the other exactly what they would try to do to you as long as it is all within the rules, as it was.
This isn’t that far from those who complained about Obama beating Hillary in the primaries because he played the game better than she did.
Jon, that’s not my point (and you know that). TheNextRight is allegedly where the young vanguards of the right can storm the gates and remake the GOP, but all you guys do is the same old stuff con blogs and right wing radio have always done. Same old, same old.
Oliver, I hadn’t really noticed before JOn mentioned it, but you do have a fondness for calling people you don’t like “douchebags.” Just what do you mean by that term, anyway? Kindly explain it in terms that don’t reveal you as a raging sexist and misogynist.
Come to think of it, when one couples your excessive use of that term with your constant objectification of women (especially Jessica Alba) and your opposition to Hillary Clinton, and quite a case can be made that you are, indeed, a sexist and misogynist.
Hell, one could even tie in your pronouncements of your fondness for your “weiner” dog and speculate if you’re one of those women-hating gay men, and the objectifying of women is merely cover for your denial of your homosexuality…
Nah, that’s going too far. I’ll just stick with the “sexist, misogynist” theory.
J.
And that, boys and girls, is how a Republican smear is born.
Duros, I’d quibble on the “Republican” part of it. It’s a bipartisan tactic. And, I’d also note, this particular one — about Oliver being a misogynist — is a hell of a lot better sourced than the “John McCain called his wife a cunt” story floating around. This one has documented proof at its core; it’s the conclusion from that evidence that is disputable.
Besides, I never said Oliver was a misogynist; I’m just asking questions…
J.
JT: Besides, I never said Oliver was a misogynist; I’m just asking questions…
Like “When did he stop beating his wife?”
Just askin’.
Not quite, Sean. That’d be fair if I asked “so, Oliver, how long have you been a sexist, misogynist pig?”
Rather, I just asked him just what he means by “douchebag,” and if he really is a misogynist as he appears he might be.
Personally, I don’t care for that term, and don’t use it. I understand that it’s become more popular of late (partly, I’m sure, thanks to Jon Stewart calling Robert Novak “Douchebag Of Liberty”), but I still don’t care for it — precisely because of its implications.
J.
Ok, fine. A general smear, then.
I didn’t realize the term “douchebag” was misogynist. I get that it is for *ahem* feminine hygiene, but it flows better than “enema bag” which would be asexual.
Plus “Douchebag of Liberty” is teh funnay.
Fair enough, JT. What pushed my button was the “I’m just asking questions.”
Inquiry is, of course, a good thing. More questions should be asked. It’s how we make sure we understand what the other guy really means before we go off and rip ‘im a new one thereby lessening the chance for finding out we actually pretty much agree. It’s how we make sure our “leaders” aren’t getting away with all that they have been getting away with.
But the “I’m just asking questions” excuse has also been used far too much lately as a cover. E.g., the person who disingenuously says “I’m just trying to understand, why doesn’t Obama wear a lapel pin? I’m just asking.” who really has no interest at all in any real answer. The real intent is to make the statement “Obama isn’t patriotic”.
Oddly enough, Sean, I tend to associate the “just asking” gambit with 9/11 Troooothers and anti-Bush conspiracy theories.
Like I said, it’s a bipartisan stunt.
And I don’t like “douchebag” because it is, in and of itself, sexist. That’s why I usually call ‘em “assholes” and “dipshits” and “scum” and “weasels” and “sacks of shit” — nice, gender-neutral epithets.
Or, when I’m really, really worked up, “pig-fucker.”
Jon raised a valid point, though — why is it fair for Oliver to call Lieberman and Kaus douchebags, but some sort of great outrage for someone to call Obama a douche?
I’m thinking it’s a form of heresy…
J.
Now don’t be getting sexist there, JT. I’m sure you meant to say it’s a form of him/heresy….
Dang, Sean, I almost went for “apostasy,” but it didn’t have quite the right meaning. And the right word just hit me — “blasphemy.”
My name is Jay, and I’m a sexist…
“Hi, Jay!”
J.
JayTea, why are you such a douchebag?
Because he smells good and you just want to give him a good squeeze?
It’s a gift, Oliver. Pure, natural talent. Honed by years and years of practice. And, of course, a never-ending supply of source material here.
Why do you think of “douchebag” in such a negative context? Just how do you define “douchebag,” anyway? What sorts of traits do you associate with feminine hygiene products and people you dislike? Is it a dislike of the feminine part, or the hygiene part?
Thanks for the good laugh, Sean.
J.
At what point (this goes back a bit to the “cotton pickin’” discussion of some weeks ago) does a word fall into general usage and get freed from the moorings of it’s origins?
I’m sure many people only know the term douchebag as a prejrative. That when asked what a “douchebag” is would only be aware of it’s use as a synonym for “jerk” and would be surprised to find it is an actual physical object.
When you say “He sucks.” can’t it just be a comment on his ability without it also being a comment on his sexuality?
Funny scene from the largely un-funny Julia Louis-Dreyfus sitcom; they are in a pharmacy and the stoner brother looks at a shelf and says “Hey wow, a douchebag is a real thing.”
Just to round out this (pretty much) dead thread, and back to the topic at hand,
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2590
So, you know, STFU, Ruffini.
Speaking of douches..