Vul­gar cam­paign ends a child­ish ad­min­is­tra­tion

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - By David Lim­baugh

Two re­cent ads il­lus­trate the great cul­tural di­vide in this na­tion and which par­ties and pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates rep­re­sent these com­pet­ing world­views.

In the han­dling of the econ­omy and na­tional se­cu­rity, Pres­i­dent Obama has shown he’s not ca­pa­ble of be­ing the adult in the room. Af­ter four years of per­pet­ual cam­paign­ing and cheer­lead­ing for his pet projects, he still isn’t pre­pared to deal soberly with the con­se­quences of his ide­o­log­i­cal in­dul­gences.

His community or­ga­niz­ing fan­tasy has been to re­make Amer­ica in his more so­cial­is­tic im­age, and in the process, he’s taken the na­tion dan­ger­ously close to fi­nan­cial ruin. Yet like the un­su­per­vised chil­dren in “Lord of the Flies,” he re­fuses to make ma­ture de­ci­sions to re­verse this fis­cally sui­ci­dal trend.

In the same way, Obama es­chews any re­spon­si­bil­ity for the de­struc­tion his poli­cies have caused — still pre­pos­ter­ously blam­ing Pres­i­dent Ge­orge W. Bush four years later for his own scorched-earth ran­sack­ing of Amer­ica’s trea­sury and jobs mar­ket.

The Amer­i­can left sim­ply will not grad­u­ate from its ‘60s rad­i­cal­ism, and un­der Pres­i­dent Obama, these ado­les­cents are firmly in charge. Thus, it should be no sur­prise that these same de­vel­op­men­tally ar­rested peo­ple don’t have the good sense to hide their in­ten­tions to per­ma­nently con­vert Amer­ica into a land of ram­pant li­cen­tious­ness and ir­re­spon­si­bil­ity. Two ads con­nected with Team Obama make the point quite clearly and de­serve univer­sal dis­tri­bu­tion.

First, we have the Obama cam­paign ad com­par­ing vot­ing for Obama to hav­ing sex for the first time. Is noth­ing too vul­gar for this bunch of MTV pan­der­ers? Prob­a­bly not, as Pres­i­dent Obama ei­ther showed us his true char­ac­ter or stooped to even lower pan­der­ing in his re­cent in­ter­view with Rolling Stone mag­a­zine, dur­ing which he called Mitt Rom­ney a BSer — only he, our sit­ting pres­i­dent, pro­nounced the full word. Now, back to the ads.

If you haven’t had the mis­for­tune of view­ing this, ac­tress Lena Dun­ham ap­pears on a video ap­peal­ing to young women to imag­ine their first time vot­ing for Obama as be­ing akin to los­ing their ac­tual vir­gin­ity. The ref­er­ences were ex­plicit and un­mis­tak­able. You shouldn’t ex­pect any­thing sub­tle from this vul­gar crew.

First, the sex­ual in­nu­endo: “Your first time shouldn’t be with just any­body. You want to do it with a great guy,” says Dun­ham. “It should be with a guy with beau­ti­ful ... some­one who re­ally cares about and un­der­stands women.”

Next, she segues seam­lessly into pol­icy: “A guy who cares whether you get health in­sur­ance — and specif­i­cally whether you get birth con­trol. The con­se­quences are huge. You want to do it with the guy who brought the troops out of Iraq. You don’t want a guy who says ‘oh, hey, I’m at the li­brary study­ing,’ when re­ally he’s out not sign­ing the Lilly Led­bet­ter Act.”

Af­ter a short riff on gay mar­riage, she says:

“It’s also su­per-un­cool to be out and about and some­one says ‘did you vote?’ and (you re­ply), ‘No, I didn’t feel — I wasn’t ready.’ ” She closes by de­scrib­ing her first time vot­ing as “amaz­ing.” It was like cross­ing that “line in the sand” to vote for Barack Obama. “Be­fore I was a girl; now I was a woman.”

Is this the type of ad we should ex­pect from a pres­i­dent who has two young daugh­ters? Is this re­ally ac­cept­able in to­day’s hip Amer­ica?

The next video fea­tures chil­dren singing about what an Amer­ica un­der a Rom­ney pres­i­dency would be like. This world — kind of like the hor­ror show the late Ted Kennedy pre­dicted for women should Judge Robert Bork have been con­firmed to the United States Supreme Court — would be one in which sick peo­ple must “just die,” our at­mos­phere would fry, oil would fill the sea and ho­mo­sex­u­als could be “fixed.” In that world, “we don’t have to pay for free­ways. Our schools are good enough. Give us end­less wars on for­eign shores and lots of Chi­nese stuff. ... You can’t cut spend­ing with elec­tions pend­ing — un­less it’s wel­fare, though.” The mind­numbed, pro­grammed “chil­dren of the fu­ture” sing in lock step about these ills and then squarely lay the blame on their own “mom and dad.”

It is par­tic­u­larly sin­is­ter that these in­doc­tri­nated chil­dren are led to charge that Rom­ney would leave them “hold­ing the bag,” when the ad­min­is­tra­tion be­hind the ad is it­self fla­grantly guilty of that very charge. The good news is that the grownups in Amer­ica, I truly be­lieve, are go­ing to come out in droves on Elec­tion Day and de­mand that the con­trols of this na­tion be re­turned to their fel­low re­spon­si­ble adults. David Lim­baugh is the au­thor of “The Great De­stroyer”.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.