Some fun iron-manning. The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, compared Barack Obama to Francesco Schettino, the tripping-onto-the-lifeboat captain of the doomed Carnival Cruise Liner, Costa Concordia. He said:
In a few months, this is all going to be ancient history and we're going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino, which is President Obama who's abandoning the ship here in the United States and is more interested in campaigning than doing his job as president," Priebus said on CBS' "Face the Nation.
The analogy doesn't make any sense (remember this is the party of Sarah Palin, someone who actually fits Schettino's profile much more closely) even as puerile name-calling. Enter now the iron men:
BRZEZINSKI: That was disgusting. I'm sorry — take it back. You all screwed up in a big way. You sat in a room and said, "Oh, this would be so cool to say. Ha, ha, ha." You slapped your knees and then you went out on the air and you spit that you, you vomited that out, and you made a fool of yourself. Does anyone want to add anything?
KINGSTON: I don't know that you can say that was anything but an independent contractor using his own words and his own writing.
KINGSTON: There is name-calling there, and I don't appreciate the name-calling anymore than you do. However, there is also a point under it. The president does, in the State of the Union address, kind of revert back to kind of a lot of small ball items and isn't really handling the big issues of the day. Right now on the payroll tax cut, which isn't a huge deal, seems to be his biggest focus
Of course there's a point under it. There always is. But that's not the issue here in this discussion at all. Now also notice what the point was: the President's State of the Union contained actual policy proposals, much like Schettino had actual command of the ship. What was the analogy again?
One thought on “Get back on board the f*cking boat”
At risk of sounding like I'm trying to poison the well, I never seem to hear about Kingston except when he's doing the talk show circuit advancing a factually incorrect Republican talking point about the President. Three that come to mind are his attack on the President for supposedly refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance, for not placing his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and for not wearing a tiny American Flag lapel pin (even though Kingston, himself, doesn't wear a flag pin – not even when attacking the President for not wearing one).
The proper follow-up to Kingston's observation would be to ask him to identify the big issues of the day, to describe his own policy proposals, and to explain why he, himself, isn't lifting a finger to implement any of his solutions. (I'm just assuming, but he strikes me as all talk, no action.) Also, if the payroll tax cut "isn't a huge deal",it would be fair to ask why his own party hs been so obstructionist. After all, it's easier to address the big issues when the opposition party isn't being obstructionist, and it's pretty much impossible when they're obstructionist even on the smallest of issues.
Comments are closed.