Free Markets, Free People

Reaping What They’ve Sown And Not Liking It

This is fascinating. You’ve probably seen this popping up. It first appeared in LA:

Joker

The UK’s Mail Online says:

The right-wing editor of the American Thinker website, Thomas Lifson, wrote today: ‘It is starting.

‘Open mockery of of Barack Obama, as disillusionment sets in with the man, his policies, and the phony image of a race-healing, brilliant, scholarly middle-of-the-roader.’

But the President’s supporters have condemned the image, calling it ‘mean-spirited and dangerous.’

A spokesman from the Los Angeles urban policy unit said that depicting the president as demonic and a socialist ‘goes beyond political spoofery.’

“Mean-spirited and dangerous?” “Goes beyond political spoofery?” Really?

So what was this?

Bushvamp

I don’t know about you, but I call it “free speech”. Funny though – now that the shoe is on the other foot, this sort of spoofery is “mean-spirited and dangerous” as far as the left is concerned.  And, of course, the first reaction of some is to try to make it a racial thing (the same publication which published the cover above, naturally).

And then there was this from Vanity Fair. Seems there was no problem at all with Joker parodies in July of 2008:
Bush-the-Joker002-copy[1]

As one of the commenters at Vanity Fair said:

Poor Joker, he doesn’t deserve this. Bush isn’t good enough to wear his face.

Mealy-mouthed hypocrites.

Quit whining. Save your outrage for someone who hasn’t seen your act before.

~McQ

48 Responses to Reaping What They’ve Sown And Not Liking It

  • Get your shirts right here

    http://www.cafepress.com/wizbangblog

    • Is it bad that the first thing I thought of when I saw these shirts was that there are some parts of this country where wearing that wil get me killed?

      • Why yes, wearing such a thing could get you assaulted or killed. I think wearing the Bush version would not have the same results.

        Civilized behaviour is not equally distributed along the political spectrum.

  • It’s amusing to see the response to this image.  It has struck a nerve, and the rationalizations for that gut-level response are all over the place.  Everyone seems to have a different comparison to draw between those two characters.

    I’m just waiting for someone to apply the image to the scenes themselves: Joker burning a big pile of money, Joker in that nurse outfit blowing up a hospital (“ObamaCare”), etc.

  • He wears it so…eloquently…don’t you think? 

  • Aw, shucks, darn, shoot, dabnabbit! Who said that the Left didn’t have a sense of humor?

    As McQ says, ‘tis be free speech. The Left has this problem: they are all for free speech, as long as it is speech that they agree with. Otherwise…stop that right now! That’s not free speech…it is HATE!

    Wanna see some more of The Clown™ in action? Check these out (and make sure to save them for future potential use!):

    http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/880/obamalovesadolf.jpg

    http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4084/obamafuggobama.jpg

    http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8235/obamajackarse.jpg

    http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1402/obamasaynotoobamunism.jpg

    http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2504/obamascrewobama.gif

    http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/46/obamaclown2.jpg

  • How appropriate.  And Vanity Fair (Vanity…yes, Fair?  Guess not…) how quickly we forget those exciting days of yesteryear (yester, this time, last year) when we were united with our little Obama signs and our hopey changeitude, blaming George Bush for all the ills of the world, where anything we wanted to say, or do, concerning the then President of the United States was just our way of practicing free speech, where we ran an entire campaign against a President who was leaving office even if the candidates we were going to replace him with were a couple of deparment store manikins.
     
    Just as then when he was a candidate, you KNOW if you’re criticizing this President, or his policies ( THIS man as canidadate or President) you’re just a racist.  The white face poster proves it. And their idiot buddies in the press  have done a sterling job by making this public, now it’ll catch on far far past a couple of buildings in Los Angles.
     
    Should be very interesting to see the official reaction to this, and I expect, covertly, there will be.    You know, somehow or other, this will be a security threat to the President that requires an official investigation.   Who printed these, etc…
     
    Won’t be long now till they figure out “who dun it” so we can be treated to their tax status, their marital bliss, their prior convictions, their employer’s name, their address and their phone number.  To bad it’s already going to go viral.

  • The Joker wears clown make-up. Why is it racist for Obama as portraying the joker to wear clown make up?

  • Hmmm… When did mocking the president become such a problem? Or, more to the point, when did the president become untouchable, a person so (shall we say?) holy that we shouldn’t mock him?

    I’m not a big believer in tu quoque arguments; just because the left does it doesn’t mean that anybody else can or should. However, this is not a question of tu quoque to me: it’s an issue of freedom to criticize. Let people decide whether the criticism is “too much”; if they think so, they’ll reject the criticism and the critic. If not, then I agree with Lifson: TAO is in serious trouble.

    • “…just because the left does it doesn’t mean that anybody else can or should.” Technically true – however, whether one SHOULD or not, it’s hard to take anyone on the left seriously when they object to this after the last 8 years. Payback is a female dog, after all.

      • alanstorm – “… it’s hard to take anyone on the left seriously when they object to this after the last 8 years.”

        If they weren’t so determined to screw things up for the rest of us, it would be hard to take the left seriously, period!

    • When did mocking the president become such a problem? Or, more to the point, when did the president become untouchable, a person so (shall we say?) holy that we shouldn’t mock him?

       
       
      When the media fell in love with him and they noticed he wasn’t a white guy, after that you weren’t allowed to criticize him.  Surely you jest with this question. And it’s not just any President, it’s specifically THIS President, you’re especially not allowed to mock THIS President.

  • How dare the insolent rabble mock Il Dufe! Give ‘em a taste of the lash, I say. Keep the tax serfs in their place.

  • And now they’re withholding data on Cash for Clunkers, because I think, they’ve discovered that people used the money to buy, not Government Motors cars, or Chrysler(Fiat) cars, or even Ford cars, but foreign cars.   Oh, big surprise….shock!
     
    Bring on McCain’s Cash for Refrigerators program!
     

    • That outcome is not a surpise. The Cash for Clunkers programs was aimed at dealerships and by no means, domestic ones.

      The domestics curtailed their production over the past 6 months and have depleated their inventories in response to the climate. The foreign producers were slow to make cutbacks and have a glut of ’09s. Its not coincidence that C4C came just in time before the ’10 model year turnover sparing those dealerships from having to unload ’09s.

      You’ll find the domestic producers having inventory problems right away while the foreign producers will have few if any.

      • And you know the photos of ‘old’ cars sitting in the dumpster is no joke, they’re REQUIRED by the program to destroy the turned in vehicles.  So…if your car, is only slightly less efficent than the one you’re trading up to, and only slightly older, they’re gonna kill it and trash it, regardless of how old it is.  Now, doesn’t THAT make sense?  Take perfectly good, running vehicles, and kill them.  Now THAT’s not just sensible, it’s very environmentally friendly too!
         
        For chrissakes – sell the damn things in Mexico, but burn em up?  please!
         
        Yep, the more I hear about this plan the more eager I am for government to take over our health care.

  • Your error is to think that most Obama supporters believe the poster to be out of line.   I find it amusing, and very much in line with some of the images made by President Bush.   Mocking Presidents is an important part of our political culture.
    One of the best ways to keep perspective in political debates is to keep a sense of humor.   Unfortunately, people on all sides tend to lose perspective and rationalize what their side does, and criticize the other side when they do the same thing.

    • Your error is to think that most Obama supporters believe the poster to be out of line.

      Your error, Erb, is to once again distort what was said in the original post.
       
      Strawman much? Yes, yes he does.

  • Yeah, I wasn’t surprised at the outrage.  People will react differently when the target of ridicule is someone we like or dislike.  What amused me greatly was that the same publication which was so offended that they attempted to portray it as a racist attack (for example, by using a term like “white face” and deliberately ignoring that it is the Joker’s appearance that is being implied) had no problem with a similarly mocking image of George Bush as a vampire, wearing a pentagram design on his lapel.  That one was so funny they put it on the cover, but they seem to be choking with rage at similar treatment being dished out to Obama.
     
    Sauce for the gander, Mister LA Weekly.  Why should it taste any different?

  • Erb, how is it an error to quote Earl Ofari Hutchison, Vanity Fair, and LA Weekly?  Your error is to try to slip your usual shoddy strawmen past anyone who isn’t one of your undergrads.

  • Don’t be silly, Phil, I said the error was to think that most Obama supporters are truly upset about the poster.   You obviously didn’t take care to read what I wrote.  I think the Obama poster is creatively provocative, something I appreciate.

    • Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.

      VS

      I said the error was to think that most Obama supporters are truly upset about the poster.

      Uh huh…your one opinion is cancelled out by Earl Hutchinson’s – he has the word President in front of his name…all you have is Professor in front of yours.
       
       
      He says it’s politically mean spirited, DANGEROUS even! You find it interesting and amusing. I’m betting more Spammy supporters are gonna see it his way than yours.

  • “Humorous.”
    Maybe.
    “Imaginative.”  “Creative.”
    Not so much.
     
    Is this a teachable moment?  Let’s hope so.
    Perhaps we can come up with some kind of a “Gotham’s Law.”  You know, that when someone starts to refer their political opponent to a Batman villain, or perhaps refer to their political ally to Batman himself, …
     
    You automatically lose the argument.
     
    Reasonable, yes?
     
    Unless of course, you’re talking about Governor Schwarzenegger…. Well then it’s forgiven.
     
    Cheers.

    • If I had an ounce of ambition, and decent piece of movie making software, I’d link cuts of the current governor of Kali-forn-e-ah sitting behind his desk to the end of the Conan movie sound tracks -

      And having no further concern, he and his companions sought adventure in the West. Many wars and feuds did Conan fight. Honor and fear were heaped upon his name and, in time, he became a king by his own hand…  at last he found his own kingdom, and wore his crown upon a troubled brow.

      • Looker, what we need is a young Conan who thinks it is good -
        “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women”

    • Much more “imaginative” than, say, “BushHitler”. I mean heck, Pogue – there is a scene in the movie when you see the Joker burning a huge pile of money. Seems rather apropos for this administration’s burn through trillions in 6 months and looking for trillions more to burn in the next few. The Joker robs a bank. That would be the Treasury they’ve looted. He blows up a hospital. That would be health care insurance reform. The Joker turns the public against somebody that fights for them. He has people hold each other hostage based on mistrust. See my latest post on the blog post by the White House czar to see that in action. The Joker doesn’t have the typical selfish goals of comic book criminals. He wants to break the system just to watch it burn. Seems like where we’re headed Pogue.

      So I find it much more imaginative and creative than much of what the left managed during the Bush years.

      • Much more “imaginative” than, say, “BushHitler”.
         
        Is it?  Seems like both are compared to supervillains.
        Also, it seems that producing images comparing either Bush or Obama to Warner Bros. and DC comic’s copyrighted imagery is so “imaginative” that one could argue it is in violation of intellectual property laws.
        So imaginative, that one might be sued for it.
         
        Face it.  Neither one is very imaginative.
         
        I mean heck, Pogue – there is a scene in the movie when you see the Joker burning a huge pile of money.
         
        Yeah well, I’ve been watching jokers in Washington burn piles of cash for as long as I can remember.
         
         
        “The Joker robs a bank. That would be the Treasury they’ve looted. He blows up a hospital. That would be health care insurance reform. The Joker turns the public against somebody that fights for them. He has people hold each other hostage based on mistrust.”
         
        What do you say about art, though?  People see what they want to see.
         
        But hey…  Beauty.  Eye.  Beholder.
         
        Whatever, man.
         
        Me?
        I think it’s cheap and lazy.
         
        Cheers.

        • Cheap and lazy?

          Nope.

          Cheers.

          • No, you say?
             
            So let me get this straight.
            The title of your post is, “Reaping What They’ve Sown And Not Liking It.”
            So your argument is, “The Left came up with comparing Bush to The Joker in 7/2008, but this comparison of Obama to The Joker is imaginative.”
             
            Okay, then.
            Me thinks you just prefer the latter.
             
            Tell me.  What do you think of the comparison of Bush to Batman?
             
            Me?  I like the comparison of Bush to The Riddler.  You know, ‘cuz it’s like, “what the f*ck did that guy just say.”
             
            Cheers.

          • And you said “Beauty. Eye. Beholder.”

            I, using that very standard, disagreed with your assessment that it was “cheap and lazy”.

            Keep your eye on the ball, Pogue – and your own words.

            Cheers.

          • Wait a minute though.  You say that it is, “much more imaginative.”  But in your post, you show both images of Bush and Obama being compared to The Joker, and then title it, “Reaping What They’ve Sown…”
            I mean, the whole point of your post was that they did it first.  It can’t be both, right?
            Besides, we both know that this crap has been going on between feuding ideologies since forever.  Chicken, egg, and what not.
             
            I think the words you may be looking for is “more appropriate”, not “more imaginative.”
             
            Cheers.

          • You’re trying waaaay to hard to pick a fight on this one Pogue – tough day at work?

            Cheers.

          • tough day at work?
             
            I’m a beekeeper in SE Texas…  All days are tough days.  ;)
            Okay, okay…  No need to twist my arm.  I will indeed have a whiskey.
             
            Good call, mate.
             
            Cheers.

    • By “them” you mean the Secret Service, right?
       
      Yeah, shooting the President… Funny stuff.
      More of this imaginative humor, one assumes.
       
      This is the kind of BS that aides invalid claims of “dangerous imagery” about Obama being a fictional villain leading to actual dangerous imagery.
      But go ahead, spread those images around.  To the evening news perhaps.
      Yeah, that’ll help the cause.

  • Scott, you are hopeless.  Nobody said “most”.  You inserted that in one of your usual lame attempts at non sequitur.   Instead of telling us, write to Hutchison and LAWeekly and tell them.  Let us know how that goes.

  • Tell you what….I would bet “most” Baracky supporters would be offended by it.

    And f**k them all if they don’t like it.

    Payback is a b*tch…….but also fun.

  • You’re trying waaaay to hard to pick a fight on this one Pogue – tough day at work?

    You hit way too close to home.  You are attacking his core beliefs, of which Barack Obama is central.

    For years, the nastiness most atrocius forms of attack, yes including shooting targets the Bush on them, were part of political dialogue.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the story is a bit different…

  • I like the Joker/Socialism theme, but I think something along the lines of a WWII “Il Duce” poster would better illustrate The Leader’s unequalled narcissism and hypocrisy–not to mention his success in handing control over certain private sectors to the state. It would also be illustrative of his followers who tend to be blindly loyal, intolerant, and thuggish.

  • Why so serious?

  • I wonder how many of these faces will show up this Halloween.
    Obama now has an opening for the next White House Correspondence Dinner.

  • I do not agree with Earl Hutchinson.

  • In other words, looker, if you can find one person who says something, you think that means “Obama supporters in general” believe it.   OK, I see how your mind works now.

    • In other words, looker, if you can find one person who says something, you think that means “Obama supporters in general” believe it.   OK, I see how your mind works now.
       

      No, Scott, not at all…Earl thinks it’s dangerous…you think it’s humorous….two contrasts.
      Two people, two opinions.  Earl didn’t come on and say most Obama supporters will be upset by this.  And, neither did I.
       
      The expressed opinion here was that Obama supporters, without a quantity placed on the term, would be upset by this, when many of the same people,  had NOT been upset by the Bush take offs.  The point was about how the gander was suddenly bitching about getting ladled with the sauce that had for 8 years been ladled out on the goose.  The point was the strident hypocrisy of their complaints.
       
      Then you trotted in and proclaimed, on behalf of and without license from,  unquantified,  Obama supporters, that MOST of them would not be troubled by this, and alluded to the implication they too, like you, might be amused.
       
      All I did was point out, echoing your usual style, that I liked Hutchinson’s title more than yours, and so therefore I felt his opinion on the matter weighed more than yours.  I mean, you’re the first one to trot out the academic titles of individuals as a demonstration that they must be smarter, pretty much  in all things, than people who don’t have such titles.  You know how you like to toss “PhD” and “Nobel Prize Winning” titles out as if this makes the person who prefixes the title an absolute expert.
       
      Synopsis – your opinion and his opinion, and I think his weighs more, based humorously on an arbitrary title, but actually based on his ability to achieve exposure to a wider audience.   I could be wrong, but I’m  I’m betting it’s you that’s wrong.

  • Erb urges people to have a sense of humor. Now that is funny.