November 16, 2008

A friendly chat with the liberal who lives in my head

Hello, reductive straw man I've slapped together for my own nefarious ends.

Greetings, wingnut hillbilly dimwit.

Indeed. Now that we've dispensed with the formalities, please watch this clip from a speech President-Elect Barack H. Obama gave last July and tell me what you think it means:

Whoa. What's the deal?

That? Oh, he's just talking about expanding the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps and programs like that. said so.

Yeah? That's weird, because those aren't security forces. He specifically said "civilian national security force." Factcheck waves that phrase away as if he didn't actually say it, but he clearly did. It sounds pretty ominous even if you put it in context. Heck, especially if you put it in context. A "civilian national security force" that's as powerful as the U.S. military doesn't sound much like the Peace Corps to me.

Well. But he didn't really mean it.

He said it in a campaign speech.

Politicians say all kinds of things they don't mean. Duh!

Okay. Then who was he trying to impress?


He said it in a campaign speech. He was trying to get people to vote for him. Who was he trying to impress with that?

Well... voters!

Yes, you adorable little scamp, but specifically: Who? What voters think we need a "civilian national security force" that's just as powerful and well-funded as our military? Which is, much to your chagrin, incredibly powerful and well-funded.

Um... young people?

Young people. The youth of America are itching to join Obama's private army. Okay, let's say you're right. Why do they want that?

They want that because...

Go on.

Because, y'know... they... Look, just because he said it doesn't mean he actually meant it!

There's no reason he'd say it unless he actually meant it. It wasn't in his prepared speech, and we all know what happens when he goes off-teleprompter: He starts saying what he really thinks. If only Joe the Plumber had been there to ask him to expand on it.

Man, you wingers are really something. You crybabies lose an election and you just can't handle it. Now you're calling him a power-hungry thug before he's even sworn in!

Your words, not mine. And I'm pretty sure a presidential candidate's public statements are fair game for analysis. Especially considering that he's never explained exactly what he meant by this. Because nobody in the media has asked. The people who would be affected by such a development deserve to know what he's planning, don't they?


Or would this "civilian national security force" be responsible for making sure we don't ask such questions? As Winston Churchill said, "No socialist system can be established without a political police."




You still there? Did y--


(thx 4 the reminder, LauraW)

Posted by Jim Treacher at November 16, 2008 09:45 AM