General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Fuck. [View all]joshcryer
(62,270 posts)I expected an apology for the hyperbole but nah, he doubled down in a post on Truth Out, thanks to his hubris.
Look, we all probably had a problem with the extended applause. I know I felt it was pretty overdone and I think the timing was off, the words of diplomacy should've come after that, not before. To close the speech with that of course didn't settle well with me.
But to call that guy a prop or a "circus freak" or to call people defending Obama playing "tiny Internet games," I think that's just far beyond reality.
I think, quite literally, had Obama followed Cory's Remsburg introduction with the "no more war state" language, and with the "help the vets" and with the "diplomacy with Iran" thing, it would've been greeted with more respect than it has (and let us not kid ourselves, the people here are using Cory Remsburg, as he would no doubt disagree with their characterization, which btw, the RW has used). Instead because of the timing and because he closed with Remsburg, we get the petulant nonsense we see in this thread.
But then there's an argument that you want to close with Remsburg after having just said those things against war, and for the vets and for diplomacy with Iran. Because what bigger honor is there to close the State of the Union with a standing ovation for someone who you'd just referenced as being part and parcel to the ideals of the Democratic Party? The Democratic Party doesn't want war, and Remsburg is but one of many tens of thousands of men who represent why the Democratic Party is against war.
You'll never get that sort of analysis here.