Is the ultimate ‘D-List’ comedian the perfect basher for a D-List president?

I have no doubt there are some people determined to see comedian Kathy Griffin’s professional prospects wither away into nothingness. Just as I’m sure they’re still holding a grudge against those mouthy Dixie Chicks.

What will replace Griffin's lost CNN gig?

Remember that outcry? When one member of the country music trio let it be known she was opposed to the U.S. military efforts in the Middle East?

HOW DARE THAT woman think to speak out against then-President George W. Bush! How dare she say anything that wasn’t complete deference to their own ideals (even though many people back then were equally critical of Bush)?

When I remember the degree to which certain people were determined to sabotage the Dixie Chicks, I see the similarities to the way some are bound to react to Griffin – the so-called star of the D-List celebrities who managed to offend everybody with a gag image depicting her with a bloodied, severed head that – with its funky hairdo was clearly meant to be reminiscent of President Donald J. Trump.

Yes, I thought her gag was lame, tacky and somewhat gross. It pushed the boundaries of good taste.

But let’s be honest. The very behavior of Donald Trump as both a presidential candidate and as a government official has been equally tacky and offensive. Some might argue if there’s anybody who deserves to be treated in such a callous manner, it is Trump. Just as how Trump-themed piñatas are at hit on so many levels at Mexican celebrations.

THE IDEOLOGUES AMONGST us, however, are determined to express such outrage that, in their minds, Griffin fades away into insignificance. She’s finished for having the unmitigated gall speak out in this Age of Trump we’re now in.

Griffin's critics the same people bashing Wonder Woman?

The comparison to the Dixie Chicks is relevant because within country music circles, the ladies remain irrelevant. To the point where a recent New York Times report indicates they don’t consider themselves part of the country scene – their attempts at making records are now regarded as pop music.

Which makes me wonder what kind of career change Griffin will have to make to allow her to remain relevant as an entertainer? While some amongst us will want to forever lambast her, there are others who will be willing to give her sense of humor a second chance.

Star-spangled shorts make her American?

If anything, she may get a boost by gaining the perception of being politically relevant – the comedian for those people who don’t mind offending the sensibilities of Donald J. Trump and his ilk!

AND AS FOR those people who will want to look down on Griffin, they’re probably the same people who these days are upset with the new Wonder Woman movie – which they say depicts the Amazon princess with incredible strength in ways that aren’t quite “American-enough” for their sensibilities.

I haven’t seen the film (and don’t exactly feel compelled to rush out to the theater to do so), so I don’t know what their objections really are? Maybe they just don’t like the idea of Gal Gadot, an Israeli actress, wearing the red, white and blue outfit that Lynda Carter made so popular on 1970s-era television.

Or maybe they’re the people who, back when Carter’s Wonder Woman was fighting off Nazis, they were secretly rooting for the men in the swastika armbands? Perhaps they find the arrogance of Trump to be reminiscent?

Please Kathy, don't give us a similar image to silence your critics

My point being that some individuals amongst us just aren’t satisfied with anything. They’re going to be whiny and demanding enough that they will always find something to complain about.

WHEN IT COMES to the whole affair involving the alumnus of Oak Park/River Forest High School who made being on the “D List” not quite so low a place to be, there is one aspect that I must admit terrifies me.

It is that I still remember the Entertainment Weekly magazine cover the Dixie Chicks did in the weeks following their own controversy – the one of the three of them nude, with their bodies covered with tattoos depicting the many slurs (“Dixie Sluts,” “Saddam’s Angels” and “Traitors,” to name a few) being thrown their way.

Please Kathy, keep your clothes on. We don’t need the sight of you trying to give us a similar image to illustrate the harassment you’re undergoing these days.

Even though, on a certain level, forcing your critics to endure the sight might very well be the perfect way to shut them up big time!

  -30-

Trump-types certainly don’t want to hear the “truth” during campaign cycle

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is being demonized these days for comments she made about the quality of people who are inclined to oppose her campaign and support opponent Donald Trump.
 

Does Hillary really owe an apology?

A “basket of deplorables” is how Hillary referred to the individuals who would actually be willing to vote for The Donald. As she told a Manhattan-based crowd, Trump’s backers are, “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”

WHICH WHEN YOU think about it isn’t that far from the truth. The real story behind the 2016 electoral cycle is that this is a time when the segment of our society determined to believe we as a people are becoming degenerate with our openness is trying to assert itself.

It is a time when people who have certain hostile views toward people who aren’t just like themselves want to pick a president they believe will support their nativist ideals. Which for now is Trump.

In a sense, Clinton merely told the truth about what this electoral cycle has devolved to. Only she asserted these traits as somehow being negative. Whereas these people want to think their hostility is a plus!

As though the fact they don’t think much of gay people, black people, foreigners or Arabs in general is what makes them special. Then again, they’re the ones always complaining about the world being too “politically correct,” as though they want to think their nastiness is something they should be praised for.

AS THOUGH THEY want to believe their negativity and ignorance is somehow a more honest view of the world. Actually, true honesty is calling out the people who want their hatred of certain aspects of our society for the buffoons they are.

 

Fat chance Trump will apologize to anyone

So I can’t get too worked up at the people who are now denouncing Hillary’s presidential bid; trying to claim she has delved to a new low in negativity.

Trump himself is leading this charge, what with his use of Twitter to say Hillary, “was SO INSULTING to my supporters” and added “I think it will cost her at the polls.”

Of course, the entire tone of the Trump presidential campaign has been one of negativity to so many types of people. Clinton’s outburst of Friday doesn’t even come close to the trash talk spewed by The Donald!

 

How many apologies is Obama owed?

BUT THE TRUMP types are of the belief that the people they’re bashing about deserve to be looked down upon because they naturally are entitled (in their own mini-minds) to a higher place in our society.

Actually, the great injustice of our society is that such people were ever given the notion to begin with that they were better than anybody else.

Sure, Hillary Clinton was blunt-spoken when she made her public assessment of whom she is being challenged by. Then again, we can also argue that all she did was tell the truth.

I can almost hear actor Jack Nicholson screaming out “You Can’t Handle the Truth!” like he did in that film, “A Few Good Men.” It’s all nonsense.

IT’S ALL SO hypocritical if you view it objectively. Then again, objectivity is one of the last things that comes up during a campaign cycle – particularly one as hostile as this year’s has become.

 

Will Jack Nicholson have part in Hillary/Trump film?

Let’s not forget the 2008 election cycle when then-candidate Barack Obama came about critical about his opposition when he said, “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

One could say Obama was just addressing a certain truth of our society – one that certain people didn’t want to have called out about themselves. And as it is, Obama talked that statement back a bit back then, as Clinton this weekend said she regretted her own remark.

Which may be the ultimate evidence of how much more presidential she is than Trump – who you just know would have responded to anyone saying he owed an apology to anyone for any of his own stupid remarks with a line something like, “Stuff it!!!”

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: What’s with Donald Trump’s obsession with the idea of political people being able to shoot somebody and avoid prosecution? Let’s not forget that earlier this year Trump cited it as some sort of plus about himself that he could get away with such an act without losing his political supporters. That alone makes me think the man is unfit for government office of any type.

Presidential insults; what else is new?

One of the most intriguing parts of the museum and library in Springfield, Ill., devoted to Abraham Lincoln is the exhibit showing samples of all the hostile rhetoric used to denigrate “Honest Abe” back when he was alive.

 

OBAMA: Would he let insults stop him?

With such harsh and hostile sentiments existing about the man, it’s no wonder his election resulted in people taking up arms against the nation – something that has not happened in recent years even though there are people who detest the very concept of “President Barack Obama.”

THERE HAVE BEEN so many slurs uttered by so many people of varying beliefs about Obama that I honestly have lost track of them. And it’s not just the conservative ideologues – let’s not forget the many Latino activists who voted for him but refer to him as the “deporter-in-chief” because of his inability to change the federal policies that have resulted in many individuals being removed from this country.

It is in that context that I have to admit to not getting so worked up over the recent wisecrack by Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who referred to Obama as the “drug dealer in chief.”

It was Kirk’s attempt to criticize the dealings our federal government under Obama has had with Iran, while also trying to appeal to the hard-core ideologues who otherwise might think Kirk is too wimpy to represent their interests.

 

KIRK: Merely the latest of trash-talkers

People who likely would be happier if a Trump-like person (as in spewing rhetorical nonsense about so many issues) were on the Republican ticket for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois.

KIRK’S CHALLENGER, DEMOCRAT Tammy Duckworth (herself a member of Congress from the northwest suburbs) has said such trash talk is unbecoming a U.S. senator. Yet there are times when I wonder if the standards for political talk have declined so much that the idea of something being unbecoming is a quaint concept.

For the record, Kirk refused to apologize during a candidate forum in Normal, Ill., on Wednesday. I suspect if he had been apologetic, the crowd would have turned on him something fierce.

LINCOLN: What president hasn't been insulted?

As though he was better off keeping his mouth shut and not causing even more damage for himself. Because we're in an era where such hostility is what passes for political talk -- why else would we take Donald Trump seriously?

Which is why I can’t get too worked up. I don’t doubt that Kirk is representing a viewpoint held by a certain segment of society – and he wants their votes. Because it’s pretty clear that the kind of people who oppose such a viewpoint will never vote for him come Election Day.

BESIDES, I COULDN’T help but notice an e-mail message I received Thursday from the Duckworth campaign. She wants to make sure we know just how offensive she thinks Kirk’s comments were. “Illinois deserves better than a senator who employs such extreme, offensive rhetoric,” her political director, Cameron Joost, wrote.

Of course, Joost then got to the point of the e-mail – the Duckworth campaign wants my money.

In fact, the e-mail was set up in such a way that I could just click on a link and make a campaign contribution. Show my outrage by kicking in a few bucks that can add up into a significant amount of money to support her election bid.

Somehow, the appeal for campaign cash comes off as just a bit crass. I have a feeling similar to that of “Ralphie” in “A Christmas Story” when he realized his newly-acquired Little Orphan Annie decoder ring was just a means of sending messages advertising Ovaltine.

“A CRUMMY COMMERCIAL!,” he said, before uttering an epithet that would have got many of us a bar of soap in our mouths from our mothers.

So much for the noble appeal to our higher ideals. Not one likely to get me to reach into my wallet, because like I’ve said before hostile political rhetoric is oh, so common. If Obama is a big boy, he can take it.

Besides, the kind of people who indulge in such trash talk wind up invariably hurting themselves my coming off as so lowbrow.

And in the end will come off making those people look as ridiculous as those who tried to label Lincoln as, “Abraham Africanus the First.”

  -30-

How much of today’s political rhetoric will someday be apologized for as silly?

It will be 150 years this week since Abraham Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address – his brief speech at the battlefield-turned-cemetery that helped to put the Civil War into a high, moral context – rather than just a bloodbath.

Significance not immediately realized

Yet there were those who disparaged Lincoln during his lifetime. He truly was a person who could never have comprehended the glory with which his image is now draped, based on anything that happened during his lifetime.

EARLIER THIS MONTH, the Harrisburg Patriot-News newspaper in Pennsylvania went so far as to apologize for what its predecessor (the Patriot & Union newspaper) wrote about the speech when it occurred.

The Patriot-News “regrets the error” that the Patriot & Union wrote that Lincoln made “silly remarks” that were motivated by partisan politics.

“Our predecessors, perhaps under the influence of partisanship, or of strong drink, as was common in the profession at the time,” were mistaken in their coverage, the 21^st Century take of the Harrisburg-based newspaper wrote.

Now I’m not about to say whether or not a reporter-type of the past was intoxicated (anything’s possible). Nor am I going to rant about how this correction was self-serving and did nothing more than to get a local paper some national attention.

Reason for recent presidential criticism

BUT WHEN I learned of this editorial, it couldn’t help but make me think of our modern-day situation. One in which our current president gets all the abuse the ideologues think he is worthy of, and where anyone who doesn’t share in their rancid rhetoric gets decried as somehow being “un-American.”

And with the fact that the Affordable Care Act’s implementation isn’t going smoothly, there are those who are willing to pile on to the president as well.

It should not be any surprise that the president’s approval rating isn’t all that high these days (40 percent approval rating, according to the Gallup Organization, with 53 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance).

There’s also a recent Gallup poll that says only 28 percent of people questioned think Obama will be remembered as an “outstanding” or “above average” president, with 31 percent saying he’ll be “average” and 40 percent saying he’ll be remembered as “below average/poor.” That's far from the worst -- both Presidents Bush are thought of less-highly, as are former presidents Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.

An impression from JFK's own time

THAT STUDY FOUND that John F. Kennedy (who this week will have been deceased for 50 years – too many morbid “anniversaries” in coming days) is regarded the most-highly in history amongst recent presidents.

Although I can recall many studies throughout the years that show Kennedy’s legacy approval rating, so to speak, bouncing up-and-down depending on the circumstances.

My point being that these things are flexible. They’re alterable. Nothing is carved in stone.

I wonder what it will be like when much of the rhetoric we hear and read about Obama these days will sound ridiculously dated, or just ridiculous.

WE PROBABLY SHOULD remember that much of the trash-talk Lincoln faced was just as over-the-top as what Obama gets these days – particularly from the ranks of trash-talk radio that seeks to make money by appealing to their Tea Party-type listeners.

Apology owed, although not likely to ever come

It has been eight years since I visited the Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill., and my most vivid memory was of the exhibit devoted to the nasty rhetoric. Literally getting to read the libelous stories and commentary and hearing some of the slurs read aloud.

There are a lot more publications than the Patriot-News that probably owe Lincoln’s legacy an apology. How many publications are going to have their future incarnations issuing apologies to Obama (probably long after he’s departed this Earth) for the things they wrote, or allowed to be said without challenging them?

Will they be able to get away with just an apology – that will come across as self-serving in the future as the one Lincoln got earlier this month?

  -30-