At yesterday’s State Department press conference, Spokesman Ian Kelly — who the day before had pointedly said he was unwilling to use the word “condemn” about events in Iran — said about the protesters killed that “of course, we condemn any acts of violence that led to the deaths of these demonstrators.”
His condemnation produced this colloquy:
QUESTION: Why are you not condemning more broadly any acts of violence against the demonstrators, period, not just those that happened to have led to deaths?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. That’s a fair question. And I would say that any use of violence against unarmed, peaceful demonstrators is unacceptable.
QUESTION: And something you condemn?
MR. KELLY: As I said before, I – we find this unacceptable. I’m not going to get into the semantics.
In other words, asked to “condemn” all acts of violence against demonstrators — not just deadly ones — Kelly was comfortable only with calling such acts “unacceptable.” Asked a second time to condemn them, he repeated his use of “unacceptable.” Actual condemnation was a bridge he was not prepared to cross.
The term “unacceptable” is the characterization Barack Obama has given to the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. Assuming he is using that term in State Department parlance, it means he disagrees with Iran’s pursuit of such weapons but is not prepared to condemn them — unless, of course, someone is actually killed by them.
As he told the entire Muslim world, “No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.” That would be unacceptable.
President Obama seems very angry to me. His smile on the tonight show was forced and delayed. He seems incapable of being funny.
I agree that humor is great if used effectively, as GW brilliantly used it.
Just chalk it up as one more tool he does not possess.
So far, all we have is that he’s good with a teleprompter.
That’s it.
Obama’s humor is that of a wise-guy. Maybe funny when you’re an irreverant teenager hanging around. Disgraceful when a president.
It’s kind of hard to laugh at oneself when all about you….
A little person in a big job. While I’m only 50 and thus haven’t been around as long as some; I have been around long enough and been politically aware enough to note that the levers of power are in the hands of the smallest minded people in my life time.
I understand that the prism of history distorts and leaves the viewer with less focus on the foibles of those from the past. That is a given. Washington’s and Lincoln’s beneficence are magnified while other character flaws (we all have them) are minimized to obscurity. This is true of all walks of life, personal, political and economic. Once we had the self awareness to comprehend that “we are standing on the shoulders of giants”. No more.
This week we were treated to a spectacle in this country that I doubt it’s like has been witnessed in DC since 1858-1861 when the very nation tore itself near assunder. The villification of private citizens, of an individual requested to come in and clean up a mess at the compensation of $1 and the passing of a patently Unconstitutional law intent on punishing those deemed to be agrieving the political class by bringing to light the fact that they are in over their collective heads.
The heads of our “leadership”; Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Henry Waxman. Have we ever been lead by such a collection of small individuals. I’ll withhold judgement on Barack Obama until he actually accomplishes something instead of blaming his predecessor.
President Obama can’t do self-deprecation–his ego is too huge. He shouldn’t even try.
Agree with #4
His humor would be better suited to hanging out at a bar after a couple of beers.
Not in his role as President.
In retort to Leno’s comment that bowling a 129 was a pretty good score, Obama should have said, “A good score? Why my daughters could beat me…”
Number One’s humor, to date, reflects his contempt of people. Very “scary,” as my liberal friends love to say when talking of anyone they hold in contempt.
I usually agree, but here, I think President Obama was attempting to be self-deprecating. He was not attacking the special olympics, but his own bowling prowess. I think it ill-behooves conservatives to pile on over such a small matter. Obama is not a funny man but the White House is not necessarily a place for Jack Benny. I will note however, that our two greatest Presidents were polar opposites on this score. George Washington was almost willfully stern and attempted to avoid any jokes at all, and yet Lincoln was hilarious in a mordant way.
jjv, I think we all understand that Obama’s joke was meant to be self-deprecating. But also, by its very nature, a dig at the athletic abilities of the disabled. I agree no one should pile on about it, but to not recognize it for what it expressed is dishonest. It’s like someone doing something stupid and then calling themselves “dumb as a Polack.” Intentionally self-deprecating, but simultaneously insulting to Poles. The point is, presidents don’t have to be funny, but they really do have to take the office seriously and understand the incredible honor and trust that has been given to them. Obama’s flippant remarks reveal that he does not.
“George Washington was almost willfully stern and attempted to avoid any jokes at all, and yet Lincoln was hilarious in a mordant way.”
What were their bowling scores?
Pathological narcissists are incapable of truly self-deprecating humor. Their egos are huge but extremely fragile, like a giant balloon that can’t withstand a pinprick.
The number one rule of comedy, joke-telling, or satire should always, and I do mean always, be never poke fun at things people cannot change about themselves. The disabled did not choose their disabilities anymore than they can turn those disabilities off or on. People in positions of power, when it comes to humour, should be held to the highest standards when cracking jokes. What Obama proved by this crack is that he does not have an iota of the empathy that Sara Palin has and shows daily. My instincts tell me Obama is not a person I would choose to have a beer with; indeed my sense of him is that I would avoid him at all cost.
jjv, I might agree that it ill-behooves us to pile on such a minor matter, if you’d be willing to agree that the last 8 years of making fun of President Bush’s occasional slips of the tongue also ill-behooved the lefties.
Can we agree on that, or is there a huge double-standard in the room?
17 You’re quite right. Obama is really a fairer target. He was trying to be funny and he knew better.
Great post, and you’re right on the money about Reagan’s mastery of self-deprecation. But, I think it also should be pointed out how skilled Reagan was at using humor against his political adversaries.
I could go on and on with his great zingers, but Google is there for anyone who wants more. I think the reason he was able to make it work so well without coming across as mean is he tended to go after the opposition collectively, rather than singling anyone out. That let him comply with your rule about not picking on someone weaker than himself (though some may dispute whether the entire left was a match for Reagan). He also was a master at taking his shot with a sly grin on his face that made it almost impossible to see him as malicious.
It’s not surprising that Obama comes up short when compared to Reagan’s humor, but it does surprise me that he doesn’t at least make an attempt to mimic what worked so well in the past.
Reagan’s man of the people style would never be possible for Obama. He’s too stiff and professorial.