Oh, to have been a fly on the wall…
…at the The New Yorker deliberations where they discussed whether to run this cover or not:
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
…at the The New Yorker deliberations where they discussed whether to run this cover or not:
My jaw dropped in AMAZEMENT when I saw that.
(I cancelled my subscription to The New Yorker several years ago even though there were a number of things I liked about it.)
Wow. It looks like that “preference cascade” thing might be real. I don’t know how anybody can spin this as pro-Obama.
Once they notice the emperor has no clothes, they can’t help but point out his nakedness.
For a while, anyway. In small, cute ways. They’re still going to carry his water and vote for him, I’m afraid—at least, most of them. Right now they’re somewhat pissed. I think they’re trying to motivate him for next time. They know he could do it, if he just tried! They’re telling him to get some clothes on, and pronto!
Actually the chair is empty because obama is off doing his Hugo Chavez routine elsewhere.
He and his administration are currently outright lying about the unemployment numbers.
That’s not an empty chair, that’s a third world lawless dictator we’re looking at.
I hope they sting Obama into pounding the podium and scowling, going full socialism and perhaps even pointing his finger into Romney’s face. That will win Obama a lot of support-NOT.
rickl,
“I don’t know how anybody can spin this as pro-Obama.”
Try this:
The cover clearly defines Romney as a racist in his debating not an empty chair but Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man denying him (the Invisible Man/Obama) the just rewards and respect of his search for his identity and ‘seeing’ him as no more than his myriad misrepresentations of himself. RACIST!
FenelonSpoke is describing Obama’s problem. All of his handlers and sycophants are going to urge him to get tough. I do not believe that he can pull that act off without showing his petulant side. We will see.
Clint Eastwood must be guffawing.
On another level, I am curious as to how many rats you can fit into a lifeboat.
the chair is empty because the party changed its platform, and things are looking too much like deja vu…
I wouldn’t have believed it even a few days ago.
Hell. I’m not sure I believe it today.
“I hope they sting Obama into pounding the podium and scowling, going full socialism and perhaps even pointing his finger into Romney’s face. That will win Obama a lot of support-NOT.”
Maybe they can goad him into scratching his nose with his middle finger.
I have always expected the left would viciously turn on Barack. They must have a scapegoat, b/c they cannot blame big government and they cannot question leftist doctrine.
However, I expected the left would turn on Barack AFTER Election Day. I am gobsmacked that they turned on him BEFORE Election Day. I guess, when your god bleeds, the truth is out, and there is no reason to hesitate.
I think this shows that The New Yorker, at least, never believed the skewed polls. If The New Yorker had believed the skewed polls, then The New Yorker would still believe Barack likely to win, and The New Yorker would never run this cover. To me, this cover shows that The New Yorker fully believes Barack is going to lose. Thus, for maybe the first time in history The New Yorker is simpatico with me.
Definately the start of the preference cascade … or the cleverer members of the mainstream media deciding they’d better put on a show of being more even-handed.
I’m going to fix more popcorn – these next debates, and the month of October are going to be fun!
gcotharn: I’m not sure if they’re really turning, as I wrote in my comment above. I think perhaps they’re trying to goad him into a better performance next time through ridicule.
Although I must say I’m somewhat surprised.
“Once they notice the emperor has no clothes, they can’t help but point out his nakedness.”
That cover is priceless! I love it!
And the “emperor” never had any clothes. But he and his team somehow hypnotized so many.
It’s scary how many are still hypnotized. (And copletely clueless) So ready to swallow his every word and regurgitate them to others — it amazes me continually. But then so does the fact that the MSM are exactly the same. Only difference is it seems like they run endless loops on air of his every word, and filter out anything that might suggest doubt in the minds of the Faithful.
Saving grace is since the debates, seems there are an awful lot of people who have been waiting…and waiting…and waiting for just an excuse NOT to vote for Obama. I’m just praying that Romney (and Ryan) can give as many of them as possible more reasons like Wed. nite before Election Day!
Marks, once they realize that they have been scammed, can be pretty bitter towards the confidence man.
I am only mildly amused. The NYer is terribly leftist and will remain so. It has long been on my DoNotRead list.
The cover reminds me of the old Soviet ways, making someone (e.g. Politburo member) a non-person overnight. Or as in China, kicking Bo out of the Commie Party: the Party endures.
I wonder what the circulation figures for the NYer have done. I hope they have crashed along with the NYT’s.
Don Carlos: Oh, I do not for a moment think the magazine has changed in any basic way. As I noted before, I think they’re trying to motivate Obama to do better next time, because they no doubt think it was just a failure to do enough studying or some such thing.
Also, note the empty chair metaphor. Although it’s Eastwood’s, and he meant something rather different by it, I think the editors mean to say that Obama could have done just fine had he shown up, but he didn’t show up (in the metaphorical sense, that is)—rather than saying that he and his presidency are empty and/or incapable or fake or inherently incompetent.
We can only hope that the next debates bring out a pissed off Obama telling more forceful lies. THAT’S when Romney will really take the manchild apart.
That is going to leave a mark.
ah, the worm of doubt…
My wife used to be an elementary school principal. She liked to praise a problem child when “she caught him or her doing something right”. 🙂
I was going to apply that principle by going to subscribe to The New Yorker again when I saw that cover. But when I got to their web site and saw the titles of the articles in their most recent issue, I said “Nawwwww, they didn’t do a good enough thing to make up for what they really are.”
I like the how they drew Jim Lehrer in the background. Like he’s looking down and not paying attention.
Tools!
Check out this cartoon from this artist
http://antiantiunderground.com/
Her biography is interesting.
I think that the Left is catching onto the idea – espoused by a few of us in a discussion of Obama’s ‘maybe I’ll be a one-term president’ comments and now his acquisition of a Hawaiian house – that Obama isn’t trying hard too hard to hold onto his job. Think about it: he’s a Nobel Laureate and he’ll be an ex-POTUS. That’s a great gig if you want to do something with it. Clinton wrote a best-selling book and still gets nice, fat speaking fees.
Obama could get one of those teaching positions which show up in college catalogs – he teaches here! – but don’t result in very many students actually taking his class because he’ll often be off “researching.” Or he can be a paid board member of a foundation. Or draw a salary from a nonprofit where he can “raise awareness” or somesuch. Honestly, the opportunities are endless.
Yeah, Jean, we can defeat them but we cannot kill them. The Left is immortal, which is essential, because they always need more time to ‘get it right.’
it’s the first one I might buy just to leave in the break room at work