New York Post film critic compares Obama to a wife beater
I’m not really sure why the New York Post’s film critic Kyle Smith gets valuable column inches to write an assessment of the local impact of President Obama’s health care reform legislation. Was the Manhattan Institute busy?
And what’s next, will the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate be analyzed by the Post’s fashion editor? Will the tabloid’s pets columnist explain why the financial reform legislation working its way through Congress was conceived by Chairman Mao’s inner circle in 1956 to destroy America in 2011?
Actually, what’s really going on here is that instead of paying a person with a real understanding of health care policy to write about it, the Post is letting a mouth-breathing film critic who is already on staff write grievous, disgusting insults that cast New Yorkers as battered women being assaulted by that brute President they elected. No, really:
Oh, you thought Obama was one of us, a Columbia grad and urban sophisticate? You’re like a dependent spouse. Every fresh bruise just proves how much he loves you.
Maybe Kyle came up with this bit of sickening dross over a drink with Sean Delonas, the racist and homophobic Post cartoonist who depicted President Obama as a chimpanzee being shot to death by police, and routinely portrays gay or possibly gay men as literally light in the loafers. Just like Delonas’s racist and homophobic depictions are shorthand for the Post’s conservative foreign editor to wage kulturkampf against an America he doesn’t understand or even really care about, belittling the experiences of actual battered women is a punchline for a poorly written column from a man who is out of touch with real New Yorkers, faking his way through fluency in important public policy issues by regurgitating the prattling talking points sent to him by conservative business interests.
Basically, no value added to the conversation – just cheap insults and conservatives slapping each other on the back over the new ways to come up with treating the least fortunate in our society as pawns in their assault on reason.
And here’s the thing: the Post has a lot of thoughtful conservatives working on its editorial board – I know some of them, and value the perspective they bring to the discussion without resorting to sickening cheap shots. They sincerely and seriously oppose Obama’s policies, and even bring some acerbic wit to the table in addressing them. Why aren’t they addressing the local impact of Obamacare?
Hopefully, if Rupert Murdoch’s plan to build out the New York presence of the Wall Street Journal leads to anything, it will be the cannibalizing of the Post’s audience. The result will be that the money-losing publication will lose so much more money that hacks like Smith lose their perches and get exiled to writing for free for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood. In other words, Kyle, I sincerely hope that you don’t find yourself worrying any time soon about attaining that $250,000 tax bracket of ‘middle class’ New Yorkers that you’re so worried about Obama taxing.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by New York Locksmith. New York Locksmith said: New York Post film critic compares Obama to a wife beater …: I'm not really sure why the New York Post's film cr… http://bit.ly/d3DPwn [...]
What is this crap about “mouth-breathing film critics?” Cultural stereotype anyone? I don’t agree with a word Kyle Smith wrote in that piece but he is often insightful on film and is a vet of the first Iraq war. Mouth-breathing film critics, indeed. That’s really up their feminazis and other things we on the left find appalling.
He’s a vet so he gets to write insane garbage about our president? Sorry, much as I appreciate the service of our men and women in uniform, their good deeds in defense of our country don’t excuse an active effort to urinate on civil society.
In response to another comment. See in context »Michael, while I am totally on your side of the health care debate, I do have to come to Kyle Smith’s defense. In addition to film criticism, he often writes about politics, from his clearly stated conservative point of view. When you say he brings “no added value to the conversation”–I don’t think conservatives stand there alone. And while I’m also not amused by the wife beating reference, I don’t think it’s more egregious than plenty of other stuff flying around in op ed pieces these days.
It’s more egregious than plenty of other stuff flying around in op ed pieces these days. I didn’t say conservatives don’t have much value to add to the health care debate. I said Kyle Smith whose knowledge of health care clearly expands as far as whatever talking points he picks up from the Business Council of New York adds no value, especially when the New York Post has so many other thoughtful people writing for its op-ed pages. I have no idea if he’s a buddy of yours, but you should be more than ‘not amused’ by his reduction of women at their most vulnerable state into a cheap punchline. You should be appalled.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think I should be the one who decides if I am “appalled.” And no, I am not a buddy of his. We worked together at the same magazine, but as far as I recall, I never edited him. Certainly, we were not “buddies.” And I have to say I disagree that it is “more egregious”–I find most of this debate egregious.
In response to another comment. See in context »We’ll just have to disagree about how appalling it is for someone sitting on a perch as high as the New York Post to compare our president to a man who beats his wife. Kyle Smith isn’t seeking to extend on the debate over health care. He’s seeking to undermine civil discourse. He doesn’t need apologists or enablers in his effort to do so, whether it’s the New York Post’s armchair editorial cultural warriors or people who might be a degree or two separated from him.
In response to another comment. See in context »