2016 The Movie

By

Filed Under Obama News on Aug 25 

As much as Obama supporters would like to believe that this movie is some hysterical, conservative, religious-right screed, it is not. As ironic as it sounds, this movie is actually apolitical, simply chronicling his family’s history, marriages, his birth and childhood residences, and the people his family knew and associated with.

There is no mention or value judgment whatsoever in the movie about religion, no alternative political/fiscal theories presented as “what we should do instead of Obama’s policies,” no point-by-point argument against his presidency. It is not (as I’m sure his supporters likely believe) a 2-hour long Republican political ad.

What it does present is how insulated Obama has always been from our day-in, day-out American culture and way of life. He didn’t live and grow up in this culture, for very long stretches of time, his influences and mentors were well outside the so-called mainstream of American thought, and his family (parents, step-father, full and half siblings) were/are similarly non-American-centric and -influenced.

Obama supporters will no doubt view his lack of immersion in American culture while growing up as a positive factor, one that gives him a fresh perspective, a realistic and overriding viewpoint from which to guide our country into the new reality of a vastly changed world.

His background, reference points, and perspective are certainly unique compared to any previous US president, and for those people who struggle to understand how and why he thinks as he does, 2016 is very informative.

Comments

  • Kentucky Jet

    I saw the movie. I saw the man’s record in office the past 4 years. This man MUST be defeated!

  • http://twitter.com/dismalspring Spring Williams

    If not espousing alternative political agendas is the litmus for describing this movie as apolitical, then the entire republican campaign is apolitical. The title alone is political propaganda. Unfortunately, there is a small group of people in America that have lost contact with the political nature of government. Those who believe that religion, race, and sound bites are the politics of government, and this is who the movie is pandering to. The rest of America, even people like me whose ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War and rubbed shoulders with our Founding Fathers, have felt a sense of disenfranchisement since Bush’s remodel of America. As a past Obama supporter, I believe what you call “lack of immersion” is the typical American experience. Obama’s appreciation for his subculture in a country as diverse as America, with a political history as biased as America’s, makes him a regular Joe. Obama is not so different from our past presidents who valued their Irish, Swiss, Scottish, Dutch, or German culture, and our Founding Father’s who had a vision for the best possible government in their time. He is just like every other American who goes through periods of feeling abandoned or unappreciated by their own country, who rebels against the status quo and contributes to the evolution of our unique American culture, and who ultimately grows into an proud American who feels a responsibility to make his country the best that it can be. This movie is nothing more than a political tactic to deflect from real political issues; in this way, it is political, but you believe what you want.

  • http://twitter.com/dismalspring Spring Williams

    If not espousing alternative political agendas is the litmus for describing this movie as apolitical, then the entire republican campaign is apolitical. The title alone is political propaganda. Unfortunately, there is a small group of people in America that have lost contact with the political nature of government. Those who believe that religion, race, and sound bites are the politics of government, and this is who the movie is pandering to. The rest of America, even people like me whose ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War and rubbed shoulders with our Founding Fathers, have felt a sense of disenfranchisement since Bush’s remodel of America. As a past Obama supporter, I believe what you call “lack of immersion” is the typical American experience. Obama’s appreciation for his subculture in a country as diverse as America, with a political history as biased as America’s, makes him a regular Joe. Obama is not so different from our past presidents who valued their Irish, Swiss, Scottish, Dutch, or German culture, and our Founding Father’s who had a vision for the best possible government in their time. He is just like every other American who goes through periods of feeling abandoned or unappreciated by their own country, who rebels against the status quo and contributes to the evolution of our unique American culture, and who ultimately grows into an proud American who feels a responsibility to make his country the best that it can be. This movie is nothing more than a political tactic to deflect from real political issues; in this way, it is political, but you believe what you want.

  • Alaina

    I don’t know… I think I’m onboard with apolitical as a description because it never presented alternatives to his policy decisions, just a factual presentation of what decisions he made.
    Yes, being released at this point in a Presidential election by a Conservative writer against a Liberal President is what I would consider a political move, but I don’t think the substance of the movie was political.
    There was little in the movie that I didn’t already know and nothing truly shocking, but it did a great job of tying together all of the bits and pieces of information that we’ve learned about Obama’s past and, ultimately, why he makes the decisions he makes.
    Other than people who have already decided to vote for Romney, how many people do you think are really going to see the movie? I doubt there are many, but I think it is powerful enough without being inflamatory that it could raise some serious questions for people who are on the fence.

  • Alaina

    I don’t know… I think I’m onboard with apolitical as a description because it never presented alternatives to his policy decisions, just a factual presentation of what decisions he made.
    Yes, being released at this point in a Presidential election by a Conservative writer against a Liberal President is what I would consider a political move, but I don’t think the substance of the movie was political.
    There was little in the movie that I didn’t already know and nothing truly shocking, but it did a great job of tying together all of the bits and pieces of information that we’ve learned about Obama’s past and, ultimately, why he makes the decisions he makes.
    Other than people who have already decided to vote for Romney, how many people do you think are really going to see the movie? I doubt there are many, but I think it is powerful enough without being inflamatory that it could raise some serious questions for people who are on the fence.

  • German Observer

    Steve, do you really try to label a movie from an political analyst (lets call so for the moment) about a politician with a clear political message meant to be seen by a politically interested audience as apolitical?

  • German Observer

    Steve, do you really try to label a movie from an political analyst (lets call so for the moment) about a politician with a clear political message meant to be seen by a politically interested audience as apolitical?

  • Anonymous

    Since there is no weekend open thread I will post this here.

    Remember when I said the RNC would do everything to make sure that Ron Paul wouldn’t have a shot at the nomination? Well, here is how the RNC broke it’s own rules to make that happen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQvszfnOSY8&feature=player_embedded#!

    • Whodat

      If you are still looking for something or someone to blame for Ron Paul not getting the nomination, this might be as good as any. But, I humbly submit that it was never going to
      happen for any number of reasons, most of which add up to the word “Libertarian” – just
      not enough people able to ignore all that kind of baggage.

      • Anonymous

        Did you watch the video? This was an all out attack on Ron Paul delegates to ensure his name couldn’t be submitted for nomination. The RNC should have followed its own rules and let it play out. In the end they would have Romney as the nominee anyway, unless they knew something we didn’t.

      • Anonymous

        The blame for Ron Paul not winning the nomination goes to Ron Paul.

        • Anonymous

          Once again you fail to look at the evidence presented to you. If the RNC followed the rules, Ron Paul would have been eligible to be nominated from the floor of the convention. Because the RNC is afraid of what might happen they played dirty pool to prevent it at any cost, including undermining their own credibility.

          • Anonymous

            Once again talk of Ron Paul has bored me to tears.

            • Anonymous

              Would you say the same thing if the rolls were reversed and Romney’s people were trying to nominate him from the floor and had the votes to do so?

      • BrianH1972

        The blame for Ron Paul not winning the nomination goes to Ron Paul.

  • Anonymous

    Since there is no weekend open thread I will post this here.

    Remember when I said the RNC would do everything to make sure that Ron Paul wouldn’t have a shot at the nomination? Well, here is how the RNC broke it’s own rules to make that happen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQvszfnOSY8&feature=player_embedded#!

    • Whodat

      If you are still looking for something or someone to blame for Ron Paul not getting the nomination, this might be as good as any. But, I humbly submit that it was never going to
      happen for any number of reasons, most of which add up to the word “Libertarian” – just
      not enough people able to ignore all that kind of baggage.

      • Anonymous

        Did you watch the video? This was an all out attack on Ron Paul delegates to ensure his name couldn’t be submitted for nomination. The RNC should have followed its own rules and let it play out. In the end they would have Romney as the nominee anyway, unless they knew something we didn’t.

      • Anonymous

        The blame for Ron Paul not winning the nomination goes to Ron Paul.

        • Anonymous

          Once again you fail to look at the evidence presented to you. If the RNC followed the rules, Ron Paul would have been eligible to be nominated from the floor of the convention. Because the RNC is afraid of what might happen they played dirty pool to prevent it at any cost, including undermining their own credibility.

          • Anonymous

            Once again talk of Ron Paul has bored me to tears.

            • Anonymous

              Would you say the same thing if the rolls were reversed and Romney’s people were trying to nominate him from the floor and had the votes to do so?

  • Whodat

    I have all the information I need about this socialist, worthless, welfare-lawyer, (and other words I learned in the Navy but could not use here…). I do not want any more information or insults. I will skip the flick and save the cash to send to Romney/Ryan.

    • Anonymous

      Good man.

    • jobillard

      Am sure that some of those navy words start with the letter N.

  • Whodat

    I have all the information I need about this socialist, worthless, welfare-lawyer, (and other words I learned in the Navy but could not use here…). I do not want any more information or insults. I will skip the flick and save the cash to send to Romney/Ryan.

    • Anonymous

      Good man.

    • jobillard

      Am sure that some of those navy words start with the letter N.

  • Anonymous

    I saw it opening day about a month ago or so when it was released in limited towns and theaters. In Houston it was only in two theaters. I assumed when I arrived at the theater my wife and I would be sitting in an empty theater. When I arrived I was shocked to learn that the massive theater screen was sold out. My wife and I had to buy tickets for the following showing in 2 hours. It, too, was a full house.

    The movie was amazing. I am not sure I agree that it was apolitical. It was an an honest film about what D’Souza believes motivates this President. I honestly was convinced by D’Souza’s argument but I do not believe it is apolitical anymore than the many other political documentaries are. It was very political and very damning to this President. But, just because it is political that does not mean it was wrong.

  • Anonymous

    I saw it opening day about a month ago or so when it was released in limited towns and theaters. In Houston it was only in two theaters. I assumed when I arrived at the theater my wife and I would be sitting in an empty theater. When I arrived I was shocked to learn that the massive theater screen was sold out. My wife and I had to buy tickets for the following showing in 2 hours. It, too, was a full house.

    The movie was amazing. I am not sure I agree that it was apolitical. It was an an honest film about what D’Souza believes motivates this President. I honestly was convinced by D’Souza’s argument but I do not believe it is apolitical anymore than the many other political documentaries are. It was very political and very damning to this President. But, just because it is political that does not mean it was wrong.