The Roseanne Conundrum

THE ROSEANNE CONUNDRUM

by Tom Wise

By now, the entire world has heard that Roseanne Barr “lost her job" with ABC-TV (US) after tweeting an insult about and/or to Valerie Jarrett, the former President Obama's chief of staff. This tweet apparently or supposedly made fun of Jarrett's facial features, that she resembled an ape of some sort. Whether we agree with that assessment or not, it would seem to be imprudent in a time of extreme Leftist doxing that someone as entrenched as Roseanne should make such an error-filled tweet. This, however, is the problem with the entire story. That is, Roseanne IS entrenched. She's an icon.

It makes no sense in the real world that Roseanne is fired and discarded except if the powers-that-be have truly committed to the endgame of Stalinist/Nazi America, where no one, no matter how high up the chain, may insult one of the inner circle, whether we believe that circle to be communist, radical Muslim, or occultist. In Valerie Jarrett's case, it is certainly communist (https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/06/communism-in-jarretts-family/), and possibly radical Muslim (through Huma Abedin). So is it that Roseanne committed a cardinal sin of the Left, that is, taking on one of their own?

This seems silly. Her tweet is, generally speaking, not offensive, and is almost nonsensical, childish in its attempt to be anything right-wing. In fact, it is adolescent, mean-girl, and just dumb. It is SO dumb that it almost seems intentionally dumb, as if to paint a caricature of a conservative attacking an Iranian Leftist. In fact, it is SUCH a caricature, it’s as if this scene were playing out on a TV show rather than in real life. This is a fishy part of the story.

Roseanne is not so disconnected from Hollywood or Obama that she doesn't know the protocols of the Left. No, she is VERY connected and knows all about what is expected. That she has been hurling insults on such Leftist luminaries as George Soros is beside the point. Is ABC-TV so intent on Leftism, or so sure it can now take over the country, that they would cancel their top-rated Tuesday show, and not only her show but also reruns of Roseanne's previous show? At first glance, yes, and this is what has been reported, that her show is cancelled and reruns on various other channels are kaput. So, we are expected to believe that TV stations no longer care about revenue? Doesn’t Roseanne have a very strong contract? These are further fishy parts of the story.

What about Roseanne? Who is this person conservatives are defending? Does no one remember when she mangled the Star-Spangled Banner ON PURPOSE, grabbed her crotch in COMPLETE disrespect, and earned a rebuke from President Bush (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls1YVhcLD2c)? Does no one remember when Roseanne said that anyone who earned more than 100 million dollars and wouldn't help solve the banking "crisis" should be guillotined (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/10/03/roseanne-barr-guilty-wall-street-bankers-should-be-sent-to-reeducation-camps-or.html)? Remember when she wished cancer on Chick-Fil-A customers (LINK)?

So let us not kid ourselves that Roseanne is a conservative. She is an opportunist who created a show that lampoons conservatives, and conservatives in turn good-naturedly embraced the show, as if to prove they could take a punch. The satire of “Roseanne” does not rise above general "hillbilly" jokes, which are now in the bloodstream of America, so conservatives smile and laugh and tell themselves Roseanne is awesome and brave. The character of "Jackie" was inserted for "balance" and made to appear loony, but in fact Jackie is a softened version of Leftist insanity, easy to laugh at, a victim and not a perpetrator. The ratings are huge, and ABC now owns that Tuesday slot. Are we to believe that a television station, which depends on ratings, and which must compete against cable and Netflix, would jeopardize their position, and hand Tuesday over to the competition, because people who don't even watch Roseanne are offended? This makes no sense. It is the same as Laura Ingraham apologizing to people who don't listen to her radio show because they are boycotting her sponsors. The problem is, those non-listeners don't affect Laura's ratings or revenue, and her sharp commercial comeback proves that. There is no difference with Roseanne. She has nothing to fear and neither does ABC-TV. This therefore smacks of a publicity stunt.

If it IS a publicity stunt, it is brilliant. It engages every conservative and Republican into her world. It is the Trump strategy. With Trump, it is the media out to get him, which they are! With Roseanne, however, there is no such comparison. She does not run the country, and she is not the long-time thorn in the side of liberalism that Trump has been. Still, it seems as if the Right is falling all over itself to "save Roseanne" in a rallying cry second only to protecting President Trump.

If it is NOT a publicity stunt, two things: (1) ABC-TV is supremely stupid, and (2) Roseanne has the potential to start the next level of a Left-Right civil war, something which she might relish, given her history. The issue is, which side is she on? Her personal history shows her to be Left-leaning libertarian, but also a Trump supporter and not a Bernie or Hillary supporter

(https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/9/roseanne-barr-slams-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/). She is, however, not conservative, and one wonders what it is about conservatism that should attract her. Perhaps it is the hordes of raving new conservative fans who cannot move fast enough to protect this non-victim, because Roseanne is not going to suffer. No, in fact we should find her perhaps taking to the road and accompanying Trump on the trail, as Sarah Palin did early on for Trump. The question is, can Roseanne hit the conservative notes like Sarah can, or will it be something less substantial?

This is not a hit piece on Roseanne, but rather an honest look at some of her history, some logical views of the current situation (as of May 29 2018), and what might next transpire. Don’t shoot the messenger.