Dark Knight Thinly Veiled Attack on Mitt Romney

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**George Spiggott**

US politics are just so much more fun than ours.

When Christopher Nolan announced two years ago that the character Bane would be Batman's nemesis in The Dark Knight Rises, more than a few eyebrows were raised. While the villain has played a prominent role in the caped crusader's comic book canon, he is not nearly so well known as traditional bad guys such as Joker, Penguin or the Riddler. Now, the real reason behind the hulking antagonist's deployment in Nolan's forthcoming superhero blockbuster has been revealed – at least, in the mind of the rightwing US commentator Rush Limbaugh: it's all a thinly veiled attack on Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

According to Limbaugh, who was speaking on his syndicated radio show on Tuesday, "Bane" is designed to get Americans thinking about "Bain" Capital, the investment fund that Romney founded in 1984. The presidential hopeful is currently embroiled in a political spat with Barack Obama's team, who have accused him of being in charge during a period in which the private equity firm made a high number of layoffs at the companies it owned. Romney says he left the firm before the layoffs occurred.

"So this evil villain in the new Batman movie is named Bane. And there's discussion out there as to whether or not this was purposeful and whether or not it will influence voters," said Limbaugh. "A lot of people are going to see the movie. And it's a lot of brain-dead people – entertainment, the pop culture crowd – and they're going to hear Bane in the movie and they're going to associate Bain.

"And the thought is that when they're going to start paying attention to the campaign later in the year and Obama and the Democrats keep talking about Bain, not Bain Capital but Romney and Bain, that these people will start thinking back to the Batman movies: 'Oh yeah, I know who that is!'"

Back in reality, Bane was not invented by Nolan for The Dark Knight Rises but first rose to prominence in the 1993 Batman comic book series Knightfall, in which he breaks Bruce Wayne's back. Unless the British director had the ability to see into the future in 2010 when he was finalising his plans for the new film, it seems unlikely that he decided on utilising the villain for political reasons. Then again, Nolan began his superhero trilogy with 2005's Batman Begins, featuring a sinister organisation named The League of Shadows, known for manipulating events in order to forge the future in its own image.

Bloggers, including the Guardian's Catherine Shoard, have suggested a rather different political thread running throughout The Dark Knight Rises, with Bane and his "Occupy Gotham" army cast as the 99% and Wayne's battling Batman the capitalist, "radically conservative" antagonist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jul/18/dark-knight-rises-bane-mitt-romney

**SagesStone**

And it's a lot of brain-dead people

Sure are.

**Medium of Death**

He has probably made the issue more visible to the public by associating it with the Dark Knight.

Kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy... or something...

**AduroT**

Seems legit.

**Relapse**

Pretty visionary of them to realize two years ago that Romney would be the one running.
Who would have been the villain if it had been Santorum or Paul?

**Kilkrazy**

Bane first appeared in Batman in 1993, according to Wikipedia, so the Democrat Party's tentacles reach much farther than you think.

**reds8n**

Kilkrazy wrote:Bane first appeared in Batman in 1993, according to Wikipedia, so the Democrat Party's tentacles reach much farther than you think.

Indeed, not least as his creators were Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan

But wait. As many comic fans will already know, not only did Bane first appear nearly two decades ago (Vengeance of Bane #1, 1993), created by Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan, but Dixon himself is one of the comic book industry’s best-known political conservatives. During the Dixonverse messageboard thread on the matter, he noted of the Bane/Bain comparisons the day before Limbaugh’s segment aired:

I saw it on FB like two hours ago.

Ridiculous.

Tho’ I got a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach that Rush may pick up on this.

And hat would be the second time he pegged me and Graham as liberals on his show.

Later adding:

Overgrasping Dems?

It all adds to MY Bane capital.

I wonder if the Romeny campaign will contact me?

And also told comicbook.com:

Bane was created by me and Graham Nolan and we are lifelong conservatives and as far from left-wing mouthpieces as you are likely to find in comics.

Dixon later notes that he has already participated in one political talk show on the matter, The Schnitt List

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/18/chuck-dixon-rush-limbaugh-bane-bain-and-the-dark-knight-rises/

**Gitkikka**

I got to the name "Rush Limbaugh" and stopped reading.

**Ouze**

Rush Limbaugh is the finest professional troll working today, and his work is a monument to all those amateurs aspiring to be on his level, out there screaming racial slurs over xbox live, posting unintelligible gibberish as youtube comments, the ragequitters, the teamkillers, and the others who can only look up in admiration from his long-cast shadow.

**Easy E**

Rush has said some pretty rdidculous things, but this is.... just WOW.

This thread needs a Trollface PNG.... stat!

**Orlanth**

Word association can be a major problem, it can even be a deliberate problem, but the vast majority of cases are incidental.

A good example that immediately comes to mind is the appetite suppressant confectionary called Ayds popular in the 1970's. I very much doubt scientists who coined the term AIDS did so with any malice in mind, they could have used slightly different wording but they did not, and as a result the company was hit hard. This wasn't helped by the known fact that one of the things AIDS kills in the appetite.

Now here is the kicker, no-one would sell a box of virus, at least not openly, so how did it kill sales? This is likely where subliminal unease comes into effect. Consequently Rush Limbaugh has a point that the word association might have an effect as the effects of word association are not rational. The big problem is not the message but the messenger. Where he goes wrong is in allowing the press to assume he thought it was a conspiracy, which makes far better copy than the content of his argument. He isn't saying anything of the kind, just pointing out a word association because when 'consciously' aware of it, it has a lessened effect. It doesn't help that in doing so he breaks the cardinal rules of propaganda, highlighting the ignorance of the recipient culture. Limbaugh is quoted as saying "A lot of people are going to see the movie. And it's a lot of brain-dead people – entertainment, the pop culture crowd – and they're going to hear Bane in the movie and they're going to associate Bain. Spin best works by vocally playing to the 'intelligence' of the public, even while perpetually counting on their collective stupidity. A frequently used generic example: "The Great British/American people will see through [opposition party policy]".

A better way of heading off this problem is for a TV editorial on the effects of word association, using a quantifiable example like the loss of sales of Ayds confectionary, and then including the new Batman movie as a potential topical example, taking the effort to say that it no conspiracy is assumed. The threat is then posed as a question to the viewer, 'could word association effect the race to the White House?' with scenes from the new film playing in the background. That would diffuse much of the word association value the film has. Even so it would have been more prudent to just ignore it, any highlighting of the word Bain/Bane is more harmful than helpful at the present time.

**d-usa**

2008 = The Dark Knight = Obama Victory

2012 = The Dark Knight Rises = the black-clothed hero defeating Bane.

Coincidence? I think not...

Edit: I also think that the first Batman came out the year that Obama won the election to the senate. Clearly the democratic party is more powerful than we know.

**Amaya**

Rush Limbaugh needs to be rendered mute for the rest of his corpulent existence.

**AustonT**

Please don't post things like this on Dakka.
reds8n

**IcyCool**

Orlanth wrote:A better way of heading off this problem is for a TV editorial on the effects of word association, using a quantifiable example like the loss of sales of Ayds confectionary, and then including the new Batman movie as a potential topical example, taking the effort to say that it no conspiracy is assumed.

But ... but ... barking about the liberal media conspiracy comprises the majority of the "content" of Rush's show. The rest is filled with blatant stereotyping, poorly veiled racial epithets, and misogyny. He literally cannot do what you suggest, or he wouldn't have a show.

I do agree with you on the power of word association, that any claim that the Bane/Bain thing is intentional is ridiculous, and that it would have best been left unsaid.

Kilkrazy wrote:Bane first appeared in Batman in 1993, according to Wikipedia, so the Democrat Party's tentacles reach much farther than you think.

Wasn't there a thread in the OT here in the past week that ranted about Obama being a time traveller? Could this be more evidence?

**timetowaste85**

Mr. Limbaugh, if you are reading this, you corpulent ass-hat, please do a belly flop out of an airplane into the Atlantic and feed the sharks for a month. It would be your first positive contribution to life. Unless, of course, your pus-ridden rolls kill the sharks by accident. Thank you.

**warpcrafter**

Didn't Rush Limbaugh have an oxycontin addiction? That probably messed up his brain. We should feel sorry for people like that, and not let them anywhere near an open mic.

**Shadowseer_Kim**

Wow people continue to fail to understand the grammar of the English language. Read the quotes in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs again.

Even the person who wrote the article failed at this by asserting "according to Rush Limbaugh it is designed..."

It is quite obvious by reading it, that he is letting us know that there is some conspiracy talk about it floating around.

A quick search of the interwebs, shows me an article from ABC News from last Friday, some blogs from last week, well before Rush informed his listeners that this theory was being talked about.

I know you all want to bash Rush Limbaugh, it is the in thing to do with the youths and internet forum trolls today, but the only thing he did wrong in this instance was talk about something that was at least a week old news.

**IcyCool**

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I know you all want to bash Rush Limbaugh, it is the in thing to do with the youths and internet forum trolls today, but the only thing he did wrong in this instance was talk about something that was at least a week old news.

This sentence indicates to me that either you have never listened to Rush's show, or you are a big fan.

That said, the fact that this stuff was news at all is just sad.

**Sturmtruppen**

d-usa wrote:2008 = The Dark Knight = Obama Victory

2012 = The Dark Knight Rises = the black-clothed hero defeating Bane.

Coincidence? I think not...

Edit: I also think that the first Batman came out the year that Obama won the election to the senate. Clearly the democratic party is more powerful than we know.

Hey, you're right. And in 2008, Obama was competing against John McCain and Sarah Palin, who we all know were a pair of Jokers!

**IcyCool**

Sturmtruppen wrote:Hey, you're right. And in 2008, Obama was competing against John McCain and Sarah Palin, who we all know were a pair of Jokers!

Come now, that casts them in an unfavorable light. We all know they were mavericks, with right on their side! Like Harvey Dent!

No, wait...

Hmm ... I'm not sure you can make any favorable comparisons between Batman villains and heroes, and politicians.

**Ahtman**

Some of them seem as mad as a hatter.

**Frazzled**

IcyCool wrote:
Sturmtruppen wrote:Hey, you're right. And in 2008, Obama was competing against John McCain and Sarah Palin, who we all know were a pair of Jokers!

Come now, that casts them in an unfavorable light. We all know they were mavericks, with right on their side! Like Harvey Dent!

No, wait...

Hmm ... I'm not sure you can make any favorable comparisons between Batman villains and heroes, and politicians.

Fool, McCain was't Dent. Don't be an absurd nincompoop. McCain was Luke Skywalker, fighting in the Death Star.

**Kilkrazy**

IcyCool wrote:
Orlanth wrote:A better way of heading off this problem is for a TV editorial on the effects of word association, using a quantifiable example like the loss of sales of Ayds confectionary, and then including the new Batman movie as a potential topical example, taking the effort to say that it no conspiracy is assumed.

But ... but ... barking about the liberal media conspiracy comprises the majority of the "content" of Rush's show. The rest is filled with blatant stereotyping, poorly veiled racial epithets, and misogyny. He literally cannot do what you suggest, or he wouldn't have a show.

I do agree with you on the power of word association, that any claim that the Bane/Bain thing is intentional is ridiculous, and that it would have best been left unsaid.

Kilkrazy wrote:Bane first appeared in Batman in 1993, according to Wikipedia, so the Democrat Party's tentacles reach much farther than you think.

Wasn't there a thread in the OT here in the past week that ranted about Obama being a time traveller? Could this be more evidence?

I think you will find in four years from now that Obama will be seen to have deliberately lost the 2012 election in order to allow Romney to plunge the country into even worse condition so as to ensure a lasting Democrat victory under the line, "I told you so".

Obama for four more years, and eight years of Clinton, will follow.

There is no end to the depth of their plotting.

**IcyCool**

Frazzled wrote:Fool, McCain was't Dent. Don't be an absurd nincompoop. McCain was Luke Skywalker, fighting in the Death Star.

Was there some sort of Batman/Star Wars crossover comic? Cause, not gonna lie, the 1980's version of me would have found that to be fething awesome.

**Easy E**

John McCain =

**Chowderhead**

Kilkrazy wrote:
IcyCool wrote:
Orlanth wrote:A better way of heading off this problem is for a TV editorial on the effects of word association, using a quantifiable example like the loss of sales of Ayds confectionary, and then including the new Batman movie as a potential topical example, taking the effort to say that it no conspiracy is assumed.

But ... but ... barking about the liberal media conspiracy comprises the majority of the "content" of Rush's show. The rest is filled with blatant stereotyping, poorly veiled racial epithets, and misogyny. He literally cannot do what you suggest, or he wouldn't have a show.

I do agree with you on the power of word association, that any claim that the Bane/Bain thing is intentional is ridiculous, and that it would have best been left unsaid.

Kilkrazy wrote:Bane first appeared in Batman in 1993, according to Wikipedia, so the Democrat Party's tentacles reach much farther than you think.

Wasn't there a thread in the OT here in the past week that ranted about Obama being a time traveller? Could this be more evidence?

I think you will find in four years from now that Obama will be seen to have deliberately lost the 2012 election in order to allow Romney to plunge the country into even worse condition so as to ensure a lasting Democrat victory under the line, "I told you so".

Obama for four more years, and eight years of Clinton, will follow.

There is no end to the depth of their plotting.

So it's a Kobayashi Maru.

Also, on the topic of the OP, the Batman movies have been lined up really well with Obama's campaign. This means only one thing.

Obama is a Muslim-Extra-Terrestrial-Nazi-Homosexual-Abortionmonger!

**d-usa**

Romney was overheard talking about President Obama the other day, the following audio clip was leaked:

Craig Romney: Why are you running, Dad?

Mitt Romney: Because we have to defeat him.

Craig Romney: He didn't do anything wrong.

Mitt Romney: Because he's the President the United States deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll defeat him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

**Bran Dawri**

Kilkrazy wrote:Bane first appeared in Batman in 1993, according to Wikipedia, so the Democrat Party's tentacles reach much farther than you think.

Dear God! Proof positive that Obama is indeed a time-travelling CIA operative!

Chowderhead wrote:Also, on the topic of the OP, the Batman movies have been lined up really well with Obama's campaign. This means only one thing.

Obama is Batman?

Also, being called a brain-dead pop-culture crowder (crowdee?) would so make me want to vote Republican if I were a US citizen...

**Crablezworth**