I watched Ann Coulter brave the four harpies and the one MSNBC-Conservative on the View, and it reminded me of other times that I've watched conservatives brave the gauntlet of the MSM interview.
Condi Rice on Laurence O'Donnell. Jonah Goldberg on Piers Morgan. Ari Fleischer on Chris Matthews. Andrew Breitbart on Bill Maher. I watched these interviews, and plenty others, and compared them to whenever a liberal host like those above bring on liberal guests.
Watch any of the interviews between Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo. There are several. Note that he lets her have complete freedom to speak her mind for as long as she needs to make her point. The interviews above? You can barely hear what the guest is saying, because the host won't shut up.
They talk over the guest, they interrupt them, they cut mic's. Now, say what you want about Bill O'Reilly (who I've never really liked) but most of the time when a liberal is invited on a FOX News program, they can actually get a word in edgewise. Off the top of my head, the Jon Stewart interview with Chris Wallace that I've already discussed springs to mind. I mean, yeah, I didn't like what he said, but I do like that he was allowed to say it.
When you think about it, that made Wallace look like the bigger (and smarter) man. Let Stewart blab, let him expose his ignorance, let him show just how little he actually knows when he's not in his echo chamber, and then, when he's said his piece, eviscerate him.
That's not how liberals work, though, and in the above interview examples, I think one of the reasons why is clear to me, even if it's not clear to those who do it; they're worried that the guest may say something they can't refute. They're worried about looking stupid. And they're right to worry. Ann Coulter vs. Whoopi Goldberg? Bitch, please.
However, it has to stop. One of the reasons type-1 liberals remain liberal is that whenever they're in a situation where they're watching a conservative, they come away thinking conservatives must be stupid and mean. Any time they watch a conservative, they're always fighting to be heard over the host, so they look hostile.
But conservatives can't just stop going on these shows. It would look cowardly. Since liberals have set the narrative, they can always just say "conservatives won't come on these shows because they will only go where they're made to feel comfortable and no one asks them hard questions." I mean, that sentence is entirely true of liberals (which is why Barack Obama has instructed his staff not to talk to FOX News, and why, after some pressure, he agreed to all of ONE interview in four years). But projection is one of the ways liberals deflect criticism, and as of yet, that won't work for conservatives because we have lost control of the narrative (some would say we conceded the narrative). So what can we do? Continue to go on these shows to be brow-beaten by the host and made to look bad?
No. We can start by saying that we will not agree to go on any show until the following conditions are met:
1) The interview must be live. Never submit to a pre-taped interview or you WILL find yourself edited to look less smart. Any point where you stumped the host will not make it to air. Similarly, never submit to a magazine or newspaper interview.
2) Prior to air, the host or producers must be completely honest about the tone and line of questioning in the interview. We could be prissy like liberals and demand to see the questions beforehand, but since we already know what we believe and why, we don't have to prepare answers. However, since liberals are always fully prepped by the host, conservatives must be as well.
3) When the host asks us a question, he must wait at least three minutes
for us to answer, and is not allowed to cut us off mid-sentence. If he
does interrupt after you've said a complete sentence (after the three
minutes), the three minutes start again. I say three minutes only
because I know a TV show has a limited time slot and you're usually not the only guest. However, I think that if the whole show is one long interview with you, that three minutes should expand to six.
Then, during the interview, if the host breaks the third condition, the guest must say "Okay, you just broke the condition to let me actually articulate my position, and everyone watching saw it. Strike one. You don't get a second strike." Then hold to that. If he breaks it again, he's out. Get up and walk out. But first, tell the host "If you ask me to come back on this show, I will, but only if next time you actually agree to let me get a word in edgewise. This time, however, you blew it, and this interview is over."
You may be thinking this will make us look more hostile. The first couple of times, maybe so. But when it becomes obvious that this is happening with EVERY interview show on CNN or MSNBC (or morning talk) and ONLY with conservatives, soon people will be able to see that conservatives are always entering a trap when they go on these shows, but they're no longer allowing the trap to be sprung.
EDIT: Someone's been reading my blog. Go Congressman Ryan!
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Democrats Hope We Have Veeeery Short Memories...
Wow.
We all knew that Obama can't run on his record. That's why, so far, his main message is "Vote for me because Mitt Romney put his dog on the roof of his car in the 80's" or "Vote for me because Romney is rich" or "Vote for me because Romney gave a woman cancer, Ryan wants to push your grandmother off a cliff and they both perform weird rites in their basements at night involving midgets with cloven hooves and sacrificing thirteen year old girls. Prove it isn't true!"
But now we have Bill Clinton saying on a national stage the same shit that Obama's supporters have been spewing in political forums for the past year; Obama is not a failure because no one could possibly have led an economic turnaround from the disaster we had in 2008 in just four years.
Umm...what?
Like I said, I've heard this tripe before. In every public forum, be it youtube, facebook, twitter, you name it, Obama supporters whine about how we just don't understand; Obama's not a failure. Obama is the only thing that kept the whole situation from getting a lot worse than it did. Do we rubes really think McCain could have handled this situation any better? Do we really think Romney has better ideas that will actually work? It's just the same-old same-old that got us into this mess in the first place! Obama's "really trying". He "really cares". If it weren't for him, "everything would be much worse." And "nobody could have turned all this around in that short a time."
Okay. A few things.
First, does anyone really believe that no president in US history has EVER had to face an economic situation as bleak as the one Obama "inherited"? Was the economy, the jobs situation, etc., really so weak in 2008 that it was possible to say that no president has ever faced a situation that horrible? The answer, of course, is no. Ronald Reagan got elected in a landslide because of Carter's mismanagement of, well, let's be honest, everything, but the economy in large part. Whether you love or hate Reagan, you cannot deny that America became a prosperous place under him, and before that fully happened, Reagan didn't sit around blaming Jimmy Carter.
Second, yes, the economy and jobs situation was bad in 2008. We had 7.2 percent unemployment. Our debt was over 4 trillion, prices were rising and trade was down (of course, I could point out that most of this wasn't true until the Democrats took control of 2/3rds of the government in 2006, but that's beside the point). That was 2008. Now our unemployment is well over 8%, and that's just the "official" report which doesn't even factor in those who have stopped looking for employment. Our debt is now over 16 trillion and rising all the time. America has gone from having "a weak economy" to losing its AAA rating for the first time since 1917. In other words, Obama not only failed to make things better, but contrary to the supporter's line, he did NOT keep things from getting worse.
Third, ever since being elected, Obama, his cabinet, his staff, the news media and his other supporters have been whining about the "mess" that Obama "inherited." He "inherited" nothing. This implies that the job of fixing the "mess" was thrust upon him, and caught him unawares. He knew, and acknowledged that there was a mess that needed cleaning many times during his campaign. He campaigned as though he was the man with the plan to take care of it. He kept talking about how badly George W. Bush screwed things up and how only he and his plan could possibly fix it. "Yes we can!" he shouted at adoring crowds. "We are the ones we've been waiting for!" "Hope!" "Change!" People voted for Barack Obama because he was supposed to be the one, the ONLY one, who could turn this around and make America into a land of chocolate rivers and rainbow gardens. He was NOT elected because "no one" could possibly fix this in just four years, but at least he could keep it from getting worse. Had he run on that idea, he not only would have lost the presidency, he would have lost the nomination, and 2008 would have been McCain vs. Hilary Clinton (which means, instead of the US mysteriously becoming the most racist country in the world just after electing a black president, it would have become the most sexist country just after electing a woman president). This argument that "no one" could have fixed the situation in four years is a complete fallacy. Four years is all a sitting president is guaranteed. Obama knew this going in. He even said that if he can't turn the economy around in three years, "we're going to have a one term proposition." Those are the words of a man who believed he could do it, not a man who just wants to keep things from getting worse (which, as I said, he didn't even do).
Next we have to address the constant poo-pooing of any plan Romney or Ryan may have. Democrats don't want to discuss what the plans of the Republican nominee and his running mate actually are; they just want to smear and name-call. They talk about a woman getting cancer who didn't have any coverage because "Romney!" when a brief investigation reveals Romney had nothing to do with her fate. They want to call Ryan's budget "draconian", and accuse him of wanting to gut medicare (pushing an old lady off a cliff) without ever actually discussing his budget or his economic plans. If they did, they'd lose, and they know it, especially since it was OBAMA who has gutted medicare already (cutting more than 700 billion from it to pay for Obamacare).
And fifth, "Obama's really trying" and "really cares" only work as campaign slogans. It doesn't work for a sitting president that's had four years of almost unencumbered time to implement whatever plan he had. Seriously, the next time you're up for a job review, and you've done a bad job, try using "But I'm really trying" and "I really care" as a defense.
Obama and the Democrats apparently hope we have very short memories. They hope we don't remember all the promises they made back in 2008, when all they had to do was get elected. Now that they're fighting to stay in power, and haven't kept a single campaign promise, all they can do is shout "racists!" "George Bush!" "Rich people!" "First gay president!" "Do-nothing congress!" Etc.
They also hope we don't see that under Obama, spending rates doubled, and tripled, and that Obama has spent more in his first three years than Bush did in eight. They hope we don't see that in all that spending, we have nothing to show for it. Unemployment is still high, our economy is still in the toilet, and all Obama can say is "we need to spend more", "I didn't tell a good enough story", "The private sector is doing fine", "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" and other such happy homilies that reflect "hope" and "change" and the "yes we can" spirit.
Jonah Goldberg sums up perfectly why we shouldn't accept his "the situation was worse than we thought" excuse. "They say in their defense that’s because the downturn was so much worse than anyone realized," writes Goldberg. "OK, but that just demonstrates the folly of their confidence in the first place. If I jump off a building because I am sure I can fly (“I wrote a study that proves it!”), it’s of little solace, and even less of an excuse, if I sputter out my last words from the bloodied pavement, “The pull of gravity was so much worse than I realized.”"
Let's face it, if Obama was a white Republican (or, even a black Republican since democrats think race is sharply defined by one's politics, therefore Bill Maher is more black than JC Watts), but nothing else was different, the press would be raking him over the coals. Not only would they say that he's unworthy of re-election, but they would have insisted that he be impeached facing criminal charges (Fast & Furious, the Cordray appointment, etc.). But because he's a Democrat, he can hide behind his paper shield of "all my critics are racists" and the Left and the press will let him get away with almost anything. I'm convinced he could pull out a gun during the presidential debates and shoot Romney dead, and the press would spin it as self-defense.
Obama has had four years to convince us that he's up to the job. He has been, for good or ill, the CEO of America. Congress is the Board of Directors. Obama apparently thinks we're the employees, but we're not. We're the customers and shareholders; those most important to any company. His job was to manage the company and make it profitable and sustainable, and to do so to our satisfaction. He did neither. And when pressed on his poor performance, he offered up blame-shifting and excuses. If any other CEO did that, it would be time to replace him. And it's time to replace Obama.
We don't have short memories. We remember what Obama said he would do. And he failed.
We all knew that Obama can't run on his record. That's why, so far, his main message is "Vote for me because Mitt Romney put his dog on the roof of his car in the 80's" or "Vote for me because Romney is rich" or "Vote for me because Romney gave a woman cancer, Ryan wants to push your grandmother off a cliff and they both perform weird rites in their basements at night involving midgets with cloven hooves and sacrificing thirteen year old girls. Prove it isn't true!"
But now we have Bill Clinton saying on a national stage the same shit that Obama's supporters have been spewing in political forums for the past year; Obama is not a failure because no one could possibly have led an economic turnaround from the disaster we had in 2008 in just four years.
Umm...what?
Like I said, I've heard this tripe before. In every public forum, be it youtube, facebook, twitter, you name it, Obama supporters whine about how we just don't understand; Obama's not a failure. Obama is the only thing that kept the whole situation from getting a lot worse than it did. Do we rubes really think McCain could have handled this situation any better? Do we really think Romney has better ideas that will actually work? It's just the same-old same-old that got us into this mess in the first place! Obama's "really trying". He "really cares". If it weren't for him, "everything would be much worse." And "nobody could have turned all this around in that short a time."
Okay. A few things.
First, does anyone really believe that no president in US history has EVER had to face an economic situation as bleak as the one Obama "inherited"? Was the economy, the jobs situation, etc., really so weak in 2008 that it was possible to say that no president has ever faced a situation that horrible? The answer, of course, is no. Ronald Reagan got elected in a landslide because of Carter's mismanagement of, well, let's be honest, everything, but the economy in large part. Whether you love or hate Reagan, you cannot deny that America became a prosperous place under him, and before that fully happened, Reagan didn't sit around blaming Jimmy Carter.
Second, yes, the economy and jobs situation was bad in 2008. We had 7.2 percent unemployment. Our debt was over 4 trillion, prices were rising and trade was down (of course, I could point out that most of this wasn't true until the Democrats took control of 2/3rds of the government in 2006, but that's beside the point). That was 2008. Now our unemployment is well over 8%, and that's just the "official" report which doesn't even factor in those who have stopped looking for employment. Our debt is now over 16 trillion and rising all the time. America has gone from having "a weak economy" to losing its AAA rating for the first time since 1917. In other words, Obama not only failed to make things better, but contrary to the supporter's line, he did NOT keep things from getting worse.
Third, ever since being elected, Obama, his cabinet, his staff, the news media and his other supporters have been whining about the "mess" that Obama "inherited." He "inherited" nothing. This implies that the job of fixing the "mess" was thrust upon him, and caught him unawares. He knew, and acknowledged that there was a mess that needed cleaning many times during his campaign. He campaigned as though he was the man with the plan to take care of it. He kept talking about how badly George W. Bush screwed things up and how only he and his plan could possibly fix it. "Yes we can!" he shouted at adoring crowds. "We are the ones we've been waiting for!" "Hope!" "Change!" People voted for Barack Obama because he was supposed to be the one, the ONLY one, who could turn this around and make America into a land of chocolate rivers and rainbow gardens. He was NOT elected because "no one" could possibly fix this in just four years, but at least he could keep it from getting worse. Had he run on that idea, he not only would have lost the presidency, he would have lost the nomination, and 2008 would have been McCain vs. Hilary Clinton (which means, instead of the US mysteriously becoming the most racist country in the world just after electing a black president, it would have become the most sexist country just after electing a woman president). This argument that "no one" could have fixed the situation in four years is a complete fallacy. Four years is all a sitting president is guaranteed. Obama knew this going in. He even said that if he can't turn the economy around in three years, "we're going to have a one term proposition." Those are the words of a man who believed he could do it, not a man who just wants to keep things from getting worse (which, as I said, he didn't even do).
Next we have to address the constant poo-pooing of any plan Romney or Ryan may have. Democrats don't want to discuss what the plans of the Republican nominee and his running mate actually are; they just want to smear and name-call. They talk about a woman getting cancer who didn't have any coverage because "Romney!" when a brief investigation reveals Romney had nothing to do with her fate. They want to call Ryan's budget "draconian", and accuse him of wanting to gut medicare (pushing an old lady off a cliff) without ever actually discussing his budget or his economic plans. If they did, they'd lose, and they know it, especially since it was OBAMA who has gutted medicare already (cutting more than 700 billion from it to pay for Obamacare).
And fifth, "Obama's really trying" and "really cares" only work as campaign slogans. It doesn't work for a sitting president that's had four years of almost unencumbered time to implement whatever plan he had. Seriously, the next time you're up for a job review, and you've done a bad job, try using "But I'm really trying" and "I really care" as a defense.
Obama and the Democrats apparently hope we have very short memories. They hope we don't remember all the promises they made back in 2008, when all they had to do was get elected. Now that they're fighting to stay in power, and haven't kept a single campaign promise, all they can do is shout "racists!" "George Bush!" "Rich people!" "First gay president!" "Do-nothing congress!" Etc.
They also hope we don't see that under Obama, spending rates doubled, and tripled, and that Obama has spent more in his first three years than Bush did in eight. They hope we don't see that in all that spending, we have nothing to show for it. Unemployment is still high, our economy is still in the toilet, and all Obama can say is "we need to spend more", "I didn't tell a good enough story", "The private sector is doing fine", "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" and other such happy homilies that reflect "hope" and "change" and the "yes we can" spirit.
Jonah Goldberg sums up perfectly why we shouldn't accept his "the situation was worse than we thought" excuse. "They say in their defense that’s because the downturn was so much worse than anyone realized," writes Goldberg. "OK, but that just demonstrates the folly of their confidence in the first place. If I jump off a building because I am sure I can fly (“I wrote a study that proves it!”), it’s of little solace, and even less of an excuse, if I sputter out my last words from the bloodied pavement, “The pull of gravity was so much worse than I realized.”"
Let's face it, if Obama was a white Republican (or, even a black Republican since democrats think race is sharply defined by one's politics, therefore Bill Maher is more black than JC Watts), but nothing else was different, the press would be raking him over the coals. Not only would they say that he's unworthy of re-election, but they would have insisted that he be impeached facing criminal charges (Fast & Furious, the Cordray appointment, etc.). But because he's a Democrat, he can hide behind his paper shield of "all my critics are racists" and the Left and the press will let him get away with almost anything. I'm convinced he could pull out a gun during the presidential debates and shoot Romney dead, and the press would spin it as self-defense.
Obama has had four years to convince us that he's up to the job. He has been, for good or ill, the CEO of America. Congress is the Board of Directors. Obama apparently thinks we're the employees, but we're not. We're the customers and shareholders; those most important to any company. His job was to manage the company and make it profitable and sustainable, and to do so to our satisfaction. He did neither. And when pressed on his poor performance, he offered up blame-shifting and excuses. If any other CEO did that, it would be time to replace him. And it's time to replace Obama.
We don't have short memories. We remember what Obama said he would do. And he failed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)