Screw the Debates

I look forward to and enjoy the debates as much as anyone. They are informative and have a place. But they are only one part in the whole process. Like everything else, we see how biased or corrupted they can be. Politicized, for sure, but have they outlived their status?

I mean what else would we expect? It is their system, the establishment likes its control and uses it every way they can. So debates are one of their tentacles. They own it.

However, in case the elite inside, power-control estabos — who know better than the people — have not noticed, the people have been having a debate from the beginning. That’s the real debate, a referendum on them. Estabos do not like that one at all.

So if they haven’t noticed by now, we have come to a few conclusions too. The status quo has got to go. The ruling class told us we are irrelevant and what we want doesn’t matter. They tell us what issues are important. And they tell us how we should vote. That’s the way it is done, they say. Our vote must be based on others’ their choice and endorsements.

While we had this kick down dragged out debate this far, they’ve opposed the will of the people every step. They didn’t notice we won every round. People are fed up. We get faux hearings about phony responsibility with no accountability. Nothing short of that is on their menu now. The establishment is insulted that we dare resist their status quo bargain.

These days they complain about “structural racism” inherent in all places, yet they have a structural bias in the whole election process — from establishment to media — just as they have in government. That structuralism doesn’t bother them one bit, they thrive on it.

Now this elite status-quo is using the race card in every way to keep their establishment in control of the process to control the results. Then the debate injects the label of racist even into the debate. They play the gender card in the same way. Put that together with the smear tactics and you have a structural establishment cocktail to destroy any opposition to it. That’s their plan. Some value debates mey have, but they change nothing.

Under that light, what do even the debates really mean? Use the debates to screw us? What’s new? It’s better not to bestow any more value on them than they deserve — consider the source.

RightRing | Bullright

Reince suspends NBC February debate

So Priebus fires off a letter. Why didn’t he cancel it? That would be appropriate.

Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112
Dear Mr. Lack,
I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016. The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.
The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.
CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.
While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.
I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.
While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.
I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.
Sincerely,
Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee

But then the RNC has proved to not be great negotiators, so what good is suspending it? And NBC will do as it pleases anyway, so what is this about? How about also suspending the deal-maker in chief at the RNC (unpaid leave) since he made it? I also read CNBC promoting the debate online to be on Economy, Taxation, with some Climate Change. I never saw that mentioned elsewhere.

“In two parts, the debate focused on the economy, taxes, the national budget and climate change”.- CNBC

The Next Trump Question

In the last debate, Megyn Kelly had the gotcha question and they asked the Trump question: if everyone would sign a pledge to not run on a third Party? Of course that was a question for Trump and not really an issue for anyone else.

As the very first question it got the desired result, Donald Trump raising his single hand amid sneers from others. Rand Paul registered strong protest. That moment and question was supposed to set the tone for the debate and future campaign.

Now that we see media’s agenda, what will the Trump question be for the next debate — or gotcha question? Hugh Hewitt hinted at one in an interview with Trump. He asked him about leaders names of Hezbollah and Iranian Quds Force. Trump muddied the interpretation saying we aren’t doing enough to help the Kurds.

We know the process: liberals get “respectful” softball questions; for conservatives questions must point out what they don’t know. Make conservatives look dumb. What will the question be this time? Seems Mid Eastern leaders are in the mix.

So Trump has now signed their mandatory RNC pledge but that shouldn’t be the end of it.

Here is the real Trump question: Roll reversal 101

As they say, turnabout is fair play. Their Trump question only prompted another question about that pledge. How does the RNC demand someone sign a loyalty pledge to the Party while the Republican party has not been trustworthy? Just what are it’s intentions? It almost routinely stabs conservatives in the back.

Suppose someone turns RNC’s question around and works it into the debate. It would be great. The people should be asking how can we trust the Republican Party to stand by us and be loyal to conservatives? Where is that pledge? I’d like to see the RNC and Rience Priebus answer and sign that pledge. Maybe they all should be asking that and demand an answer. Enough of the horseshit about promise your loyalty to the grand GOP. How about the RNC pledge its loyalty and mean it? A pledge and contract. Trump could do that. But anyone and everyone should be asking. That could even be the theme of the convention.

RightRing | Bullright

Trump Fox hit parade keeps rolling

Ordinarily I might not be as critical of Megyn Kelly. But then there is nothing ordinary, really, anymore. This is not an ordinary election, these are not ordinary times, these are not ordinary people involved either. The circumstances here are not ordinary at all. It is serious stuff too.

But then as I criticized Candice Crowley for her moderator failures, I also am critical of Megyn Kelly’s. Fair is fair. She sensationalized the program and turned it more into reality TV than an episode of Celebrity Apprentice. Or maybe that was the role she thought she was playing? She begs for that comparison. The only reason the record number of people/viewers means anything is the heightened interest in the process. But not to Fox. Maybe Fox did well with sponsors, ads and eyeballs, or bottom lines. Good for them. Cha-ching cha-ching! But that doesn’t change the fundamental purpose of the event. Then they doubled down on that theme afterward by high-fiving each other.

That is just inappropriate behavior — no matter how well the event went or not. We had the coverage of Katrina non-stop. We had the Gulf War coverage, originally in 91-92 Even that was not sensationalized this way, as a historic major achievement. Need I mention 9/11? We didn’t see this much self-congratulation over those. No, instead they, Fox, became an inseparably integrated part of the story — a major one. Even the CNN Crowley incident, and their defense of her, was not this sensationalized by their own network.

Media covered natural disasters, riots, trials and OJ Simpson. Yet this was over the top, especially concerning a serious debate in above serious times. They turned it into their personal reality side show. Ironic that Trump was at the center of it. If they did want to cover all the candidates, with a modicum of equality, they failed focusing their attention on Trump and then themselves — personally and as a news organization. They put themselves front and center. They over-engineered it.

Then Fox complains about the viewers’ outcry after, as another news story. Poor Fox victims. It was not just one question or the one answer, it was laced through with the same sensational theme. And we don’t really need extra sensationalizing in this current reality. We have quite enough already. Then to turn that all into some success for Fox, I don’t understand that logic.

I think we are witnessing a media meltdown. When they can’t cover a major event like this without turning it into some side-freak show, then we are in a tailspin. Instead of discussing solutions to problems, they are busy compounding more layers of problems on top, mediopolizing. We evidently can’t even have the semblance of an objective process. We expect it from much of lamestream, Fox has just gone the way of the limousine media. Yet, its funny that their big problem is Trump. After South Carolina in 2012 you would have thought they would have been self-conscious of that. No, rather they played it up into a reality circus.(who knows where their research came from) Is viewer numbers and their TV personalities all they care about? Winners – Fox, at what cost? Losers – we the people, especially conservatives and Republicans. But P/C will rule with Democrats. They pander to Dems so they can still get interviews from them.

On a previous post Lafayette Angel came up with an idea of doing debates ourselves. That’s a heck of an idea. I could see conservatives doing that — not like CPAC or summit — it seems possible and attractive. Go around them. Then I had the thought it really wouldn’t affect media because they would critique it how they always do anyway. Just that they would not control the process. And why can’t we do focus groups, too? I think Lafayette Angel has something there. I’d like to say, “media, you’re fired!”

If Trump offended someone, then Fox broke their heart over objectivity. So they didn’t see this coming, like 10 miles away? Dumbass award goes to Fox.

RightRing | Bullright

Fox kicks the Golden Calf, then tries to melt it down

Hours after the debate, it was clear Fox was boasting about having a record number of viewers tune in to the debate. I imagine on Thursday night there were lots of things people could have be doing. But we knew the numbers were going to be big even before it, judging by the political interest so far. Why? We knew that too.

Fox tries to pat itself on the back for the debate coverage, which is pretty self-serving. I mean the nation is a train wreck: Obama just nuked us with an Iran deal, sanctuary cities are failing the citizens in them, riots and racism abound, inner city crime is spiking, terrorism even at home is on the rise, stagnant economic growth, scandal palooza, distrust in government and leadership, with a record number of candidates … and Fox is worried about the number of viewers it gets watching the first debate? Give it a break. Who is doing reality TV here, Fox or Trump? I think its the former.

This was not supposed to be a long post. I wanted it short. I don’t get what I want. But how can you do that with these continuing circumstances in this primary?

Everyone knows that Trump has been a boon for the campaign. We cannot measure what interest would be without him? You can’t do it. In fact, Trump brought in lots of viewers because of statements they cannot stifle, against their desires, and what has been happening in the last couple months.Like him or not he exploded interest, not a bad thing considering we always hear how few people are actively engaged in the process. So it is revealing that the very guy who brought in record numbers of viewers would also be the subject of attacks, even from media who have been gunning for him as a non-serious candidate from the beginning. What you’d expect. Trump has been their Golden Calf.

But then it goes to a different level. The opening question was about pledging allegiance to the GOP Party — an evolution in progress, controlled by some powerful interests. It was talked about already and they knew the answer. This was about getting him in front of a record millions of people to decline a pledge not to run on another platform. About making that the opening question, to force him to make a stand everyone already knew. They could have even worked it in somewhere else. It was the lead.

It was reminiscent of Newt in South Carolina where the opening is the gotcha personal question. By design we had an over-engineered debate from the onset. Then hardly allow him to explain why not. Trump was on the stand testifying. Now I am not a great fan or Trump supporter, you don’t have to be. But one cannot deny what he already brought to the table and contributed, at his own expense. So the gotcha was front and center. Who knows what Fox expected to accomplish?

What’s in a pledge?

I see the reason he should not swear to it based on principle. Why take it off the table? And why do that without getting something in return? Sounds like the opening act of Obama’s negotiation with Iran. You don’t give away your chips. But the word leverage should not be used. It’s negotiation 101. Others have reneged on the pledge. Others do not want to take pledges on many things, as a rule. I thought the estabos, as I call them, were against pledges? Think Grover Norquist. Politicians and RNC certainly oppose pledges when we demand their loyalty. Secondly, at this stage with the RNC, and what they have done over the past 5 years, what good is their word? So pledge to stand behind an organization; and pledge unwavering loyalty to a Party apparatus we can’t trust. Logical?

Now Fox is trying to kick the Golden Calf that brought the attention to this process and debate, as hard as it can. At the same time they pat themselves for the interest in the process as if it were their doing. And they were quick after the debate to congratulate themselves. Twenty four hours later and they are still bragging about it. Frank Luntz wasted no time afterward, showing his focus group was pissed at the pledge decline. But if explained in Trump’s terms, can they understand why pledging unwavering loyalty is such a problem?

In fact, it is part of the reason we are here. We have a disconnected Party leadership problem. Even Ted Cruz said multiple times that we conservative Republicans keep winning elections, and then leadership of the GOP fails us. It’s true. We elected the majority in Congress, then we elected the majority in the Senate. Did you see John Boehner or Mitch McConnell have a problem with taking that leadership role? Nope. They could have refused we would pick another. Now they run the RNC like its their private liberal lite committee, even holding it and the process hostage against the will of the people. Do we get mad? Sure. Do they care when we do? Nah.

So in that backdrop, along comes Trump who criticizes all the pols for being self-serving, career pols. Accurate? Relevant? Sure is. Now the first question on the docket in the first debate was will you swear unwavering loyalty to the Party — not to oppose it? Trump declines. The real point here is how do we know we can trust the RNC? We’ve been screwed and sold down the river so many times.

It is not like Democrats, who have ultra-left wing progressives determine the agenda. Obamacare, Iran, appointments, IRS, EPA, Keyestone Pipeline, drilling, energy, spending, executive orders, sanctuary cities, illegals, amnesty. It’s not the first time we’ve heard scuttle about a 3rd Party. Its been an active part of the Tea Party conversation. Does the Tea Party want to work with the GOP? Sure. Does the RNC want to work with the Tea Party candidates? Not so much. See how this works? We don’t need a GPS to see there are problems with this paradigm of theirs. So there is a reason that topic exists.

Now to just wipe that all off the table as if it does not exist? Can you? It should be the fear in the GOP that they are going the way of the Whigs. It should be a growing concern in the RNC that they are losing touch with the base or people. These Tea Party and disgust symptoms are only reminders that it needs to pay attention and show some loyalty to conservatives who make them and can break them. Ones they need to turn out to support their candidate. But now after the people develop a consensus and get behind someone with momentum, who actually speaks up; then all of a sudden it’s, wham, “we really need a pledge here.” Yep, they need a pledge and we need a credible Party with chutzpah.

RightRing | Bullright

The incredible lying machine

 

The only question I have is which lie will Obama lead off with tonight, in the last debate, and what new ones will he add to the list?

I especially look forward to one about his off-mic words to Medvedev where he promised him after his last “election” he could be more flexible. There is no way to parse that remark, like he always does, to try to mean anything else. The lie about that might be historical. 

    Private words recorded ...   Barack Obama with Dmitry Medvedev. (AP Photo)
I understand you. I transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this can be solved.
But it’s important for him to give me space. This is my last election…
after my election I have more flexibility.”

“I understand,” Mr Medvedev responded. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

The one I always look forward to hearing is that he is so great on foreign policy. Maybe he will lead with that one, just to break the ice and try to raise expectations. But the best part of all will be the finale, it usually is. Which one will he end with to seal the deal? So many to choose from.
 

Let the spin begin.

[photo credit to AP]

Blinders of Women and a phony media

 


While liberal-progs and their lamestream media salivate over what Romney described as a policy to hire more women in his administration — supplied to him in “a binder” — they could ignore the flagrant searching and appointments of Muslims in Barry Hussein’s administration to key positions.

Obama’s policy was reported by a few websites, but other than that the media couldn’t touch it with a hundred-foot pole. And they certainly did not question it.

Cal Thomas reported in Feb. 2010: http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/32840

President Obama’s appointment of Rashad Hussain, his deputy associate counsel, as special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference — the second largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations, charged with safeguarding and protecting “the interests of the Muslim world” — should be of serious concern to Congress and the American public.
/….

In 1991, a memo written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood spelled out the objective of the organization. Akram said the Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Remember the James Clapper testimony where he said that Muslim Brotherhood was “heterogeneous[diverse] and largely secular”. That was in discussion to the Brotherhood in Egypt and their influence.

No real outrage over either of them; certainly no questions.

But Mitt Romney mentions a binder of women’s names given him by a women’s group for prospective appointments, and they feign outrage across the media before the sun can come up. “Sound the sirens, man the guns!”

Which one of those is worse, and which one more bizarre behavior? Just a cursory look at Hussain’s record should raise concerns, not only about his appointment but in the process and intentions of Obama. But no cries from media about that.

When Romney speaks about what he did as governor they are outraged about “binders”. Maybe they should look at the prez, show some outrage over lack of transparency, secret records, and appointments that pander to some group. Never happen.

Romney looks to hire women and Obama seeks out loyal Muslims. Which one do you care about?

The Jerk Store Called

Column: They’re running out of Obama-Biden

BY:
October 19, 2012 5:00 am

Remember when President Barack Obama was likable? Once upon a time the public viewed the incumbent more favorably than his challenger by large margins. These days Obama’s favorable and unfavorable ratings are similar to Mitt Romney’s. The televised debates have unveiled the current administration as alternately listless, manic, angry, soporific, rude, bullying, aloof, and thin-skinned. Americans who have just begun to tune into the election are seeing the president unmediated. They no longer are looking at him through the scrim of fawning press, majestic settings, and roaring crowds. And they are discovering that Obama is not so likable at all. He is actually something of a jerk.

Those who read coverage of the Obama administration closely will have known this for a long time: The president is cold, abstract, prickly, and insular. His brand of cerebral partisanship is better suited for liberal blogging than for leading the free world. He doesn’t enjoy interacting with strangers or even with associates outside his immediate clique. He has few close friends. He relies on about half a dozen senior advisers. His impromptu speech is given to cutting, sarcastic remarks.

Put him in front of an adoring and obsequious audience and he will be charming and suave. But the real Obama is revealed the second you remove the klieg lights. This isn’t a guy who will spend his post-presidency more or less running the Democratic Party, a la President Bill Clinton. Obama will spend his retirement as a solitary member of the irritable left, receiving honorary degrees, appearing on MSNBC, and scribbling for Salon.
[ … ]
 

Read more at Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com/the-jerk-store-called/

What they said… about Benghazi

I’m not so sure if this is a case of “what did they know and when did they know it” or more of a what the administration said and why they said it. We already know pretty much about what they knew – or should have known.


Since Obama says he stated September 12th this was an act of terrorism, then why did all the talk about videos and protests follow?

And why did Art Carney say in his official briefing, September 12 — White House spokesman Jay Carney– in response to questions about whether the attack was planned:

“It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.”

Judgment? But apparently not to early to assume there was a protest which led to the events.

Then came Susan Rice’s defiant statements 5 days later. And now a month later they want to hop into the wayback machine to point out she mentioned the boilerplate “investigation” in it. Duh, so what? Rice’s statements to media:

ABC News:
RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. … But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present. — ( This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 9/16/12)

Apparently “present” is a state in the nation of denial.

Face the Nation
RICE: Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and –
SCHIEFFER: But they are not there.
RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of — of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.[yada, yada] But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–
SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
RICE: — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that — in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
RICE: We do not — we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?
SUSAN RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine. — (CBS, Face the Nation, 9/16/12)

On her blame tour, Rice also told Fox:
“But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment.”

And this all was after Obama claimed he said it was terrorism. Instead of arguing with Romney, why isn’t he arguing with Rice and others? Why wasn’t he setting everyone in his administration straight?

Then at the debate he said he was “offended”. And now I assume he is claiming to be the victim.

Pre-debate Spin Saturates Media

 

The spin machine must be cranked up to max in Chicago and Washington. As the focus is shifting to the debates, the Democrats theme is that Mitt has had more practice and is fairly good at debating. (Gibbs, Messina, Axelrod et al) So the White House appears to be parsing expectations for Obama, at least the first debate – domestic issues.

“Gov. Romney is a very skilled debater,” said Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. His boss, by contrast, is long and windy, “so clearly the governor has the advantage.” — exactly what Gibbs said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/22/debates-obama-camp-downplays-expectations-romney-looks-for-game-changer/#ixzz27LUvCA12

I saw a consensus among Dem operatives pointing out Romney has done a lot of debate prep already and playing down the abilities of Obama. What reason could they have for patting Mitt on the back? It’s about winning and losing, just like the election. Hedging his bets. If debates don’t go well, Obama can dismiss them as irrelevant: “What really matters is the election”, they’ll say. Is that his strategy, to discount the relevance of debates as overblown?

If the media does not spoon-feed Obamessiah a victory: first declare it anyway, then they redefine the weight of debates. He’s usurped everything else he can get his hands on, so why not the debate process too? Thereby try to deprive Republicans of any claim of victory.

Or basically, just what you would expect from a self-serving jackass.

What Debates?


October 3, 2012
Topic: Domestic policy Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: University of Denver in Denver, Colorado (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)

The debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/

1st debate – Domestic Policy (Lehrer)
VP debate – Foreign and Domestic Policy
2nd debate – Town Hall: questions foreign and domestic policy (Crowley)
3rd debate – Foreign Policy (Schieffer)