First they came for the women. Then the blacks. Does that make them sexist and racist?
Only if said women and blacks are Republicans—which makes them traitors.
Comments
Yesterday was Michele Bachmann’s turn, today… — 26 Comments
“I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.”
🙂 🙂 🙂
Its so hot in Iowa, heat index of 117 yesterday and today looks like a repeat, that I have nothing better to do that stay inside with the dogs and cats and play on the laptop. I’ll try not to make too many comments. 😉
By the way, if you want yet another example of what we’re up against, sample the comments following the articles linkd by neo (keep barfbag handy).
I once had a headache. I guess my presidential prospects are now in the toilet. Damn.
Will someone remind me whether a male candidate has ever had this medical incident area explored? Are we going to learn the details of the monthly rhythm soon?
I am disgusted with these people. They impose standards they then ignore. Complete dishonesty.
West should have called Wasserman a hybrid cocker spaniel.
The resemblance is uncanny.
I’m amazed at the tone of West’s e-mail to W-S. He was really angry, but it was a tactical mistake. I’ve seen him on TV many times and he impressed me as being quite even in temperament. Her actions were despicable and his anger was justified, but he should have realized that any words he used that could be seen as “hate speech,” would be promptly disseminated to the blogosphere. Yes, I know it’s not fair, but those are the rules they play by. You can say anything nasty about Palin, Bachmann, Bush, Cain, etal with few repercussions. But just say one tough word to or about a dem and the whole MSM and media will repeat it and critique it till the cows come home.
It’s a war and they are very adept at their tactics.
The intrepid Col. West is right on both counts of Wankerwoman-Putz being a freak and a liar. He could not have picked a better target especially since her pronouncements have made her the latest incarnation of Alan Mark Grayson who was defeated by–get this–Daniel Webster.
After Palin, there is West who commands a following any politician would love to have. I believe the reason why is the fighting back spirit, but one which does not fall into bitterness and spite, which both have shown. His comments are empowering. I know, it’s a flat worn down word, but empowering, yes, because some one refuses to bow before the mighty media, before political correctness, before the pinched nerves of the RINO controllers. By God, he’s a new freshman representative. Look at him go! Run. Damn you. Run. To win!
Give’s renewed meaning to the term “Don’t tread on me.”
I agree with West. It’s high time for Republicans to stop treating Democrats like honorable people and take the gloves off. They are enemies of this country and they need to be called out on a daily basis for the liars, traitors, and sleazebags they are.
And that goes double for the media.
Mainstream Media’s Top Rule # 2: Help the Democrats, Hurt the Republicans.
I think actually – given that West was a career Army officer – that he might instinctively be one of those old-fashioned things … a true gentleman as well as an officer. In his world, to backbite on an open stage, to someone not present to respond – that is not just an insult but completely, totally and shockingly unprofessional. The concept of ladies and gentlemen is still preserved in the military.
And let’s face it – Debbie W-S just comes off as one of those evil-tongued bullies who says the most awful things and when someone responds in kind, squeals “you can’t hit me — I’m a girl!”
So – Col. West’s email might have come off a bit untactful, as these things are done in the halls of government, but it’s honestly and forthrightly angry. I think we need and been waiting for a bit of that forthright and justifiable anger. There have been so many lies and insults cast towards conservative-libertarian-Tea Partiers by the Dems in the last couple of years. It’s kind of refreshing for someone to respond, straight-up and no punches pulled. The Squishy RINOs have let just too many insults pass without response at all.
At least it’s a step up from the Sumner-Brooks imbroglio … involving a cane and a thrashing on the Senate floor.
I’m amazed at the tone of West’s e-mail to W-S. He was really angry, but it was a tactical mistake.
If I were West I would have matched Wasserman Schultz’s snide remark with snideness, not with the hotly angry reply he fired off. Yes, a tactical mistake.
A conservative politician must always be aware that any utterance has to be beyond reproach lest the MSM be given an excuse to work the incident into the narrative. West, who is new to politics, has played into the Angry Black Man meme.
This could be spun into something very damaging to West’s reputation, considering that West was found guilty while serving in Iraq of improper conduct during the interrogation of a prisoner. It not only plays into the Angry Black Man meme but also if the MSM chooses, the Savage Soldier meme, the Defenseless Woman meme and the Torture of Prisoners meme. That he was endorsed by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party only adds to the luster for the feminists, the MSM and the Democrats.
When women and blacks are Republicans — from the candidates that flip this bill it looks like an entrepreneurial niche. Liberalism deserves a challenge!
Liberalism is a mental disorder…when I pointed out the obvious symptoms to my very liberal mother and extremely liberal brother, especially noting their behavior and beliefs in regards to politics and mental health…well, they more or less stopped talking to me. But I’m ok with that. Be true to yourself.
“This could be spun into something very damaging to West’s reputation, considering that West was found guilty while serving in Iraq of improper conduct during the interrogation of a prisoner.”
Oh my, what a crime! 😉 What is next? Water boarding will not be a sanctioned sport in the next Olympics?
“A conservative politician must always be aware that any utterance has to be beyond reproach lest the MSM be given an excuse to work the incident into the narrative.”
In other words, be a pandering, sniveling RINO?
I disagree grackle, once the confrontation has begun, no quarter shall be given. IMO a slim majority of Americans are seeking leaders who pull no punches.
“… only adds to the luster for the feminists, the MSM and the Democrats.”
And these are potential voters for conservative candidates?
Debbie W-S doesn’t realize how lucky she is that duelling has been outlawed!
Debbie W-S has replaced Alan Grayson as the Florida Democrat who loses the most votes for the Dems. She’s fast approaching Pelosi for the national title.
In order for the definition of “traitor” to apply, one would have had to first belong…
That’s a good point and one to remember, Artfldgr. America isn’t a place; it’s an idea.
As a rule, blacks, women, and other Accredited Victim Group members take an attack on one of them as an attack on all.
“I don’t like Obama care.”
“RACIST!”
“The Duke laxers didn’t do it.”
“RAPE APOLOGIST!”
One would think–one would be stupid to think–that such an attack on Bachmann would annoy migraine sufferers, to be told they’re not fit for much, or women who are frequently considered inferior for stressful jobs due to built-in emotionalism, most emphatically PMS. But migraines will do.
But apparently not.
I get the feeling that the folks who buy this while not figuring it actually applies to them as well expect Daddy Government to take care of them regardless, and those like Bachmann or Palin or West who have their own guts and competencies are a threat.
I dunno.
Sick, is all I can think.
And these[feminists, the MSM and the Democrats] are potential voters for conservative candidates?
Of course not. But they influence the opinions of voters. The MSM is a potent adversary and should be treated with the respect that one would treat any dangerous enemy. It’s a war and West has just handed his opponents a weapon. Think for a moment. Can you name any politician who ever won a political conflict with anger(no matter how justified)?
Every conservative should use Reagan as a model. Study his 1980 debate with Carter. When Carter attacked Reagan on Medicare the canny Reagan simply smiled, looked at Carter and genially said, “There you go again,” and then looked out to the audience, still smiling with perhaps a trace of sadness, as if he and the audience were sharing a moment of amusement over the misbehavior of a child.
In contrast the tone of Carter’s voice was of someone who was annoyed, his face a stiff mask of barely contained temper. Reagan emerged as the clear winner of the debate. He destroyed Carter as surely as if he had laid him out with a baseball bat. Carter is probably still trying to figure out what happened.
Reagan’s press conferences were a study in amiable manipulation. The press corps, then as now, wanted to bash the conservative. But they could not touch him – no matter how hard they swung. If any one of them, such as Sam Donaldson, would become strident with their loaded, insulting “questions,” Reagan would invariably reply in a mild, cordial tone of voice and a pleasant demeanor.
Reagan never feuded, never allowed the public to see him angry. Here’s an anecdote from someone who was in the Whitehouse press corps during the Reagan era:
We all recall fondly ABC’s Sam Donaldson shouting Iran-contra questions to Reagan on the South Lawn of the White House as the president headed for his helicopter. Reagan would smile, cup his hand to his ear and pretend he couldn’t hear because of the whine of the rotors. It was all like a carefully choreographed dance.
The author doesn’t really “get” it. Of course it was “choreographed.” But it was Donaldson who started the dance; Reagan simply responded with a superior ballet of his own. Reagan realized that in these exchanges, these verbal skirmishes, really, that appearances were just as significance as what was actually said, what today is termed the “optics” of the situation.
West has potentially just given himself a boatload of bad optics. Let’s hope the MSM doesn’t do what I would do if I had their same motivation and agenda. Because I like Allen West and want him to prosper in politics.
“”Reagan never feuded, never allowed the public to see him angry.””
grackle
Not so. Reagan got pissed and didn’t worry about his “image” if he did.
I’ll take blunt honesty and righteous anger over calculated “optics” any day. I’ve seen too much acting from our politicians already, thank you.
We can’t beat liberals by trying to play their game. The whole point is that we’re not them. I say offer a clear choice and be true to our convictions.
If the populace is so stupid as to elect those who habitually lie to them, then we really are getting the leadership we deserve as a country. You can’t change that by telling a different flavor of lie.
Good stuff, grackle. Thanks for the sites.
West is not campaigning, however, he’s fighting and sometimes it takes a vociferous broadside to establish the boundaries.
And then again, perhaps there is room for both types of response.
I’m wondering: Does anyone think West did anything wrong or unethical?
Reagan got pissed and didn’t worry about his “image” if he did.
The commentor has a point. Reagan did exhibit anger a couple of times. There was the “Nashua moment,” and he once told a heckler, “Aw, shut up!”
So let me amend my statement as follows:
Reagan never feuded and almost never allowed the public to see him angry, unless the situation was overwhelmingly to Reagan’s advantage.
I stand by the “feuded” part. And I believe that the 2 exceptions to the public anger, because of their rarity, actually serve to enhance my point.
To analyze the 2 exceptions that did occur:
The heckling incident was simple. Reagan let the heckler run his mouth until Reagan sensed the crowd was tired of the heckler. Then Reagan let him have it.
The “Nashua Moment” took place at a GOP primary debate in front of a GOP crowd. Bush, the frontrunner, wanted the debate to be only between himself and Reagan; Reagan wanted to include the other primary candidates and ended up paying for the debate in order to do so. Reagan simply wanted to explain the situation to those in the audience who did not already know about it, as the other candidates had lined up on one side of the stage in readiness.
So when the moderator(the editor of a local newspaper – the Nashua Telegraph), ordered the sound to be cut the moderator was being officious without the authority to do so because, after all, the Reagan campaign was paying for everything.
Many if not most of the audience were aware of this so when Reagan chastised the snippy moderator Reagan received a huge round of applause.
It was perfect optics. The MSM of that time could not spin the Reagan outburst in any manner damaging to Reagan because of the applause(from a partisan crowd). All they could do was sit by, presumably fuming, while Reagan went on to win the nomination handily. The MSM had no memes they could credibly push.
So Reagan, in an ostensible attempt to be accommodating to others(the other candidates) and to explain a somewhat confused situation to a friendly audience admonished an impertinent local yokel that was directly confronting Reagan in a presumptuous manner. I submit that while the incident was obviously unanticipated that Reagan’s response to it was calculated. Reagan had a great sense of timing and a quick wit.
The MSM is NOT a friendly audience of like-minded folks. Wasserman Schultz is NOT a local yokel and not a heckler. She is prominent in the political hierarchy and a national figure. She was not directly confronting West before an audience disposed to be friendly toward West. Unlike that moderator in 1980, she is not an unattractive male of relatively low status; she is an attractive young woman who appears regularly on national TV. There was no glaring presumptuousness on Wasserman Schultz’s part; members of Congress on both sides of the aisle regularly criticize the other side. West has not paid for her microphone or the hall in which she speaks. As long as she doesn’t break any of the House rules of conduct she is free to say anything she wants, as is West.
The MSM is free to spin this developing feud anyway they wish and this is why West is in a dangerous situation. Indeed, they’ve already begun. As I’ve already pointed out the MSM has several memes readily at hand with which to assault him. However, I believe that if West is careful and smart he can limit the damage mostly to what has already occurred.
I’ll take blunt honesty and righteous anger over calculated “optics” any day. I’ve seen too much acting from our politicians already, thank you.
A good epitaph for a political tombstone.
We can’t beat liberals by trying to play their game. The whole point is that we’re not them. I say offer a clear choice and be true to our convictions.
With respect, I ask the commentor to entertain the thought that the commentor may be confusing temper with conviction.
If the populace is so stupid as to elect those who habitually lie to them, then we really are getting the leadership we deserve as a country. You can’t change that by telling a different flavor of lie.
Again with respect for the commentor’s right to an opinion — Perhaps the commentor is “getting the leadership” the commentor “deserves,” but I sure don’t believe I deserve it. I voted for McCain against Obama, and except for a local Judge who used to work for me, voted a straight GOP ticket in the off-year elections and support my local Tea Party.
And I don’t equate lying with responding in measured tones, either — which is what is occurring if the commentor believes that for political figures to keep their tempers in check and wits about them when responding to canards is the same as lying. I want to complete the voyage, not go down with the ship.
Good stuff, grackle. Thanks for the sites.
It was my pleasure.
West is not campaigning, however, he’s fighting and sometimes it takes a vociferous broadside to establish the boundaries.
My friend, politicians are always campaigning, even when they are not. And fighting, too. To “campaign” is a military term, after all.
And then again, perhaps there is room for both types of response.
Under the correct circumstances, the proper degree of anger is acceptable, even advisable, as in the 2 Reagan examples. But West let Wasserman Schultz get under his skin. Now that she has gotten such a response he can expect more of the same from her. I assure you that others are carefully noting what sets him off.
I’m wondering: Does anyone think West did anything wrong or unethical?
A good question. I think he was wrong in the tactical sense that a general is wrong to send a battalion to battle a squad. Unethical? Only in the sense that he seems to be fostering a feud that he is unlikely to win, thereby probably in the end letting his supporters down. I hope I’m wrong. Time will tell.
Yeah, I’m intrigued by this question as well. My fiery emotions make it easy to write a screed–that’s fun. But since I have been studying Judaism and often attend services I have been convicted by Judaism’s great prohibition on temper, anger, and lack of self-control. Shalom is the concept and emunah (faith) which does not allow for too much fire–although there are exceptions like last week’s “The Zeal of Phinehas,” which, ironically, is interpreted as why mercy is usually the best response.
“”We can’t beat liberals by trying to play their game.””
Tesh
I agree. The way we got in this heads i win tails you lose situation is by acceptance of it and pretending there’s a gentlemanly strategy to offset and overcome it. There isn’t.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
“I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.”
🙂 🙂 🙂
Its so hot in Iowa, heat index of 117 yesterday and today looks like a repeat, that I have nothing better to do that stay inside with the dogs and cats and play on the laptop. I’ll try not to make too many comments. 😉
By the way, if you want yet another example of what we’re up against, sample the comments following the articles linkd by neo (keep barfbag handy).
I once had a headache. I guess my presidential prospects are now in the toilet. Damn.
Will someone remind me whether a male candidate has ever had this medical incident area explored? Are we going to learn the details of the monthly rhythm soon?
I am disgusted with these people. They impose standards they then ignore. Complete dishonesty.
West should have called Wasserman a hybrid cocker spaniel.
The resemblance is uncanny.
I’m amazed at the tone of West’s e-mail to W-S. He was really angry, but it was a tactical mistake. I’ve seen him on TV many times and he impressed me as being quite even in temperament. Her actions were despicable and his anger was justified, but he should have realized that any words he used that could be seen as “hate speech,” would be promptly disseminated to the blogosphere. Yes, I know it’s not fair, but those are the rules they play by. You can say anything nasty about Palin, Bachmann, Bush, Cain, etal with few repercussions. But just say one tough word to or about a dem and the whole MSM and media will repeat it and critique it till the cows come home.
It’s a war and they are very adept at their tactics.
The intrepid Col. West is right on both counts of Wankerwoman-Putz being a freak and a liar. He could not have picked a better target especially since her pronouncements have made her the latest incarnation of Alan Mark Grayson who was defeated by–get this–Daniel Webster.
After Palin, there is West who commands a following any politician would love to have. I believe the reason why is the fighting back spirit, but one which does not fall into bitterness and spite, which both have shown. His comments are empowering. I know, it’s a flat worn down word, but empowering, yes, because some one refuses to bow before the mighty media, before political correctness, before the pinched nerves of the RINO controllers. By God, he’s a new freshman representative. Look at him go! Run. Damn you. Run. To win!
Give’s renewed meaning to the term “Don’t tread on me.”
I agree with West. It’s high time for Republicans to stop treating Democrats like honorable people and take the gloves off. They are enemies of this country and they need to be called out on a daily basis for the liars, traitors, and sleazebags they are.
And that goes double for the media.
Mainstream Media’s Top Rule # 2: Help the Democrats, Hurt the Republicans.
I think actually – given that West was a career Army officer – that he might instinctively be one of those old-fashioned things … a true gentleman as well as an officer. In his world, to backbite on an open stage, to someone not present to respond – that is not just an insult but completely, totally and shockingly unprofessional. The concept of ladies and gentlemen is still preserved in the military.
And let’s face it – Debbie W-S just comes off as one of those evil-tongued bullies who says the most awful things and when someone responds in kind, squeals “you can’t hit me — I’m a girl!”
So – Col. West’s email might have come off a bit untactful, as these things are done in the halls of government, but it’s honestly and forthrightly angry. I think we need and been waiting for a bit of that forthright and justifiable anger. There have been so many lies and insults cast towards conservative-libertarian-Tea Partiers by the Dems in the last couple of years. It’s kind of refreshing for someone to respond, straight-up and no punches pulled. The Squishy RINOs have let just too many insults pass without response at all.
At least it’s a step up from the Sumner-Brooks imbroglio … involving a cane and a thrashing on the Senate floor.
I’m amazed at the tone of West’s e-mail to W-S. He was really angry, but it was a tactical mistake.
If I were West I would have matched Wasserman Schultz’s snide remark with snideness, not with the hotly angry reply he fired off. Yes, a tactical mistake.
A conservative politician must always be aware that any utterance has to be beyond reproach lest the MSM be given an excuse to work the incident into the narrative. West, who is new to politics, has played into the Angry Black Man meme.
This could be spun into something very damaging to West’s reputation, considering that West was found guilty while serving in Iraq of improper conduct during the interrogation of a prisoner. It not only plays into the Angry Black Man meme but also if the MSM chooses, the Savage Soldier meme, the Defenseless Woman meme and the Torture of Prisoners meme. That he was endorsed by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party only adds to the luster for the feminists, the MSM and the Democrats.
When women and blacks are Republicans — from the candidates that flip this bill it looks like an entrepreneurial niche. Liberalism deserves a challenge!
Liberalism is a mental disorder…when I pointed out the obvious symptoms to my very liberal mother and extremely liberal brother, especially noting their behavior and beliefs in regards to politics and mental health…well, they more or less stopped talking to me. But I’m ok with that. Be true to yourself.
“This could be spun into something very damaging to West’s reputation, considering that West was found guilty while serving in Iraq of improper conduct during the interrogation of a prisoner.”
Oh my, what a crime! 😉 What is next? Water boarding will not be a sanctioned sport in the next Olympics?
“A conservative politician must always be aware that any utterance has to be beyond reproach lest the MSM be given an excuse to work the incident into the narrative.”
In other words, be a pandering, sniveling RINO?
I disagree grackle, once the confrontation has begun, no quarter shall be given. IMO a slim majority of Americans are seeking leaders who pull no punches.
“… only adds to the luster for the feminists, the MSM and the Democrats.”
And these are potential voters for conservative candidates?
Debbie W-S doesn’t realize how lucky she is that duelling has been outlawed!
Debbie W-S has replaced Alan Grayson as the Florida Democrat who loses the most votes for the Dems. She’s fast approaching Pelosi for the national title.
In order for the definition of “traitor” to apply, one would have had to first belong…
That’s a good point and one to remember, Artfldgr. America isn’t a place; it’s an idea.
As a rule, blacks, women, and other Accredited Victim Group members take an attack on one of them as an attack on all.
“I don’t like Obama care.”
“RACIST!”
“The Duke laxers didn’t do it.”
“RAPE APOLOGIST!”
One would think–one would be stupid to think–that such an attack on Bachmann would annoy migraine sufferers, to be told they’re not fit for much, or women who are frequently considered inferior for stressful jobs due to built-in emotionalism, most emphatically PMS. But migraines will do.
But apparently not.
I get the feeling that the folks who buy this while not figuring it actually applies to them as well expect Daddy Government to take care of them regardless, and those like Bachmann or Palin or West who have their own guts and competencies are a threat.
I dunno.
Sick, is all I can think.
And these[feminists, the MSM and the Democrats] are potential voters for conservative candidates?
Of course not. But they influence the opinions of voters. The MSM is a potent adversary and should be treated with the respect that one would treat any dangerous enemy. It’s a war and West has just handed his opponents a weapon. Think for a moment. Can you name any politician who ever won a political conflict with anger(no matter how justified)?
Every conservative should use Reagan as a model. Study his 1980 debate with Carter. When Carter attacked Reagan on Medicare the canny Reagan simply smiled, looked at Carter and genially said, “There you go again,” and then looked out to the audience, still smiling with perhaps a trace of sadness, as if he and the audience were sharing a moment of amusement over the misbehavior of a child.
In contrast the tone of Carter’s voice was of someone who was annoyed, his face a stiff mask of barely contained temper. Reagan emerged as the clear winner of the debate. He destroyed Carter as surely as if he had laid him out with a baseball bat. Carter is probably still trying to figure out what happened.
http://tinyurl.com/6opfgo
Reagan’s press conferences were a study in amiable manipulation. The press corps, then as now, wanted to bash the conservative. But they could not touch him – no matter how hard they swung. If any one of them, such as Sam Donaldson, would become strident with their loaded, insulting “questions,” Reagan would invariably reply in a mild, cordial tone of voice and a pleasant demeanor.
http://tinyurl.com/aew9bc
Reagan never feuded, never allowed the public to see him angry. Here’s an anecdote from someone who was in the Whitehouse press corps during the Reagan era:
We all recall fondly ABC’s Sam Donaldson shouting Iran-contra questions to Reagan on the South Lawn of the White House as the president headed for his helicopter. Reagan would smile, cup his hand to his ear and pretend he couldn’t hear because of the whine of the rotors. It was all like a carefully choreographed dance.
http://tinyurl.com/43h4wwt
The author doesn’t really “get” it. Of course it was “choreographed.” But it was Donaldson who started the dance; Reagan simply responded with a superior ballet of his own. Reagan realized that in these exchanges, these verbal skirmishes, really, that appearances were just as significance as what was actually said, what today is termed the “optics” of the situation.
West has potentially just given himself a boatload of bad optics. Let’s hope the MSM doesn’t do what I would do if I had their same motivation and agenda. Because I like Allen West and want him to prosper in politics.
“”Reagan never feuded, never allowed the public to see him angry.””
grackle
Not so. Reagan got pissed and didn’t worry about his “image” if he did.
See this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE
I’ll take blunt honesty and righteous anger over calculated “optics” any day. I’ve seen too much acting from our politicians already, thank you.
We can’t beat liberals by trying to play their game. The whole point is that we’re not them. I say offer a clear choice and be true to our convictions.
If the populace is so stupid as to elect those who habitually lie to them, then we really are getting the leadership we deserve as a country. You can’t change that by telling a different flavor of lie.
Good stuff, grackle. Thanks for the sites.
West is not campaigning, however, he’s fighting and sometimes it takes a vociferous broadside to establish the boundaries.
And then again, perhaps there is room for both types of response.
I’m wondering: Does anyone think West did anything wrong or unethical?
Reagan got pissed and didn’t worry about his “image” if he did.
The commentor has a point. Reagan did exhibit anger a couple of times. There was the “Nashua moment,” and he once told a heckler, “Aw, shut up!”
So let me amend my statement as follows:
Reagan never feuded and almost never allowed the public to see him angry, unless the situation was overwhelmingly to Reagan’s advantage.
I stand by the “feuded” part. And I believe that the 2 exceptions to the public anger, because of their rarity, actually serve to enhance my point.
To analyze the 2 exceptions that did occur:
The heckling incident was simple. Reagan let the heckler run his mouth until Reagan sensed the crowd was tired of the heckler. Then Reagan let him have it.
http://tinyurl.com/le4xx8
The “Nashua Moment” took place at a GOP primary debate in front of a GOP crowd. Bush, the frontrunner, wanted the debate to be only between himself and Reagan; Reagan wanted to include the other primary candidates and ended up paying for the debate in order to do so. Reagan simply wanted to explain the situation to those in the audience who did not already know about it, as the other candidates had lined up on one side of the stage in readiness.
So when the moderator(the editor of a local newspaper – the Nashua Telegraph), ordered the sound to be cut the moderator was being officious without the authority to do so because, after all, the Reagan campaign was paying for everything.
Many if not most of the audience were aware of this so when Reagan chastised the snippy moderator Reagan received a huge round of applause.
It was perfect optics. The MSM of that time could not spin the Reagan outburst in any manner damaging to Reagan because of the applause(from a partisan crowd). All they could do was sit by, presumably fuming, while Reagan went on to win the nomination handily. The MSM had no memes they could credibly push.
http://tinyurl.com/3clm8xn
So Reagan, in an ostensible attempt to be accommodating to others(the other candidates) and to explain a somewhat confused situation to a friendly audience admonished an impertinent local yokel that was directly confronting Reagan in a presumptuous manner. I submit that while the incident was obviously unanticipated that Reagan’s response to it was calculated. Reagan had a great sense of timing and a quick wit.
The MSM is NOT a friendly audience of like-minded folks. Wasserman Schultz is NOT a local yokel and not a heckler. She is prominent in the political hierarchy and a national figure. She was not directly confronting West before an audience disposed to be friendly toward West. Unlike that moderator in 1980, she is not an unattractive male of relatively low status; she is an attractive young woman who appears regularly on national TV. There was no glaring presumptuousness on Wasserman Schultz’s part; members of Congress on both sides of the aisle regularly criticize the other side. West has not paid for her microphone or the hall in which she speaks. As long as she doesn’t break any of the House rules of conduct she is free to say anything she wants, as is West.
The MSM is free to spin this developing feud anyway they wish and this is why West is in a dangerous situation. Indeed, they’ve already begun. As I’ve already pointed out the MSM has several memes readily at hand with which to assault him. However, I believe that if West is careful and smart he can limit the damage mostly to what has already occurred.
I’ll take blunt honesty and righteous anger over calculated “optics” any day. I’ve seen too much acting from our politicians already, thank you.
A good epitaph for a political tombstone.
We can’t beat liberals by trying to play their game. The whole point is that we’re not them. I say offer a clear choice and be true to our convictions.
With respect, I ask the commentor to entertain the thought that the commentor may be confusing temper with conviction.
If the populace is so stupid as to elect those who habitually lie to them, then we really are getting the leadership we deserve as a country. You can’t change that by telling a different flavor of lie.
Again with respect for the commentor’s right to an opinion — Perhaps the commentor is “getting the leadership” the commentor “deserves,” but I sure don’t believe I deserve it. I voted for McCain against Obama, and except for a local Judge who used to work for me, voted a straight GOP ticket in the off-year elections and support my local Tea Party.
And I don’t equate lying with responding in measured tones, either — which is what is occurring if the commentor believes that for political figures to keep their tempers in check and wits about them when responding to canards is the same as lying. I want to complete the voyage, not go down with the ship.
Good stuff, grackle. Thanks for the sites.
It was my pleasure.
West is not campaigning, however, he’s fighting and sometimes it takes a vociferous broadside to establish the boundaries.
My friend, politicians are always campaigning, even when they are not. And fighting, too. To “campaign” is a military term, after all.
And then again, perhaps there is room for both types of response.
Under the correct circumstances, the proper degree of anger is acceptable, even advisable, as in the 2 Reagan examples. But West let Wasserman Schultz get under his skin. Now that she has gotten such a response he can expect more of the same from her. I assure you that others are carefully noting what sets him off.
I’m wondering: Does anyone think West did anything wrong or unethical?
A good question. I think he was wrong in the tactical sense that a general is wrong to send a battalion to battle a squad. Unethical? Only in the sense that he seems to be fostering a feud that he is unlikely to win, thereby probably in the end letting his supporters down. I hope I’m wrong. Time will tell.
Yeah, I’m intrigued by this question as well. My fiery emotions make it easy to write a screed–that’s fun. But since I have been studying Judaism and often attend services I have been convicted by Judaism’s great prohibition on temper, anger, and lack of self-control. Shalom is the concept and emunah (faith) which does not allow for too much fire–although there are exceptions like last week’s “The Zeal of Phinehas,” which, ironically, is interpreted as why mercy is usually the best response.
“”We can’t beat liberals by trying to play their game.””
Tesh
I agree. The way we got in this heads i win tails you lose situation is by acceptance of it and pretending there’s a gentlemanly strategy to offset and overcome it. There isn’t.