Posts Tagged ‘Bob Schieffer’

Who Won Last Night’s Debate? My View.

October 23, 2012

It’s rather interesting: in all four debates, no matter who was debating (Romney or Ryan versus Obama or Biden) or who the moderator was, somehow the Democrat was given more time four times out of four.

Now, I remember that Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” that many people thought was very, VERY deliberate.  But here’s the thing: that was a one-off moment.  If Janet Jackson had done four Super Bowl halftime shows and had a “wardrobe malfunction” every single time, I don’t think most people would conclude anything OTHER than that it was very, VERY deliberate.  And for that very reason I can assure you that Obama-Biden getting more time in every single debate four times out of four was a very deliberate and intentional nod by the media to the Obama campaign.

I suppose there is ONE other possibility; and that is that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden are rude, nasty rat bastards and they simply interrupted their opponents and then kept talking and talking.  But that doesn’t explain why Obama got more time when everybody agrees the man was ANYTHING but aggressive.

And then you add Candy Crowley feeling that urgent need to take Obama’s side in that second debate and, well, when it comes to bias you ought to get the picture in crystal clear, high definition format.

As we enter tonight’s debate, we find that Bob Schieffer literally wrote the book on Ronald Reagan.  The title – Ronald Reagan and the Supporting Players Who Helped Him Create the Illusion That Held America Spellbound ought to convey the arrogant liberal tone of the hit piece.  And Schieffer is also on the record for obsessing over what he demagogues as the GOP obsession.  So it’s not like he’s fair or objective anything.

So Romney starts out with that disadvantage of being a Republican right from the starting gate.  But nothing the media did stopped Romney from using the first debate to mop the floor with Obama’s face.  I mean, when you win a debate by fifty freaking points, you ought to be able to samurai-slice your opponent’s head off his shoulders at the end of the evening.

In the second debate, CNN’s post-debate poll said that Obama won the debate.  But if you actually looked at that poll, Romney won OVERWHELMINGLY on who would better handle the economy, who would better handle health care, who would better handle taxes, who would better handle the deficit and the debt, the answer was Romney across the board.  So unless you don’t care about the economy, or jobs, or debt, or health care, and all you want is a debator-in-chief, Romney won that second debate, hands-down.  And the clearly biased moderator couldn’t help Obama then, either.

I didn’t see  such a post-debate breakdown on issues in this third Obama-Romney debate.  But I do know that, like the second debate, a hardly overwhelming majority believed Obama won according to the CNN poll.

Frankly, I can see that.  Obama was considerably more aggressive, and “somehow” managed to get more time to talk, too.

Romney also could have been better, and after that pathetic first debate we all know that Obama could have been a whole hell of a lot worse.

I’ve got a theory on the debates that seems to fit the facts: namely, the guy in the biggest trouble is the one who comes out the most aggressively.  When Obama came out in debate #1, he had an overwhelming lead in both the national and the swing-state polling.  And Obama apparently decided he didn’t need to show up.  That debate changed the political universe such that in the second debate, it was Obama who was behind and damn he needed to come out and perform or the Romney landslide from debate #1 was going to roll right over his presidency.  The polls didn’t budge, and if anything Romney’s momentum had increased to the point where he went into debate #3 with a six-point lead according to Gallup.  For the record, that Gallup Romney lead is THE most dominent since 1968.  And so sure as shooting, a desperate Obama came out aggressively and ready to be nasty.

I submit that Romney could have won the debate and lost the election if he had focused on being “more aggressive.”

Why would I say that?  Well, there’s a movie I remember called “Poltergeist 2.”  The evil ghost is the Reverend Henry Kane.  He had convinced his followers that the world was going to end, buried them in a cave, and then wouldn’t let them leave to see if his prediction had turned out right such that they all died in their little hell-hole.  That’s basically how Obama wanted to present Mitt Romney: in the guise of, “If you elect my opponent, he will push the nuclear button and start World War 3 and kill you all.”

Romney did not fall for that trap.  He stayed away from being the warmongering ogre that Obama falsely tried to depict him as being.

What Romney DID need to do he accomplished: he presented himself as a man whom the majority of Americans could see as commander-in-chief.  He had to show that he knew enough to be commander-in-chief; he had to show that he wasn’t a warmonger; and he had to appear presidential.  I would argue that he succeeded on all three fronts.

What did Obama have to do?  He had to shatter Romney’s momentum.  And while the next five days will decide rather than me, I submit that Obama failed to do that.

And so the winner is Mitt Romney.

There were other things: Obama’s nastiest and I would say most petty line of the entire evening was when Obama lectured Romney:

“We also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s  changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on  them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Well, the Marines still train with and use the bayonet (as I did as a soldier in the Army):

It’s too damn bad that Obama was too damned ignorant and self-absorbed to send some bayonet-equipped Marines to Libya so they could have saved the lives of our ambassador and the three other Americans who were murdered.

Aand you know what?  Our soldiers still do plenty of horseback riding too, it turns out (and see also here).  Well, and here:

Which is another way of saying pretty stupid fricking analogy, Obama.  And given that Obama himself was so completely IGNORANT of the military as president that he once repeatedly used the term “corpse man” to refer to a Navy medic, I don’t think his asanine arrogant tone has much virtue.

Obama claimed that he didn’t have anything to do with sequestration, that it was all Congress’ idea.  But Bob Woodward – you remember the award-winning journalist who brought down the Nixon administration? – says wrong, Barry Hussein:

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

Jack Lew and Rob Nabors both work for the Obama White House.  And sequestration was all their – and therefore all Obama’s – idea.  It’s just so fitting that the lying weasel-in-chief would try to disavow that.

In another highly contentious moment, Obama was the liar and Romney was the truth teller.  Romney was correct about his statement that he did in fact argue that the government should have a role in helping the auto companies in bankruptcy.

Advertisements

Nancy Pelosi Blown Away Over Her Demagoguery Of Bush (When Unemployment Was 5% And Gas Was $3/Gal)

June 7, 2011

The following comes from CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, June 5, 2011:

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know, the unemployment figures came out and they were worse thanexpected.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Yes.

BOB SCHIEFFER: As you know. Unemployment actually ticked up to 9.1 percent but this wasjust part of the story.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: A series of numbers that have been really, really bad lately, the number ofnew jobs created–

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: –fifty-four thousand, far fewer than expected. Home prices hit a new low inthe first quarter of the year. Home sales are down again. Consumer confidence is down. And gas and food prices are up. I have to say, congresswoman, many of the experts thought therecovery would be well underway by now.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Mm-Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But it looks like we’re going backwards now, that– that we may be on the verge of a double-dip recession here. Do you– do you fear that’s what’s happened?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think we have to take a careful look at those figures to see. The unemployment numbers are obviously very disturbing. Are they an anomalyas some people suggest, because of the disasters in the South and the Midwest and the rest or is this something systemic that– that we have to accommodate in a different way? But all of ittranslates into hardship for America’s middle class and they’re feeling it very, very severely.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know Mitt Romney launched his presidential campaign in New Hampshire. And he said basically the President has made the economy worse. Here’s– let’sjust listen to what he said.

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: This is now his economy. And what he has done has failed the American people. And the borrowing and the spending and the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, these–these numbers are his, they’re on his back and it’s why he’s going to lose.

BOB SCHIEFFER: So are you and the Democrats going to have to come up to an answer tothat?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well first of all, I don’t stipulate to that set of facts thatGovernor Romney just said. Mitt Romney has said because the fact is that this deficit came to us largely from President Bush. But it’s no use going there. We have to go forward. It’s a question of what — what is the President and what are those who aspire to be President going todo about the future to create jobs, good paying jobs. What are they going to do about theeducation of our children, the security of our seniors, the strengthening of the middle class,reducing the deficit– reducing the deficit?

BOB SCHIEFFER: But the President has been there two-and-a-half years.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Mm-Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: I mean, why hadn’t he done that yet?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI (overlapping): Well, he’s done a great deal of it.

BOB SCHIEFFER: What’s happened?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: I think if he hadn’t taken the actions he did that thesituation would be worse. He pulled us from the brink of a financial crisis, from an economiccrisis. And now we have to dig out of a deep– a– a deep debt. And– and we have to also makeit clear that we’re not getting into this situation again.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You were talking in a kind of a different way when unemployment went to five percent under George Bush. What you said then that Americans are struggling with skyrocketing energy prices, gas is only three dollars a gallon then. And you said this morning,this is January 4, 2008, “This morning’s jobs report confirms what most Americans already knew–President Bush’s economic policies have failed our country’s middle class.” I mean, aren’t Republicans entitled to say, you know, if then gas was three dollars and unemploymentwas five percent and– and– and the President has failed the American people, don’t they have a right to say that this President has failed the American people?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, if you want to go into the past, we can talk about the past all you want. The public wants to know about the future. What are you going to do to create jobs, good-paying jobs in our country?

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Well, what are you going to do?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, as I said what the President has done has improved the situation from where it may have been.

My question at this point would have been, “Has he improved it to 5% unemployment and three buck-a-gallon gas like it was when you were demonizing President Bush for being a failure?”

I also would have either repeated my question about how the Republicans had every right to lay into Obama as a failed president with unemployment at 9.1% and regular gas at $3.85 a gallon???  And when she didn’t bother to answer it a second time, I would have stated for the record that she refused to answer the question.

But they don’t let me handle such interviews.  Probably because I also would have reached across the table and grabbed her plastic face about the second time after she said “Hm” to the evidence of the devastating failure to the nation her president has been – with most of it occuring under HER House leadership.

Unemployment was 7.2% the day Obama assumed the presidency.  It’s been over 10%, and now 9.1% and heading upward.  2010 was the worst year in housing – EVER.  And 2011 is predicted to be the NEW worst year ever – and yet 2011 got  off to such a terrible start that it is incredibly even WORSE than “worst.”  The NEW news is that Obama’s bold leadership has resulted in the worst housing market since the Great Depression.  So it’s rather difficult to agree with Pelosi’s perspective on THOSE two most major of fronts.

In Fiscal Year 2007, Republicans passed their last budget before Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress.  It had a deficit for $161 billion – which Republicans have openly admitted was way too much.

And then the Democrats got their shot.  Their Fiscal Year 2008 budget ran a deficit of $459 billion.  Nearly THREE TIMES that of Republicans.  Then there was their doozy of a Fiscal Year 2009 budget, which ran a deficit of a mind-boggling $1.42 TRILLION.  Which had never before been seen in the history of the human race – until they topped it the very next year with their Fiscal Year 2010 budget deficit of $1.6 TRILLION.  And then they didn’t even BOTHER to try to pass a budget for Fiscal Year 2011 – which was THEIR responsibility.  To the extent that the Republicans and Obama are fighting over the budget, it is ENTIRELY the Democrats’ fault.  We should have already had a budget for this year, because they should have already passed one last year.

Oh, yeah, President Obama – the man Nancy Pelosi so lavishly praises above – had his own budget which he submitted for approval in the Democrat-controlled Senate.  And how did messiah’s budget do in the Democrat-controlled environment?  It was such a despicable piece of garbage that it failed 97-0 with not ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT voting for it.

That’s not just bad.  It is a disgrace.  President Obama is a disgrace to America.

So between the Democrats not even bothering to pass a budget for 2011 and Obama submitting the worst budget in history, who you gonna blame???

Obviously, Republicans.  Because we live in a world that all too largely consists of propaganda.

Oh, by the way, the conversation between Schieffer and Pelosi turned to Medicare.  Pelosi was talking out of one of her plastic holes and of course demagoguing Republicans.  And Schieffer broke in and asked:

“Don’t you– let me just interrupt you. Don’t you have to, though, give some plan or some idea of how you’re going to reform Medicare because we all know it can’t sustain as it is?”

Because, you see, Medicare is just like spending, and just like the budgets that Democrats didn’t bother to pass.

MEDICARE IS GOING TO GO BANKRUPT BY 2017 AT THE VERY EARLIEST (I say “earliest” because just recently they were saying it would be going bankrupt by 2019; are they going to revise the demise date forward again?).

AND DEMOCRATS HAVE NO PLAN TO FIX IT.

Even Bill Clinton said to Rep. Paul Ryan of his fellow Democrats’ “Mediscare” tactic, “I hope Democrats don’t use this as an excuse to do nothing.”  To which Rep. Paul Ryan responded, “My guess is it’s going to sink into paralysis is what’s going to  happen. And you know the math. It’s just, I mean, we knew we were  putting ourselves out there. You gotta start this. You gotta get out  there. You gotta get this thing moving.”

It’s going to be just like the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco.  Republicans tried REPEATEDLY to reform these two housing mortgage goliaths for YEARS before they finally imploded the American economy in 2008.  Democrats fiercely resisted every single attempt.  As (again) even Bill Clinton acknowledged.  They blocked any chance to save the U.S. economy from the disaster that their policies had created years before – going back even into the Carter administration.

Democrats created the last mother of all crises (the housing mortgage market meltdown of 2008).  And they are already hard at work creating the next one (the impending Medicare implosion).

And only YOU can stop them.

[I feel like Smokey Bear pointing my bear paw and saying, “Only YOU can prevent Democrats.”  But there it is.]

Is It Racist To Suggest Obama Is Stupid? Ask Racist Liberals Who Spent 8 Years Calling George Bush Stupid

April 29, 2011

I can find a thousand pull quotes from “journalists” who serve as the court eunuchs for the Democrat Party, but I’ll just stick with one from Bob Schieffer:

“I want to go on to what Donald Trump said after he said ‘this is out’ and everything. He said, ‘we need to look at his grades and see if he was a good enough student to get into Harvard Law School.’ That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black. This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing. We can hope that that kinda comes to an end too.”

I mean, obviously, Schieffer is 100% correct.  I mean, the left would NEVER suggest that Republican president might be stupid, right?  And so for conservatives to suggest that Obama might not be the sharpest tack in the box can only be a code for “racism.”  Right?

Well, not quite.

The left tore into George Bush the way one of Michael Vick’s pit bulls tore into a piece of bloody meat.  And one of their favorite memes was the one that Bush was stupid.

Which demonstrates by their own warped, depraved and perverted logic that liberals are racist.

And there are a gazillion articles like this that asked questions and came to conclusions about George Bush that must not dare be asked and answered about Barack Obama.  [Updated, 4/30]  Here’s one that shows that the attack on Bush’s intelligence – which we now know is a racist, racist, racist thing to do – was so widespread that it essentially formed the centerpiece of the Al Gore campaign:

Gore Camp Targets Bush’s Intelligence
By Carter M. Yang
ABC News, Oct 9

With his truthfulness under fire and his opponent gaining in the polls, Al Gore’s surrogates are openly questioning George W. Bush’s intelligence.

Since this weekend, the Gore team has been ratcheting up its efforts to paint Bush as “confused,” “bumbling,” “babbling” and “ignorant.”

“George W. Bush seems incapable of talking about the important issues in this campaign in a coherent way,” Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani said today, just one in a series of statements from the Democratic candidate’s team drawing attention to the Texas governor’s mispronunciations and misstatements on the campaign trail.

“George Bush is routinely unable to string together a coherent sentence to explain his own proposals,” another Gore spokesman, Douglas Hattaway, said in an earlier statement this weekend. “Americans will decide whether Bush’s uncertain command of the facts and his garbled language bear on his ability to be an effective leader.”

Could that argument only be applied to Bush?  Let’s put that ugly little critter to bed:

We know that Obama uses his teleprompter far more than George Bush or any other president in the history of the republic.

We know that Obama even needs his prompter to speak in elementary schools:

We also know that Obama isn’t exactly coherent without the “TOTUS.”

And we know that in fact the man is an idiot:

“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

But how dare you acknowledge the obvious, no matter how obvious it is.  It’s RACIST to recognize the obvious.

Because, you see, liberals souls swim in a deep racist ocean, and the unadulterated hypocrisy which quintessentially defines them means that you can tee off on a white man, demonize him for his stupidity, his values, his greed, etc., but you must grovel in the sackcloth and ashes of white guilt at the feet of the black man.

Well, as long as that black man is a liberal.  Becuase if he’s a conservative, liberals are allowed – encouraged, even – to allow the racism that also defines them full-throttled expression:

Liberals often respond by pointing out that it isn’t just black liberals or Hispanic liberals who constantly demonize white men; white liberals demonize white men, too.  So it clearly can’t be racist.

I respond by pointing out that just as Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew and Adolf Hitler was in all probability a self-loathing Jew, white liberals are merely caucasian-hating caucasians:

Take Karl Marx.  The man was profoundly anti-Semitic.  He was also a Jew.

Here are some quotes from the VERY Jewish “intellectual” Karl Marx:

“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)

“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)

“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)

“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)

And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?

Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show
Adolf Hitler is likely to have had Jewish and African roots, DNA tests have shown.
By Heidi Blake 6:25AM BST 24 Aug 2010
 
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.

Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race?  I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.

And it doesn’t surprise me at all that rabid leftwing socialists like Marx and Hitler would be the models for radical leftwing socialists right here and right now in America.

And if you want to see naked racism, I’ll gladly show you naked racism.

We constantly hear conservatives and Republicans compared to the Ku Klux Klan.  Because liberals are either too stupid or too dishonest (and I personally believe both too stupid and too dishonest) to understand that the Klu Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of THE DEMOCRAT PARTY and in fact the Klan continued to be profoundly and directly associated with the Democrat party well into the 20th century.  And all the Democrat Party did was understand that if they couldn’t own black people by slavery, they could eventually own them by political patronage through welfare and socialistic redistributionism.

What did Frederick Douglass, one of the great moral intellectuals of any race, have to say about what is THE policy of the Democrat Party back when “stupid” white men were literally dying by the hundreds of thousands to free the slaves?

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”  On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

Liberals are people who project and mirror their own hate.  And they reduce human beings to the absolute lowest common denominator, rather than try to lift people up and help them become better.  Bottom line.

Racism and race-baiting isn’t the last resort of the left; it is their first knee-jerk response.  And that is because THEY are the racists.  Racism defines them; it is the essence of their beings.  Whereas Martin Luther King dreamed of a society in which his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”  But liberals angrily refuse to do that, and demand that color is everything, and that everything must be viewed through the lenses of race and racism.

I couldn’t be more disgusted with the vileness that characterizes the left.  I have as much right to call Barack Obama a stupid man as any liberal had to call George Bush a stupid man.  And you can easily identify as a racist the person who shouts that I don’t have that right.

And I don’t give a flying fig what color your skin is, and what color the skin of the person you’re defending or denouncing is.  If you play that game, you are a racist.  And a nasty hypocrite racist at that.