Posts Tagged ‘debates’

A Bumpy Cruz to NY

January 15, 2016

Forget ISIS, unemployment, Obamacare, disastrous foreign policies, runaway illegal immigration, executive orders, Hillary scandals, Iran’s nuclear program, and even Donald Trump. The New York Daily News is in an uproar over Ted Cruz dissing New York during the Republican debate, declaring on its front page: “Drop Dead, Ted”. There goes Obama’s plea for political civility.

Cruz disparagingly accused Trump of having “New York values” which he defined: “…in New York City are socially liberal, are pro-abortion, are pro-gay-marriage, focused around money and the media”. These are the values behind NY Mayor DeBlasio’s attempt to ban large sodas and president Obama’s attempts to “transform America” according to his personal views – and they are the values known to be held by a majority in NY City.

Conservatives not from NY get it and understand what Cruz was saying. Those from NY City, both liberal and conservative, take it as a personal insult because many New Yorkers have the parochial view that the world revolves around NY City and everything outside the city limits is unsophisticated and crude. Consequently, saying anything negative about NY City or its residents may be the only thing that can bring New Yorkers from both sides of the aisle together in agreement – at least for a day or two.

Talking heads on FOX News, MSNBC, and all those in between are taking umbrage at Ted’s “insult”. Iran’s insult of capturing, handcuffing, then releasing 10 American sailors did not produce as much across-the-board outrage. In fact, Kerry and Obama praised Iran’s “diplomacy” over that incident in their continuing and embarrassing appeasement of Iran. One can image, then, their chagrin over Ted’s comments.

This is how far we have “progressed” under the political tutelage of the left-leaning media and the Obama administration. We may have “progressed” too far to turn back but the coming presidential election is the best shot to try to do so. Please vote – and vote wisely.

David J. Hentosh

CNBC vs GOP

October 30, 2015

The recent Republican debate conducted by CNBC turned into a battle between the candidates and the biased moderators. The candidates won handily, in more ways than one.

It was established from the beginning, after Ted Cruz forcefully chastised moderators for bias, that the candidates were not going to succumb to gotcha questions or start foolish squabbling among themselves. There seemed to be a concerted effort on their part to keep the debate about issues and differences between the parties, particularly, differences with Hillary.

The moderators, on the other hand, had an agenda to embarrass the candidates, start arguments between them, and try to trip them up. Some questions were pertinent but many were hostile towards the candidates, displaying a disdain for Republicans that permeates CNBC.

After hearing much liberal media babble (wishful thinking?) about the GOP falling apart with infighting, lack of alternative solutions, and poor qualifications, the candidates displayed a unity not seen in prior debates. Serious problems facing the nation were defined and though plans presented to address those problems were different in details, they were cut from the same cloth: Government is too big, spending is out-of-control, taxes are too high, and the middle class needs a break – not more government interference.

Perhaps it was only having a common enemy, the CNBC moderators, that forced the candidates to circle the wagons, but they seemed to do just that. When Huckabee was baited with a question meant to urge him to attack Trump, he put on a show of solidarity by complimenting him instead. Chris Christie jumped onto the bandwagon by taking the moderators to task over a foolish question about fantasy football. Even Ben Carson got in a few licks that elicited applause from an audience aware of the bias.

It is often difficult to establish who really won a debate but the GOP clearly won this one. CNBC may have had good ratings for airing this debate, but it proved why its otherwise dismal ratings are warranted. Perhaps other networks will learn from this and allow a debate to be about the candidates. That would make us all winners.

David J. Hentosh

Thoughts on the Debatable Debates

August 9, 2015

The recent Republican presidential candidate debates may have been good TV and more entertaining than many political events, but they often leaned towards a TV reality show more than a serious debate.

In the early show debate, it was obvious to all that Carly Fiorina is a serious candidate who knows how to make sense and succinctly express concerns of conservatives. Her knowledge and gravitas was impressive and, hopefully, she will gain momentum. She certainly ran away with this debate and deserves to be on the main stage.

In the prime time debate, Donald Trump’s ego and arrogance crowded the already crowded stage, providing a circus sideshow ambiance. His in-your-face and direct approach to major issues has been refreshing for many conservatives and it has put the other candidates on notice that drifting to the left and appeasing progressives is not the way to go. However, his insults, attacks on critics, and overall crude behavior is already getting stale and his threat of running as an independent is arrogantly dangerous to the GOP.

A mini debate broke out between Christie and Rand with true animosity being displayed. Rand’s sneering facial expressions and rolling of his eyes did not make him an attractive candidate. Christie showed more restraint and self-control, but both seemed ready to go at each other’s throat and turn the debate into a Jerry Springer show. Neither gained ground in the exchange.

Bush was listless and seemed out of his element. Rubio’s youth and manicured look accompanied by his fluid speaking ability was reminiscent of JFK, making him very appealing. John Kasich brought a moral outlook to the debate and made sense on the controversial gay marriage issue and the frustration many Americans feel. Walker sounded reasonable in his responses but still came off as an also-ran candidate while Huckabee was Huckabee, a decent candidate but somehow unelectable.

Ben Carson helped his chances by remaining calm, collected, witty and knowledgeable on a stage where the chaos of Trump always loomed. His obvious intelligence was on display but he seemed to lack the passion needed for a sustained campaign. Perhaps a bump from this debate will convince him to jump in with both feet and go for the gold.

These debates will result, hopefully, in weaning out a few candidates. It was interesting and revealing that many social issues progressives seem obsessed with were never mentioned. That’s a good sign because they need to take a back seat to the more serious and dangerous issues plaguing the country. One can only hope the Republican candidates will keep that in mind and not get sucked into the progressive agenda.

David J. Hentosh

“Journalism” Was the Loser in the Second Presidential Debate

October 17, 2012

Many so-called “journalists” completely in the tank for Obama have long claimed they were not. Hiding behind delusional and transparent walls, they convinced themselves no one could see their bias and they refuted, vehemently, any claim to the contrary. The second presidential debate on Tuesday shattered that pretense.

Representing biased journalism was debate moderator Candy Crowley. As Romney began taking Obama to the woodshed for falsely stating how quickly he labeled the murderous attacks on our embassy as terrorism, Crowley threw Obama a lifeline by arrogantly interrupting Romney to take Obama’s side. She couldn’t control herself, seeing Obama on the ropes.

Crowley also allowed Obama more time, interrupted Romney often (three times more than interrupting Obama), questioned several of Romney’s answers, and prevented Romney from elaborating on points. Crowley was as wrong as Obama on the embassy issue and wrong in moderating.

Unfortunately, Crowley was not alone in displaying bias. Reporters in a room set aside for watching the debate broke into applause after Obama ridiculed Romney’s wealth, a continuous class warfare tactic of the Obama camp. Such a display by reporters was once taboo and considered highly unprofessional. That, of course, was during a time when “journalists” were actually professional.

Over at MSNBC (a veritable Obama campaign headquarters), commentators were eager to call Obama the clear winner. That was not so clear when a later segment aired showing a Luntz focus group, consisting mainly of former Obama voters, expressing their switch to Romney after watching the debate. It seems the commentators may have jumped the gun.

Another example occurred at ABC where Romney was declared to be “not quite factual” about oil production being down on government land. However, while Romney’s percentages, “facts”, were conceded to be totally accurate, an attempt was made to make Romney look like a liar because he did not relate facts showing a slight increase in production on private land. It should be embarrassing for a newscaster to label accurate facts as “not quite factual”.

One can spin the debate however one likes, but the real loser was, clearly, modern “journalism”.

David J. Hentosh

Elite Biden’s Sneering Performance

October 12, 2012

Of course liberal elitists loved Biden’s over-the-top performance in the VP debate. How could they not? Sneering is their game and it is driven by delusions of superior intelligence. Biden reeked with it.

Convinced that anyone who doesn’t agree with dictated ideological principles is a fool, liberals cannot hide disdain. Biden was certainly not trying to hide his. He was deliberately showing it, perhaps even forcing it at times, to display a superiority he believes the American public will find appealing.

It is hard to believe normal people will find Biden’s sneering,  arrogant display appealing. Confidence is certainly acceptable, but arrogance has never been appreciated and many have fallen because of it. Biden, of course, has always seemed to be slightly out of touch with reality, and his deliberate tactic of arrogance proved he was once again.

VP debates never change the course of a presidential election, but they certainly can highlight the philosophical difference for voters. The choice clearly shown here is between class and elite arrogance. Content of this debate is already being forgotten.

Mad Hatter Chris Matthews loved Biden’s performance as, one can suspect, did Obama. Only those sharing that elite arrogance  appreciate it. For many others, it left a bad taste that will linger all the way to November.

David J. Hentosh

Bird-Brained Obama Campaign

October 11, 2012

The Obama campaign is finally being recognized to be empty of substance, even by some hardcore believers. Losing badly in the first debate gave many a glimpse of Obama they have refused to see and, consequently, the smoke screen of his re-election campaign is becoming evident.

The new ad from the Obama campaign this week based on Romney’s insignificant Big Bird comment in the first debate has magnified the campaign’s tactic of shifting focus from real issues to personal attacks and irrelevant sideshows. Even Chris Matthews, one of Obama’s staunchest advocates, found the ad to be silly, calling it “Mickey Mouse”, and Democrat strategist Bob Shrum admonished that “We need to be talking about who is going to save Medicare, not who is going to save Big Bird”.

It is one thing for politically clueless and shallow celebrities, such as will.i.am, to use such bird-brained tactics as he did Tuesday at an Obama rally when he played the Sesame Street theme. It is quite another for a so-called professionally run campaign to do so. Incumbents have always focused on achievements before personal attacks in their re-election campaigns. Obama is sadly lacking in achievements and this ad makes that clear even to those with blinders on.

Supposedly, Big Bird was added to the Obama campaign’s bag of tricks in order to shed doubt on Romney’s seriousness. It backfired and, instead, highlighted their own lack of seriousness. If that is the most critical point from Romney during the debate to attack, Romney’s win must seem even bigger than it was in the eyes of voters – and many of those eyes are opening for the first time.

This has been brought to you by the letter “B” – for Bird-brained.

David J. Hentosh

Blind Media Stunned by Debate

October 5, 2012

The infallibility of Obama was created, sustained, and fully invested in by the media, so to see him on stage looking foolish, stuttering instead of filling the airwaves with imperious rhetoric, was an enormous shock.

To those with no blinders, Obama performed like…well…Obama. His answers were the same type of answers he always gives and there was just as little substance in them as always. To believers, though, it was a slap in the face.

The difference was the environment and ego, or lack of. There was no teleprompter to supply answers to questions rarely asked of him, no cheering audience inflating his ego, and no way out. Obama was on his own, challenged by one doubting his superior intelligence and prepared to rip down the protective media curtain hiding his inadequacies.

Fear of that exposure stifled Obama, and the debate moderator, surprisingly, made no effort to save him. Having no achievements to blunt Romney’s tacit accusations, Obama’s inferior understanding of business and economic issues was evident. He didn’t even have his usual flip answers prepared. Perhaps that’s because he was conditioned by the media to believe he would never be challenged.

Well, live by the media, die by the media – and Obama died, at least for one night. That doesn’t mean, however, that the media won’t recover. It certainly was bad enough to turn Chris Matthew’s leg tingle into a nervous tic, but the spin has already begun. Desperate excuses for Obama’s poor showing abound, the dumbest coming from Al Gore who blamed the high altitude of Denver. That’s better than blaming global warming, but not by much.

Before hopes begin that the media has seen the light, one must recognize the reason for its disappointment. It was not the substance of Obama’s responses, or lack of, that caused panic. It was his failure of delivery, style, and command or, in other words, his façade. Substance was never an issue for the media concerning Obama. It never has been and never will be.

David J. Hentosh