THATS ENTERTAINMENT! Stupendous foolishness has been all around as liberals slag Newt, Jon and Sarah: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2011
Nexis needs a new pair of shoes: In the next year, we will be adding to our on-line book, How He Got There. (Subtitle: The press corps war against Candidate Gore: How George W. Bush reached the White House.) This history does need to be told.
Most likely, well also examine the press story we find most interesting at this point: The development of the new liberal news orgs.
For now, our second non-annual fund drive continues. You cant record the press corps coverage of Campaign 2000 unless you have access to Nexisand Nexis needs a new pair of shoes! To help out through PayPal or by writing a check, you know what to dojust click this.
For now, we recommended our newly completed chapter 5 (just click here). This chapter describes the ludicrous conduct Paul Krugman later described as the press corps campaign about clothing. Tomorrow, well preview chapter 6in which the die was cast.
THATS ENTERTAINMENT (permalink): Can we talk? Kick-off speeches for White House campaigns dont really mean a whole lot.
How much do you recall about Candidate Kerrys kick-off speech in 2003? Do you recall the kick-off speeches delivered by Bush and Gore? Where and when did Candidate McCain kick off his 2008 campaign? Do you recall what Candidate Edwards said in either of his kick-off speeches?
(You may recall Candidate Obamas kick-off speech, delivered in February 2007. MSNBC was already working hard to defeat the hated Hillary Clinton. For that reason, the channel dispatched Matthews and Fineman to cover the Saturday morning event. They gushed and fawned for several hours about the transplendent performance.)
Kick-off speeches dont mean a whole lotespecially when they get covered in the mindless way perfected by sites like Politico. On Tuesday, Jon Huntsman delivered his kick-off speech right across from the Statue of Liberty, just the way Ronald Reagan did, many long years in the past.
At Politico, Maggie Haberman displayed the types of observational skills which the mainstream press has perfected over lo, the past many years. With a very good eye for trivia, she ran through Huntsmans mishaps:
Maggies report mentioned other flubs, but gaze on a few of these groaners! Journalists were directed initially to the wrong plane! The cable networks cut away from the speech! And Huntsman did a major interview instead of shaking a few voters hands! Beyond that, the campaigns website [address] wasnt listed on the placard affixed to the podium!
How can anyone run for the White House when mishaps like these are observed?
In the long run, none of the mishaps Haberman chronicled will make the slightest difference in Huntsmans run for the White House. Do the mishaps of the day suggest that Huntsmans staff is inept? Its possiblebut then again, everything is.
The modern press corps loves its trivia! Do you mind if we go back four years? In the Washington Post, remarkably stupid questions were raised after Candidate Obamas kick-off speech. Needless to say, Kornblut did the asking:
For the record, did Candidate Obama and his staff have everything buttoned down this day? Rolling Stone later reported that, on this day, he made a last-minute decision to drop Jeremiah Wright from the program. By the way: Like Huntsman, Obama shook hands with no voters this day. Like Huntsman, he hurried off to an event in an early primary state.
As you may have heard, Obama went on to win his partys nomination. Later, he won the White House.
Pitiful, isnt it? In the Washington Post, the temperature in Springfield that day raised questions about Obamas judgment. Beyond that, the candidate had risked the ire of the national press corps, much as Huntsman may have done when journalists were initially directed to the wrong plane. But then, you really cant get dumber than they are in the modern mainstream press corps.
When youre a Jet, youre a Jet all the way? For the modern mainstream press, its like that when it comes to The Stupid.
Does Huntsman have an inept campaign team? It could turn out that way, but we wouldnt place any large bets. In the Washington Post, Nia-Malika Henderson restricted herself to a single paragraph about the days technical glitchesalthough she weirdly quoted two Republican strategists, each of whom trashed the event. (Theme: Jon Huntsman is no Ronald Reagan.) Over at the New York Times, Jim Rutenberg actually focused on the things Huntsman said, some of which were somewhat noteworthythough he too interjected a single paragraph claiming that Huntsmans campaign for the most part lived up to its early reputation for expert stage management.
Given the fact that there were some glitches, we dont know why he said that. By the way: In each paper, you will see that the color photo included the Statue of Liberty.
Rutenberg actually focused on the actual things Huntsman said! For better or worse, liberals werent asked to waste their time on such trivia as they watched that evenings Rachel Maddow Show. The host burned 19 minutes from the start of her program with an utterly stupid report on the days various technical glitches. She began her report decked out in dark glasses, banging away on a bongo drum, pretending to be super-embarrassed by her own silly-girl conduct. (Has any broadcaster ever staged so many faux apologies?) Then came the Shatner clip.
We strongly suggest that you watch the first twelve minutes or so, to see the depths of The Dumband the self-adorationwhich are increasingly on display on this declining program. To watch the full segment, click this. By the way: Here is Maddow, describing one of the days many problems:
The riser generator died? Like youpresumably, like Maddowwe have no real idea what that means. But was that perhaps the riser on which the TV cameras would sit? Did that note perhaps explain why the camera angles were wrong? Like you, we have no earthly idea. In the course of a 19-minute dose of nonsense, boy howdy! Rachel Maddow didnt try to explain.
Its getting very dumb on our liberal channeland yes, Maddows report was very dumb this night. Presumably, many of Maddows viewers didnt understand that factand therein lies a problem. As liberal brains get turned to mush by this sort of campaign reporting, your nation is sinking into the sea. This foolishness is entertaining, especially to tribal liberal viewers. Presumably, the foolishness helps build cable ratings, thus justifying seven-figure cable salaries. But increasingly, Maddow is playing the fool in her ridiculous campaign reportingplaying the fool in ways designed to entertain and please liberal viewers. But then, stupendous foolishness has been all around us in the past few days.
Stupendous foolishness has been on display with regard to Newt Gingrichs jewels. (Have you ever seen anyone explain why youre supposed to care about this?) Stupendous foolishness has been on display with regard to Palins bus tour. (Pundits clowned before they had any idea if the tour had really been cancelled. There is still no way to know.) Last night, Chris Matthews performed his one public service. As he sometimes does, he explained why this stupendous dumbness has been all over the air:
Exactly! Newts jewels are easyand theyre fun! The multimillionaires play you for fools when they hand you this crap.
(By the way: The story doesnt seem that easy to report. Last night, Matthews persistently misstated the facts as he discussed the Tiffanys matter. But then, the gentlemans prep time seems to begin around 4:55 each night.)
The progressive project lies in ruins, as anyone can see by looking around. But so what? On cable, we liberals are handed endless silly tales. But then, thats entertainmentand nothing else!
As your nations sinks in the sea, cable hosts want to have fun.
Camera angles, then and now: Some types of silly time-wasting simply never get old.
In 1999, Brian Williams was concerned by the camera angles when Candidate Gore gave his kick-off speech. That night, the handsome anchor vented on his eponymous cable program:
For the record, no sentences came out backwards this day. Regarding those fiendish camera angles: On June 21, Bri-Bri went there again! He read the part of Roger Simons report in U.S. News which dealt with those infernal angles. Williams viewers were being treated like pitiful fools once again.
In fact, political advance men and women didnt discuss that days pitfalls for some time. As it turned out, the camera angles really hadnt taken on huge importance. Gore went on to win every single primarythe first Democrat in history to do soand he won the popular vote in November 2000. Williams spent a lot of that time trashing Gores troubling clothes, especially his polo shirts.
On liberal cable, you can now enjoy these journalistic values for very large chunks of the evening. Stupendous foolishness is still on display. This time, its aimed at the GOP.
In this way, liberal brains become mushand Rachel gets to shove $2 million into her pants. This is the way our cable discourse works, no matter how much we deny it.
Simon said: Roger Simon recorded the kick-off gaffes made by Bush and Gore. None of this was worth discussing. But it did kill a column:
Williams read the part about Gore, skipped the part about Bush.
PART 3: Coming tomorrow.