Read my recent articles. Then consider this Greta Van Susteren question last night to Newt Gingrich: "How do you explain the $250,000-$500,000 credit cared balance reported on your wife's disclosure documents when she worked for the Department of Agriculture?"
Newt actaully answered this question right by ATTACKING THE QUESTION-the EVIL question (Newt: I talked about jobs, the economy, health care, and our place in the world, and YOU want to talk about this; I refuse to answer this kind of question.") If you have read my prvious articles over the last week attacking the media, including Fox News, then you should know why this was an EVIL question. If you have read my articles, and don't understand, then I have failed almost as badly as Obama and Ben Bernanke have failed on jobs and the economy. At least, I have failed with you. It may, after all, be your fault you don't understand what I believe is obvious.
What does it have to do with whether Newt Gingrich should be President that he and his wife ran up a big charge bill with Tiffany's (the high end jewelry merchant)? NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. And the EVIL thing is to suggest to the American people that this kind of BACK FENCE GOSSIP is actually relevant on their choice for President. Now did Bill O'Reilly ask the PRESDIDEENT (Obama) about his wife's expensive tastes? Yes, Fox has talked (probably too much) about some of Michelle Obama's expensive trips, etc. Buit HYPOCCRTIE O'Reilly did not have the nerve to aske the kind of question Greta asked. And unless you, as a network, are willing to ask the SAME unfair, irrelevant questions to everyone, then you are a failure as a network. Yep. I am now officially aplying that label to Fox "News'.
Why did I mentioni O'Reilly--pompous ass and dishonest hypocrite that he is? Easy. I did not watch Greta last night, even though I have regarded her (until faily recently, and except on things like the Natalie Holloway (sp? who cares?) matter, as perhaps the best of the news anchors out there. But I watch here less and less, as is true of all of Fox Newws, which I now basically merely surf only slightly more than I surf CNN. You can see why Greta is not being too honest when she says Rush Limbaugh was obviously watching--quoting him on her tonight, as I watched that segment of her show solely to ssee that. The point is that I saw Greta's questioin to Newt, and Newt's correct reply (will other Republicans LEARN?), on O'REILLY'S program (of which I watched about 20%). Rush, of course, could also have picked up what Gingrich said to Greta from another source (staff nowadays can pick up everything from the internet and elsewhere, including personal monitoring and DVR).
What was O'Reilly doing playing one of Greta's least fine moments? Well, O'Reilly was DOUBLING DOWN ON EVIL, and he was doing it deliberately. He brought in a "guest" for the sole purpose of defending the RELEVANCE of this truly irrelevant, and evil, questgion. What's more, O'Reilly did it with malice aforthought, after proving that he new exactly how unfair he was being. Yes, I also saw the part of O'Reilly where he cried crocodile tears about how we are keeping talented people out of politics because of unfair character attacks, and minute examinatioin of their entire life, and blowing flaws and mistakes (or what can be spun as mistakes or insensitivity) out of all proportion. O'Reilly even mentioned Thomas Jefferson (appropriately, and accurately), as a man who had personal flaws. Indeed, Jefferson was a SPENDTHRIFT in his personal life, even while being very strong on controlling government spending. Jefferson went so far into personal debut that he basically went bankrupt. Does O'Reilly want to defend whether this was relevant as to whether Thomas Jefferson should have been President? Well, we can say one thing. It was much MORE relevant thathan a SMEAR about a bill at Tiffany's. I repeat: O'Reilly, you are a pompous ass and a dishonest, intellectually bankrupt hypocrite.
Ah, Dick Gregory, RACIST (and I mean it). Yes, I prefer to take on the mainstream media, because Fox is merely bad; the mainstream media is evil incarnate. Yes, it is a bit of hyperbole for me to accuse Greta Van Susteren of being "evil"., when what I really mean is that too often she is spreading evil (which I do stand behind). The people of the mainstream media, however, are generally--on balance--EVIL PEOPLE (in their public life, whatever their persoanl life may be like).
This is the question David Gregory asked Newt Gingrich over the weekend: "Here is a quote where you called President Obama a 'food stamp President'. Don't you think that is a racist thing to have said?" (or words to that effect). Gingrich got this one right as well (Gingrich 2, media 0--once you get past the massive, unforced errors Gingrich made over the weekend). Gingrich ATTACKED Gregory's question, and he should have. In El Paso, the news regularly is that fully 40% and more of El Pasoans are on food stamps, and I think it may be 50% by now. Some 20% of the country, if not higher, seem now to be on food stamps (Gingrich said 47 million people, and that is probably low). That is what Gingrich meant by "food stamp President", and it is a fully valid point. We have a RECORD number of people on food stamps, while Obama is touting his economic politices. Meanwhile, Obama and Democrats ask for votes from the "poor" because they are doing so much for the poor Right, like making sure so many peole ARE poor, and on food stamps.
But that is not nearly as interesting as where GREGORY--RACIST that he clearly is--is coming from. Is not the clear implication of Gregory's question that President Obama is African-American, and that African-Americans are identified with food stamps? No, I don't think of it that way. But Gregory clearly does. Bascially, Gregory is saying that Newt was trying to associate President Obama with BLACK people who everyone kknows use so many food stams (again, no I do not know it, although I would assume a larger proportion of African-Americans are poor--mainly because Obama and other Democrats keep telling me that, along with CNN, Dick Gregory and the rest). But Obama is RICH. The idea that anyone would think Gingrich is associating Obama with POOR African-Americans is what Gingrich said it is: ludicrous.
Yes. Dick Gregory is an EVIL person. What is he TRYING to do? It is not only that he is personally a racist, which is obviusly true. It is that Gregory is TRING to deliberately tell African-Americans, and probably othr "people of color", that there are so many "white" people like Gingrich (and those to whom Gingrich is presumbably trying to appeal) out to GET black people because they are black. Gregory is telling them that these evil "white' people (half of Obama) are out to "gt" the President of the United States, BECAUSE HE IS BLACK, by means of racial slurs appealing to the latent (or not so latent) massive racism in this country. I cannot tell you how EVIL a person Dick Gregory, and all of the maisntream media people who think this way, are. This is inciteent to RACE WAR. It is incitement to rACIAL HATRED. It does African-Americans no good. It does Obama no good. It is PURE EVIL--as bad as it gets. The sad thing is that I fully expect Fox--the way it is going-to get around to asking this kind of racist questions eventually. Fox seems to take its cue from the rest of the media as to the "relevant questions", which is almost the whole ball game.
P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight)). Dick Gregory and Fox can only pray that the copy is so bad, or the audience so low, that no one reads the above. Anyone who does read it, I urge you to bring it to their attention. when you do, you can tell them that it is Gordon Stewart who thinks that badly of them. I do not advertise the name, because it is irrelevant to what I am doing. But I am wiling to name my name on this kind of article, where I am naming theirs.
P.P.S. Yes, one of the things that this blog has been right about, IN FORESIGHT, is that Newt Gingrich will never be President. I said that as long as 4 years ago, and have continued to criticize Newt regularly over all of those years. I just declared that Newt will not be President this time either. I do not support Newt,--just the opposite. That does not keep me from seeing clearly when he is right. In fact, I think better of him for the way he handled thsese two unfair fquestions than I have thought of him n quite a long time (not well enough, however, to even consider supporting him for President). Newt is toast, but that does not mean he should be treated unfarily. If he can prove me wrong about being President, more power to him In the meantime, I am able to be more objective about Newt than almsot anyone around.
P.P.P.S: Yes, I happen to now be reading "The War of 1812", a history by a LEFTIST (i amm confident) historian criticizing Jerrerson and the Repubilcans for opposing taxes, a national bank, and using too much revenue to pay off our debt Amazing, is it not, how much things stay the same, as the author also refers to Federalists (the old leftists originally opposing Jefferson and the Republicans) lost power because the people perceived them as ELITISTS who wanted to take away their liberty with an all-powerful central government. And the people were right. Alexander Hamilton is the perfect model fro the prsent day Democratt and establishment Republican. In fact, I am morally certain that Ben Bernanke is the reincarnation of Alexander Hamilton-only dumber (Bernanke, that is). I recently read "John Admas" (a nominal Federalist, but friend of Jefferson and rally almost apolitical), which again confrimed my knowledge of Jefferson's personal failinsgs, even as Jedderson was one of the great men of history. I say agani, as I have for a decade or so, that we have become a NATION OF PRIGS, too mch interested in "scnadal" instead of substance. And I say that as a social conservative--albeit not a religious one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment