Neil Cavuto and Herman Cain: Certified Idiot Pushing the Smear on the Unfair and Unbalanced Network

I was Neil Cavuto's interview of Herman Cain today (waiving my presen boycott rule of not "srufing" the unfair and unbalanced network for more than a toatl of 3 minutes a day). It confirrmed why I am continuing to strongly recommend that you BOYCOT the unfair and unbalanced network. It confirmed my opinion of that network. Read the previous article, and realize that I fully intended what I say about "journalists' in that article to apply to the people of the unfair and unbalanced network. I have taken on Neil Cavuto by name before, and he fits fully withon my decription of EVIL PEOPLE SPREADING EVIL. This expalins, by the way, why I have not seen even ONE minute of the 'prime time" lineup on the unfair and unbalanced network in about two weeks. I can "surf" adeequately enough to see where the network is coming from without listening to the mainly OPINION prime time lineup.: So no O'Reilly. No Hannity. No Van Susteren. lNo need to surf them. They are bad enough in themselves, even though I would acknowledge Hannity as an annoying conservative (probably a more orthodox conservative than I am, which is NOT a compliment). I digress (sort of).


What was wrong with Cavuto's interview with Caih? Everything. Yes, the first thing wrong was the very convept of Cain coming on to "explain" and 'defend" himself as to allegations from Ginger White (or whatever her name is), and Cai's "reassessment" of his campaign. Such "up frfont" honesty and openness may get Cain points, even with me, but it s fatal to his campaign. You jsut can't keep gvign inteviews limited to "explaining" "allegations" against you. Fatal. But Cavuto compounded the problem by his EVIL attitude. (again, no hyperbole is meant).


What do I mean? Well, in general what I mean is that Cavuto treated this like itws an opportunity for him to ask "tough" questions. Message to Neil Cavuto: You thereby confirmed my previous impression that I should have nothing but total CONTEMPT for you, and for the unfair and unbalanced network. See, again, the previous article. Why am I saying this? ?Don't I agree that the job of a "journalist" is to "challegnge" the candidate? Not on this. See agian, my previous article. If a candidate is avioding a SUBSTANTIVE question, then the candidate should be "presssed" (which does not keep the unfair and unbalanced network from aksing UNFAIR substantive questins, with absurd premises). The "job" of a "journalist" is to get INFORMATION--NOT to "get" the intervieweee. Cavuto should have looked at this intreview as a chnce to get INFORMATION on Cain's FACTUAL position with regard to the allegations against him, and the status of his cmaping. As I said, it ws CAIN"S MISTAKE to agree to a interview solely on this subject. It was CAVUTO'S MISTAKE to look at this as a chance to "impress' his felow EVIL "journalists' with his "tough" questions.


You want an example? I have one (as if you did not know that). Cavuto ENDED the interview with what he boviously thought wsa the "kiler question". And it was the "killer question". It KILLED any remainging respect I had for Neil Cavuto. Yep. It was that absurd, stupid questinas to why Ginger White would say Heraman Cain should not be President, and what Cain's reaction to that assertion by her is.


Say what, Cavuto? ; You actually represented to your audience that it is RELEVANT, and even IMPROTANT, what Ginger Whitge thinks of Herman Cain as a potential President. That, Neil (can I call you Neil, now that we are on firt name insult terms), makes you a CERTIFIED IDIOT. My certificate is in the mail. No, this was nt all that was bad about Cavuto's interview. It merely CAPPED it with a reosounding, evil stupidity. You woul ddo much better getting ME on you show talking aobut whether I think Herman Cain should be President. By any standard, my opinion is more worthy of attentino thatn Gineger White's, and I say that with full knwoledge that most people would consider my opinion as not "newsworthy".


You need to read my previous article. Then reread the above. Have I jsut said that Neil Cavuto is WORSE than serial killers and terrorists? Well, I think I have. And I stand by it (so lnog as you understand what I mean by "moral blame", and the fact taht "journalists"--as a rule--have fewer possible "exuses" than serial killers and terrorists), As usual, I invite Cavuto, or anyone on his behalif, to try to defend himself in this blog (I promise no editiing, and that I will not delete any comment--as I never have). Oh. And I promise to give Cavuto the SAME consideratin he gave Herman Cain. If that does nto keep Cavuto away, nothing will.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By the way, IF a woman came forward and said she was 'sexually harrassed" by Barack Obama ten years ago, o said she had an affair with him, I would have the same attitude. We really need to get past this stuff. It is making our political campaigns SEWER operations, and the mainstream media LEADS the "negative" ad war--disguising THEIR negative ads as "news'. The MOST that should ever be "reported" is the FACTS concerning "allegations", without hysteria or suggestinos that such allegations are important (these kind of character assassination allegatins). But we would be better off going back to the 1950s-1960s, where even the FACTS of secaul infidelity by JFK, etc. were ignored. There is no way to conduct a "trial" of this kind of thing in the medai, and NO way to be "fair" about this type of sordid allegation. It is interesting that teh supposedly SEXUALLY REPRESSED 1950s were omuch more realistic, and less PRIGGISH, about this kind of thing. For many years, I have said that we have become a NATION OF PRIGS (especially as to peoole wiht whom we disagree), at the same time we have become SEXUALLLY UNHEALTHY (you might say promiscuous, in terms of most people). I thik it si time to ask Neil Cavuto's FORMER GIRFRIENDS an dFORMER WIVVES (if he has any) whther they think he "shoubld be" a "news anchor" on national TV. Good luck Neil. And that does not even count women who might merely ASSERT taht they are a former girlfriend.