Friday, January 20, 2012

Chris Wallace: Evil Personh Spreading Evil on the Unfair and Unbalanced Network (Or Is It CNN: Wh Can Tell?)

The unfair and unbalanced network remains "all in" for Mitt Romney. The business network (unfaira and unbalanced as well) even went so far as to say Romney had a GREAT debate last night. If you will say that, lyou will say ANYTHING in aid of your AGENDA. That is absoutely true of the unfair and unbalanced network: from Megyn Kelllly to Bill O'Reilly. What can I say? BOYCOTT them.

But this article is about Chirs Wallace and how an EVILk, STUPID man can try to convince youo that the "issue" that people care most about is not JOBS or the ECONMY, but the "meaning" of "grandiose". This blog has featured Wallace before. Nope. This is NTO an "honest" appraisal. This is a MAINSTREAM MEDIA TALKING POINT that I first he\ard on CNN's post-debate analysis last night. Did Chirs Wallace get it from CNN, or his mainstream media clones, or does he jut think like them? yep. I admit it. That is a CHRIS WALLACE type question. The man has NO inteligence and NO honsty .

What is this about? it is about an attempted ATTACK on Newt Gingrich for the WRFONG reaosn-meeting Gingrichon his won ground and LOSING. What are we talking about? Well, Rick Santorum made a pretty valid pont in the debate last nigh--although hradly calculated to really advance him in the primary vote because he phjrased it too much as a PERSONAL ATTACK on Gingrich (which the media, including the unfair and unbalanced netowrk like, but voters do NOT like). Santorum accused Gingrich of knowing all about "grandiosity", with essentially an inflated ego and willingness to embrace almsot any grandiose idea that happens to occur to him-without thinkng it through. This last part is the VALID part of the attack--the use of "grandiosity" is the stupid part of the attack (especially for Santorum, who jsut cannnot really carry it of). Gingrich's response was a shade too "cute", but effective. Gijngrich basically EMBRACED the idea that he is all about BIG ideas, andis not content--like the other candidates--to be satisfied with TIMID approaches. Gingrich might have cited the United States of America itself, and the "grnadiose" idea of a real democratic republic.--taking on the most powerful military nation in the world in the process. Or Gingrich might have cited the JFK MOON (Apollo) program. Or the Wright Brothers. You get the point, even if the turly dense--or pretending to be dense--Ch;ris Wallace did not. In the process of his ansower, Gingrich said that he did, in fact, have "grandiose" ideas, because he refused to be satisfied with SMALL, TIMID ideas.

What do you do with this if ou are truly STUPID and EVIL? Do you say, as I do, that Gingrich was being a little too cute, and not really addresssing the criticism that he flits from idea to idea? Nope, if you are a STUPID JOURNALIST (reudndancy), you go to the dictionary and look up "grnadiose". You "learn" that the diictionary definition of "grandiose" is EXCESSIVLY grnad notions and view of oneself. Problem: If you WATCHED Gingrich, you had no problem understanding what he was saying. Wallancce implied that Gingrich was giving tghe word a WRONG definition. Wllace, it is YOU that is WRONG--wrong in every way, including your character, that it is possible to be wrong. And all your were doing was picking up-as you usally do--on a deevelopng, dishonest mainstream media "talking pont".

What Gingrich was saing had NOTHING to do with the "definitioin" of "grandiose", excdet using it as an ironic springboard to make his point. What Gingrich ws clearly saying was that if you did not RISK being called 'grandiose", and did not consider ideas that OTHERS might think are "grandiose", then you are not the man for these times (and not a great man at any time). Gingrich would say that Abraham Linconln, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington and so many otehrs had "grandiose" ideas, from the pont of view of timid people. And Gingrich would be right. The arrogance of Gingrich, of course, is that he has not really shown the ability (as Santorum tried to say) to carry thorugh on a CONSISTENT set of big ideas. Gingrich had the GRAT "big idea" of the "Contract with America", or at least made it work. At the same, time, he BETRAYED parts of that contract almsot immediately after coming to "power".

"Okay, Skip. We understand what Gingrich was tring to say, but he did NOT say it the way you do above. He actually seemed to embrace the the word 'grandiose'." Ah, that is where both you and Rick Santorum do NOT understand, and why Gingrich MIGHT win the South Carolina primary tomorrow. If you EXPLAIN how you have to RISK being thought 'grandiose" if you are going to promote turly BIG ideas that are more necessary than ever in today's times, you BORFE people. You cause attention to wander. You seem like an ordinary politican. But what if you say that one of your VIRTUES is that you have 'grandiose" ideas? Well, you run th erisk that SECOND HAND "descriptions, like thouse of the EVIL Chris Wallace, will color wht people think of you But for peop;le who HER you, you make our pont in a way they both understand and REMEMBER. It is no accident that Gingrich's IRONY went right over the head of Chriss Wallace. Not only does Wallace have an AGENDA, but Gingrich is much SMARTER than Chris Wallace (as am I--to be "grandiose" abut it).

Nope. As I say, and I gave Santourm a SLIGHT edge in the debate (see previous article), I thought the Ginrich performance was a little "too cute", after the had already made the debate a success with his media attack prompted by the first John King question. Yes, you could say that even that first answer was a little 'too cut", but here lyou would be WRONG. You cannot "defnd" "seriously" an allegation that you asked you second wife for a n "open marriage". ALL yu can do with that kind of EVIL question--with any hope of success--is ATTACK THE QUESTION. This blog told Herman Cain that. Newt Gingrich is the one who CORRECTLy took this blog's advice. But Gingirch was NOT in that same kind of positon on the "grandiose" pont. Unlike Wallace, I THINK Gingrich was effective. I certainly KNOW that Gingrich cannot be SUCCESSFULLY attacked on the meaning of "grandiose". However, tit was still a DEVICE to EVADE the question about flitting from idea to idea, wihout being able to settle on those that really make sense (however "grandiose" they may be thought to be by small-minded men) . THAT is what I call being a shade "too cute". Still, with the help of people like Wallace, CNN a, and the unfair and unbalanced network, Gingrich MAY bet away with it. I do NOT gaet the feeling that Santourm really helped hwimself, although I hope I am wrong on that . Santorum still has the FEELING of being a man who has not caught fire, and this exchange may show why. Gingrich can PULL OFF "frandiose" rhreotrical attacks AND "grandiose" DEFENSES. Santorum--indeed no one esle in the GOP fiedl--has not shown that ability.

Gingrich does not matter here. What matters is that Wallace is an EVIL, STUPID person in a profession now filled with such persons, and on a network now filled with such persons.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

No comments: