NBC, Comcast and Facebook: Losers in Uselesss GOP Debate

NBC is known as the "National Barack Compay", or sometimes as the "Natioinal (O)Bama Compay". There is not even a pretense of objectivity, and David Grregory is one of the WORST "newsmen' to ever lieve. To call him a partisan political hack is to ybderstate tge case, Thus, teh NBC debatge this morning was all about SUPORTING OBAMA, and NOT about providing GOP voters iwth any actual INFORMATION. And the debate did NOT provide any information of any value to GOP voters.


Therefore, this blog will not attempt an "analysis" of the GOP candidates' performan e this morening. It ws meaningless. You could say that Gingrich "won", but that is only becaue the debatewas dESIGNED with the ida of providing more HEAT than LIGHT. That is the kind of debate where Gingrich's Twitter-type pithy comments shine. Itg was imossible for the GOP candidates to really get out a coherent message in a debate so obviusly designed to SUPPORT OBAMA. What wsa PARTISAN HACK Gregory's primary "disappointment" about the debate? It ws that he could not get Rick Perry to CRITICIZE "GOP orthodoxy". I could never make this up. That ais exactly what PARTISAN HACK Greogry said. Have you ever been to an interview whre you are saked: "Waht is you WROST quality?" It bothers me that some interviewers actually seem to think this is "clever", or provides actual information. What it actually does, of course, is "test" how well you LIE (maybe the purpoise of this really asinine interview question). As stated, the whole purpose of this debate, from teh point of view of partisan NBC, was to SUPPORT OBAMA. Thus, Gregory kept putting out Obama /Democrat "tgalking points', includin g the question of: "How would you like it if you are elected President and the oppositon leaders in Congress say that their goal is to make you a one term President?" But Gregory got even MORE (I know, you would not have thought it possible) by asking Perry the main area whre Perry OPPOSED the GOP. Gregory even suggested he was gong to ask EVERYBODY that, but was so busy ATTACKING Perry's answer (not that bad) that Gregory FORGOT that he intended to get a comapign commercial for Obama out of this question (.lo--not only "laugh ou t loud", but "lots of luck", as NOBODY is going to trash his own party in answer to an OBVIOUIS partisan question like that).


Waht do I mean that Perry's answer was not so bad? Did nt Perry say he ws for a "Balanced Budget Amendment"--hardly against GOP "orthodoxy"? First, do you see how OBVIOUS Greogry was about his DISHONESTY.? Gregory virtually shouted that GOP "orthodoxy" was stupid, nad that the the only positions worth considering were positions which did NOT agree with the GOP positions. Time and time again Gregory, as Stephanopoulos the night before, tried to BRUSH ASIDE (or prevent) answers which repreent the position of the GOP rank and file. Rick Perry was merely the most obvious example. Waht Perry said was actually rfeasonable, and the "Balanced Budget Amendment" part was NOT the essence of the answer. Waht Perry said was the the GOP members of Congress, when the GOP was in control of both the Presidency and Congress, has shown themselves to be BIG SPENDERS jsut like Obama. Thus, perry reasoned (correctly--as this blog has pointed out more stridently every week for about six months--was that it acutally OPPOSED GOP "orthodoxy" to REALLY want to reduce government, deficits and spending. Ghis was ot the answer that Gregory (STUPIDLY) was looking for, but it is a perfectly reasonable answer. It could be MY answwer, and you could hardly say thigs blog goes alnog with "GOP ortodoxy", when this blog fialed to support McCain against Obama, and has already promised not to support Romney against Obama.


You should be able to see wy "analyzing" the preformance of the candidates in this debate is useless. It wa a useless debate. The hwole idea of the debate, aside from supporting Obama, was to get the GOP candidates to ATTACK EACH OTHER, and especially Romney. The MSNBC "analysis" afterward made it clear that the PARTISAN OBAMA SUPPORTERS of NBC and MSNBC are beginning to WORRY that Ropmney is getting to much of an "easy" path to the nomination. Sure, MSNBC, CNN and OTHER LEFTISTS have made it a pint to NOMINATE Romney, by tearing down ever HATED CONSERVATIVE that even starts to rise to the top, but MSNBC is obviously beginning to worry that it is creating a TOGH opponent for Obama. Therefore, most of the MSNBC "analysis" was NEGATIVE TOWARD ROMNEY. .Like CNN, MSNBC wanted teh GOP candidates TEARING INTO ROMNEY. That wass one of the goals of Gregory in the debate. Because Gregory was so persistent and obvious about this, there actually were more exchanges of aPERSONAL , negative ad nature between Romney and the other candidates. Tis was all so obvious, including what Gregory did, that I saw no EFFECTIVE blows landed. The ONLY way for a GOP candidate to do this EFFECTIVELY (aside from just a BLITZ of negative ads like Romney supporters put on in Iowa) is for a GOP candidate to ATTACK OBAMA, and at the same time take swipes at his GOP opponents not being able to take the fight to Obama because of their flaws. Gregory ws there to PREVENT attacks on Obama, and thus there ws almsot no way for the candidates to make real points (other than attacking GREGORY, which they should have done).


Enough. The debate was USELESS. Take my word for it. About the only good thing you can say about it was that there was not this RIDICULOUS emhasis on "social issues"--including FALSE soicial issues--as in the ABC cebatge last night . There was no George Stephanopoulos to stick his foot so far in his mouh that it came out anotehr orifice. Thus, a good part of the ABC debate was USELESS as well, but the ABC debate got enoguh subsetantive quesitions on real issues to have some substance to those parts of the debate. There was NO substance to any part of the NBC debate.


Waht is really FUNNY is the main THEMME of NBC/MSNBC/Comacast both during and after the debate. That theme was that we are TOO POLARIZED, and not wiling eough to work togethter. do oyu want any more evidence that these (mainstream media---including the unfair and unbalanced network---are the WORST HLYPOCRITGES TO EVER WAK THE EARTH, ON TWO LEGS OR FOUR? What is the MOST POLARIZING source of LEFTIST PROPAGANDA on this plante? Right. It is MSNBC, and NBC. Their "position" can fairly be stated like this: "Obama is right, and trying to do the right thing, and the GOP is wrong (not even trying to do the right thing, but dominated by right wing nuts and the "rich'). So much for "finding common ground", and "working together".


Comcast? Oh, Comcast OWNS NBC (which owns MSNBC). Thus, you should BOYCOTT COMCAST. And Facebook FRAUDLENTLY lent its name to this debate, although the fRAUD was mainly that of NBC. It was jsut so OBCIOUS (even more obvious than usual) that the quesioins asked were NOT from some "cross-section" of Facebook users, but wer SELECTED an phrased by the NBC questioners (expecailly teh blatantly PARTISAN David Gregory). It is a fundamental LIE in these "YoutTube" or 'intenet" or other 'public participation" debates that the questions come fofrom the publice,. I actually know how this works, not only from observation but because I recently "attended" a PHONE "town hall" by local Congressman Silvestere Reyes. The questions are SCREENED, and the only questins that getg asked are those that the SCREENERS (in this case David Gregory and the people of NBC) want to be asked. This is not actualy any different from when there is NO "pubic participation". In other words, David Gregory and the NBC questioners would have asked the SAME questions without Facebook having anything to do with this. The only possible exception is if some NBC LEFTIST sees what he or she thinks is a clver LEFTIST question that David Gregory would have asked if he wre smart enough to think of it. Then, maybe (rarely for even this) a member of the public may "help'NBC accomplish its agenda. But the agenda, and the questions intended to be asked, always remain the same.


No, I do NOT give Comcast a "pass". If Comcast is ging to own the most obviously PARTISAN TV network that has ever existed, then Comcast has to take the CONSEQUENCES of that. Comcast is RESPONSIBLE> Therfore, BOYCOTT COMCAST.


Facebook? Yes, I hink you should BOYCOTAT FACEBOOK. But I can't honestly say it is becaus of their FRAUD in letting their name be used in conection with this debate. I have NEVER been on Facebook, and NEVER will. The whole idea leaves me cold. That, of course, means thaqt HUNDREDS (ore even thousands) of people know more about my two daughters than I do (especially my older daughter, hwho puts here entire life on Facebook),. If you want to keep up with my daughters, the best way to do it is through their Facebook pages. Not for me. Thus, you have to tak this particular "boycott" recomendation with a ton of salt. I cannot be objective about Facebook, and I can't honestly say thaqt this particular "crime' is worthy of an actual boycott. I know you won't do it anyway, UNLESS you have come to realize how destructive Facbook really is to life in this ocuntry (and e en the worlld). "Flash mobs" are only the tip of the iceberg. Nope. I don't have an I-Phone either, or ANY cell phone (with or without internet capability). I do have an I-Pod (at the virtual insistence of my older daughter), but I use it ONLY for audiobooks (my eyesight meaning that I can no longer read regualr print books, OR regular ebooks). I tell you all of this jsut so you can understand my BIAS, and evaluate my reactio to Facebook0-accurate as it si--with that i mind. On Comcast, however, there is no such consideration. Comcast IS responsible for NBC, and you should BOYCOTT Comcast.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight--see paragraph above).