Monday, April 26, 2004
Note to My Media Friends: Press Conference Questions I Wish We’d Hear, But Am Sure We Never Will
In my previous post, I set forth a list of the questions that the partisan media weasels really wanted to ask President Bush during his April 13, 2004 press conference. You will recall that disgraceful display of their legendary liberal bias. What a spectacle! They masqueraded as serious journalists while they doggedly—and I mean they were like dogs with a bone on this one---pursued, but never got, the coveted admission from the President that he was responsible for September 11. Too bad, liberal media! Keep trying! You know how dumb this guy is. Eventually, you’ll be able to catch him when Dick Cheney can’t feed him the right answers through that earpiece invisibly implanted in his skull. He’s a far cry from his brilliant predecessor, isn’t he? Not to bum you out too much, but remember his facile use of the English language, his unparalleled compassion and his infallible logic, not to mention what one of you called the energy crackling from his jeans? Those were the days, huh? Try not to tear up. I know it’s a challenge.
Yes, there were no questions too tough for your guy, Bill Clinton, the Prevaricator-in-Chief. What a smooth operator! I’m sure he would have had no problem answering a few questions regarding his role in what he considered an excuse to fire a couple of missles and what would become, under President Bush, an actual pro-active war on our terrorist enemies. Somehow, though, no matter how many phony commissions, book tours, or press conferences he holds from now on, I’m confident that none of you will ask him any of these. Just for fun, and because I love to share, I offer them to you here anyway.
*Mr. Clinton, many people have suggested that both your administration and the current Bush administration could have done more to stop 9/11, but also suggest that it’s unfair to compare your two administrations’ performance, not only because 8 years is a much longer time than 8 months, but also because when you came into office in 1993, al-Qaeda was a small-time terrorist outfit with lots of money and big ideas, but when you left in 2000 bin Laden’s network was operating in more than 55 countries. Wouldn’t it have been a lot easier to smash this organized terrorism in 1993 than in 2000?
*Mr. Clinton, many have suggested that prior to September 11, there was very little desire on the part of the American people to pro-actively go after terrorists by making war on them. Assuming that is true, didn’t you miss a golden opportunity to exert leadership by initiating the war on terror on August 7, 1998, the day of the two embassy bombings when twelve Americans were killed? Wouldn’t that have been the perfect opportunity to initiate a pro-active war on terror?
*Mr. Clinton, in 1998, you were embroiled in a perjury investigation/sex scandal that grew out of the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. Are you ready to finally admit that this scandal, as well as the hideously improper behavior that caused it, was not simply about ‘your private life’ and did affect your job performance? Do you feel any guilt over the fact that innocent people may have lost their lives because you were having sex at work? Would you like to apologize?
That last one would no doubt result in either a lip-biting, downcast-eyes demonstration of ersatz contrition of the sort unseen since Ron Brown’s funeral or a finger-wagging rebuke reminiscent of one of his most famous TV appearances, accompanied, of course, by your collective swoon.
In my previous post, I set forth a list of the questions that the partisan media weasels really wanted to ask President Bush during his April 13, 2004 press conference. You will recall that disgraceful display of their legendary liberal bias. What a spectacle! They masqueraded as serious journalists while they doggedly—and I mean they were like dogs with a bone on this one---pursued, but never got, the coveted admission from the President that he was responsible for September 11. Too bad, liberal media! Keep trying! You know how dumb this guy is. Eventually, you’ll be able to catch him when Dick Cheney can’t feed him the right answers through that earpiece invisibly implanted in his skull. He’s a far cry from his brilliant predecessor, isn’t he? Not to bum you out too much, but remember his facile use of the English language, his unparalleled compassion and his infallible logic, not to mention what one of you called the energy crackling from his jeans? Those were the days, huh? Try not to tear up. I know it’s a challenge.
Yes, there were no questions too tough for your guy, Bill Clinton, the Prevaricator-in-Chief. What a smooth operator! I’m sure he would have had no problem answering a few questions regarding his role in what he considered an excuse to fire a couple of missles and what would become, under President Bush, an actual pro-active war on our terrorist enemies. Somehow, though, no matter how many phony commissions, book tours, or press conferences he holds from now on, I’m confident that none of you will ask him any of these. Just for fun, and because I love to share, I offer them to you here anyway.
*Mr. Clinton, many people have suggested that both your administration and the current Bush administration could have done more to stop 9/11, but also suggest that it’s unfair to compare your two administrations’ performance, not only because 8 years is a much longer time than 8 months, but also because when you came into office in 1993, al-Qaeda was a small-time terrorist outfit with lots of money and big ideas, but when you left in 2000 bin Laden’s network was operating in more than 55 countries. Wouldn’t it have been a lot easier to smash this organized terrorism in 1993 than in 2000?
*Mr. Clinton, many have suggested that prior to September 11, there was very little desire on the part of the American people to pro-actively go after terrorists by making war on them. Assuming that is true, didn’t you miss a golden opportunity to exert leadership by initiating the war on terror on August 7, 1998, the day of the two embassy bombings when twelve Americans were killed? Wouldn’t that have been the perfect opportunity to initiate a pro-active war on terror?
*Mr. Clinton, in 1998, you were embroiled in a perjury investigation/sex scandal that grew out of the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. Are you ready to finally admit that this scandal, as well as the hideously improper behavior that caused it, was not simply about ‘your private life’ and did affect your job performance? Do you feel any guilt over the fact that innocent people may have lost their lives because you were having sex at work? Would you like to apologize?
That last one would no doubt result in either a lip-biting, downcast-eyes demonstration of ersatz contrition of the sort unseen since Ron Brown’s funeral or a finger-wagging rebuke reminiscent of one of his most famous TV appearances, accompanied, of course, by your collective swoon.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Lots of Villages Missing Their Idiots Last Week
President Bush’s news conference on April 13, 2004 is yet another example of the elites’ attitude toward to president showcased in the forum of an ostensible desire to get him to answer legitimate questions. The simple fact is many members of the elite media believe that the president was ‘selected, not elected,’ is a low brow, semi-literate cowboy who is an embarrassment to the country and a religious fanatic who wants to impose mandatory Bible classes. NOTHING he can say or do will change these facts, which is why the members of the Kerry media (thanks to caller Mike for coming up with that moniker for our friends in the 4th Estate) ask the same inane questions. I kept thinking ‘Will one of you nitwits PULEEZE ask something resembling an intelligent, substantive question?’ After the 4th time he was asked if he felt bad about any decision or wanted to apologize, I was thinking “What’s next? Mr. President, if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?” or some similar idiotic Barbara Walters question? If they were going to waste everyone’s time like that, why didn’t they just ask him what they really wanted to ask, such as:
* Mr. President, do you think you are more like the actively evil Adolf Hitler or the passively evil Hirohito?
* Mr. President, if Dick Cheney’s former employer Halliburton could make money by invading Canada or any other country for that matter, how soon would you launch the attack? And are there any contingency plans for this sort of attack?
* Mr. President, many Americans admire your mother, particularly her honesty. Is she troubled by the fact that you turned out to be such a lying sack of pond scum?
* Mr. President, the First Lady is a former librarian. Is she troubled by the fact that she is married to a semi-literate?
* Mr. President, is it true that you are a cannibal?
* Mr. President, are you troubled by your resemblance to a chimpanzee?
* Mr. President, are you hopelessly naïve, ridiculously uninformed, or just stupid?
* Mr. President, can’t you please just say that you are personally responsible for 9/11 so that we can get our John Kerry sound bite and go home?
President Bush’s news conference on April 13, 2004 is yet another example of the elites’ attitude toward to president showcased in the forum of an ostensible desire to get him to answer legitimate questions. The simple fact is many members of the elite media believe that the president was ‘selected, not elected,’ is a low brow, semi-literate cowboy who is an embarrassment to the country and a religious fanatic who wants to impose mandatory Bible classes. NOTHING he can say or do will change these facts, which is why the members of the Kerry media (thanks to caller Mike for coming up with that moniker for our friends in the 4th Estate) ask the same inane questions. I kept thinking ‘Will one of you nitwits PULEEZE ask something resembling an intelligent, substantive question?’ After the 4th time he was asked if he felt bad about any decision or wanted to apologize, I was thinking “What’s next? Mr. President, if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?” or some similar idiotic Barbara Walters question? If they were going to waste everyone’s time like that, why didn’t they just ask him what they really wanted to ask, such as:
* Mr. President, do you think you are more like the actively evil Adolf Hitler or the passively evil Hirohito?
* Mr. President, if Dick Cheney’s former employer Halliburton could make money by invading Canada or any other country for that matter, how soon would you launch the attack? And are there any contingency plans for this sort of attack?
* Mr. President, many Americans admire your mother, particularly her honesty. Is she troubled by the fact that you turned out to be such a lying sack of pond scum?
* Mr. President, the First Lady is a former librarian. Is she troubled by the fact that she is married to a semi-literate?
* Mr. President, is it true that you are a cannibal?
* Mr. President, are you troubled by your resemblance to a chimpanzee?
* Mr. President, are you hopelessly naïve, ridiculously uninformed, or just stupid?
* Mr. President, can’t you please just say that you are personally responsible for 9/11 so that we can get our John Kerry sound bite and go home?
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
The “L” Word, or Outing the Elusive Liberal
On Easter Sunday, one of my nieces faced a reoccurring question from several of her annoying relatives, including yours truly; specifically, “When do we get to meet him?” “Him,” of course, is her current squeeze. As she has explained in the past, he is opposed to the war in Iraq and isn’t eager to face a roomful of enthusiastic supporters of President Bush, so he stays home. I think she’s underestimating her friend and being a tad unfair to the rest of us. We’re conservatives. We’re not going to make a discussion of public policy personal. Besides, you can run, but you can’t hide. If she’s telling the truth about the reason he’s making himself scarce, eventually, he’s going to have to grow a spine and show up. She could be making this whole thing up. The real reason could have more to do with my husband’s jokes, but that’s another story.
Never having met the young man, of course, what I’m about to say is mere speculation, but that never stops me, so here I go. I suspect that, despite her denials, that he is a liberal. Regular listeners to my show know that my attitude toward liberals is like my attitude toward anyone suffering from a debilitating mental syndrome. Denial, as the old saying goes, is not just a river in Egypt, my liberal friends, so if you are a liberal, what’s with this “I’m an independent” or “I’m a progressive” BS? If you are liberal, say it loud, say it proud, I say. Then be able to say why you proudly wear the “L” and hope your audience gets most of its news about current events from Comedy Central, late-night monologues or Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update. Then at least you’ll have a fighting chance of selling the series of bizarre conspiracy theories buttressed by non-existent ‘information’ and ‘facts’ that only a Michael Moore could love that is modern American liberalism. In any case, redemption is available to all, but only those who face reality and overcome their denial have any chance of receiving it.
Of course, stealth is central to liberalism. After all, if they tell people what they are really supporting, they will have an appeal limited to the seriously emotionally disturbed or demented. Who else is in favor of racial discrimination, slavery and complete social breakdown (‘affirmative action,’ ‘progressive taxation’ and ‘alternative lifestyles’ sound so much nicer, don’t they?) So often they won’t cop to it and will usually try the ‘independent’ ‘moderate’ or ‘progressive’ thing. How can you out them? Those phony, euphemistic labels are real red flags. In addition, watch for the following three phases of arguing with liberals. In my experience, they occur in order with regularity.
MOCKING LAUGHTER
“Oh yeah right,’ the liberal might sneeringly and sarcastically say. “I’m sure you almost believe that!” Or “You don’t seriously believe that, DO YOU?’ said with an underlying chuckle. You should realize that liberals are so used to having their point of view validated by the partisan media and the popular culture that they might find your statement that “President Bush is one of the brightest, most visionary people to occupy the office” as strange and unfamiliar as the truth is to Bill Clinton. Their friends and acquaintances are probably liberals, too, and if anyone of them said anything like that, he/she would definitely be throwing a real knee-slapper out there to delight the assembled group of enlightened libs. So, you might have to repeat your statement with a straight face. It’s fun, though. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to suppress laughter after saying something like “Whether or not we ever find WMD in Iraq makes zero difference about whether the war was legal, justified or moral,” not because the statement is funny—it’s absolutely and incontrovertibly true. It’s hilarious to see the look of astonishment on the face of liberals who realize that I am absolutely serious. Sometimes they get that look that dogs get when they tilt their heads to the side, desperate to understand sounds so unrecognizable.
FEIGNED MORAL OUTRAGE
Once they realize that you are serious, the liberal will get up on his high horse and inveigh against your hideous lack of compassion and meanness. “How DARE you say that it’s ok to starve children?” (to someone who suggests that throwing more federal money down the latest rathole social program might not be the answer to every social ill, for example). This from the same people who express delight over John Ashcroft’s health problems, suggest that Donald Rumsfeld should be shot, and that hope that Clarence Thomas’ wife feeds him enough artery-clogging foods to bring on a hasty and life-ending grabber.
NAMECALLING
It always ends up here when the liberal’s frustration over his position being at war with logic and facts erupts into an emotional tantrum that would make a shrieking, sleep-deprived 3-year-old look rational.
There you have it. One final thing: try to be kind to these poor creatures. The more intelligent ones can be detoxed through frequent exposure to logic, facts and genuine information. So what I’m saying is have them listen to my show.
Thanks for checking in!
On Easter Sunday, one of my nieces faced a reoccurring question from several of her annoying relatives, including yours truly; specifically, “When do we get to meet him?” “Him,” of course, is her current squeeze. As she has explained in the past, he is opposed to the war in Iraq and isn’t eager to face a roomful of enthusiastic supporters of President Bush, so he stays home. I think she’s underestimating her friend and being a tad unfair to the rest of us. We’re conservatives. We’re not going to make a discussion of public policy personal. Besides, you can run, but you can’t hide. If she’s telling the truth about the reason he’s making himself scarce, eventually, he’s going to have to grow a spine and show up. She could be making this whole thing up. The real reason could have more to do with my husband’s jokes, but that’s another story.
Never having met the young man, of course, what I’m about to say is mere speculation, but that never stops me, so here I go. I suspect that, despite her denials, that he is a liberal. Regular listeners to my show know that my attitude toward liberals is like my attitude toward anyone suffering from a debilitating mental syndrome. Denial, as the old saying goes, is not just a river in Egypt, my liberal friends, so if you are a liberal, what’s with this “I’m an independent” or “I’m a progressive” BS? If you are liberal, say it loud, say it proud, I say. Then be able to say why you proudly wear the “L” and hope your audience gets most of its news about current events from Comedy Central, late-night monologues or Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update. Then at least you’ll have a fighting chance of selling the series of bizarre conspiracy theories buttressed by non-existent ‘information’ and ‘facts’ that only a Michael Moore could love that is modern American liberalism. In any case, redemption is available to all, but only those who face reality and overcome their denial have any chance of receiving it.
Of course, stealth is central to liberalism. After all, if they tell people what they are really supporting, they will have an appeal limited to the seriously emotionally disturbed or demented. Who else is in favor of racial discrimination, slavery and complete social breakdown (‘affirmative action,’ ‘progressive taxation’ and ‘alternative lifestyles’ sound so much nicer, don’t they?) So often they won’t cop to it and will usually try the ‘independent’ ‘moderate’ or ‘progressive’ thing. How can you out them? Those phony, euphemistic labels are real red flags. In addition, watch for the following three phases of arguing with liberals. In my experience, they occur in order with regularity.
MOCKING LAUGHTER
“Oh yeah right,’ the liberal might sneeringly and sarcastically say. “I’m sure you almost believe that!” Or “You don’t seriously believe that, DO YOU?’ said with an underlying chuckle. You should realize that liberals are so used to having their point of view validated by the partisan media and the popular culture that they might find your statement that “President Bush is one of the brightest, most visionary people to occupy the office” as strange and unfamiliar as the truth is to Bill Clinton. Their friends and acquaintances are probably liberals, too, and if anyone of them said anything like that, he/she would definitely be throwing a real knee-slapper out there to delight the assembled group of enlightened libs. So, you might have to repeat your statement with a straight face. It’s fun, though. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to suppress laughter after saying something like “Whether or not we ever find WMD in Iraq makes zero difference about whether the war was legal, justified or moral,” not because the statement is funny—it’s absolutely and incontrovertibly true. It’s hilarious to see the look of astonishment on the face of liberals who realize that I am absolutely serious. Sometimes they get that look that dogs get when they tilt their heads to the side, desperate to understand sounds so unrecognizable.
FEIGNED MORAL OUTRAGE
Once they realize that you are serious, the liberal will get up on his high horse and inveigh against your hideous lack of compassion and meanness. “How DARE you say that it’s ok to starve children?” (to someone who suggests that throwing more federal money down the latest rathole social program might not be the answer to every social ill, for example). This from the same people who express delight over John Ashcroft’s health problems, suggest that Donald Rumsfeld should be shot, and that hope that Clarence Thomas’ wife feeds him enough artery-clogging foods to bring on a hasty and life-ending grabber.
NAMECALLING
It always ends up here when the liberal’s frustration over his position being at war with logic and facts erupts into an emotional tantrum that would make a shrieking, sleep-deprived 3-year-old look rational.
There you have it. One final thing: try to be kind to these poor creatures. The more intelligent ones can be detoxed through frequent exposure to logic, facts and genuine information. So what I’m saying is have them listen to my show.
Thanks for checking in!