SHOCKWAVES

I'm a big fan of action movies.  The bigger the explosion, the better.  Action movies are one of the few genres that I am willing to plunk down the money to see in the theater because they are just so much better on the big screen.  My personal favorite is what I like to call the 'super explosion', where the detonation is so enormous that a visible shock wave rolls out from the center.  The best ones have the earth rising and sinking back down like ripples on a pond - preferably in slo-mo.

I honestly wish I could have watched the presidential debate and the ensuing reportage in a movie theater because that was the biggest super explosion I have ever seen on screen.  The shock waves are still resonating, nearly a week later. 

The first ripple was the moderator himself.  While Jim Lehrer did a decent job, it seemed like he was in a state of complete shock at the dismal, lackluster, information-free performance of the Most Gifted Orator of Our Generation™.  What was most shocking was that this wasn't an issue of a few gaffes or an annoying tick, it was a 90-minute long fail of epic proportions on several levels - the long pauses, the blame game, the endless distortions regurgitated even in the face of Romney denials (and, later, media refutation), the constant downward gaze (did he have the answers written on his shoes or something?  Maybe he hoped the podium would sprout a teleprompter).  Expect the President to get more help from the moderators in future debates.  Can't have another debacle like that messing up the narrative!

The second ripple fanned out to encompass the Twitterverse - which had it's biggest night in it's short history - and the FaceBook community where the fight over Big Bird really hit it's stride.  Because after all, the most important thing going on right now isn't events in Libya and the Middle East; it isn't the failing economy; it isn't even about the importance and impact of Obamacare.  No, the most important thing on social media - even almost a week later - is whether Big Bird, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, should stay on the government dole.  Good to know the Twitterati are focused on the important issues!

Ripple number three was the media response, which seemed to be a combination of bewilderment and disbelief, with a dash of sarcasm and unfocused rage for flavor.  The disappointment was palpable, like a thick, heavy wave creeping down the spines of the One's most fervent followers, finally nestling deep in the pit of their gut, cold and unrelenting. Six days later it lays there still, even though they have desperately tried to distract from it - even going so far as to use Big Bird for their political ends.  Talk about desperate!  Even worse, the folks at Sesame Workshop are not amused by the new Obama attack ad featuring their big, yellow money maker and are demanding it be taken down. 

It seems like it finally broke through the media hive mind that their magic man might just have more in common with the bumbling guy behind the curtain after all.  The epicenter of the blast seems to have been the MSNBC post-debate panel (even the Canadians were making fun of them).  Shell shocked would be a good descriptor for the panelists.  Chris Matthews had an on-camera nervous breakdown, Ed Schultz looked like he needed a scotch, a teddy bear, and a good cry (and not necessarily in that order), and Rachel Maddow was in deep, deep denial and grasping at any straw she could find.  The disappointment wasn't just restricted to MSNBC - not even close.  Most notably, Al Gore over at Current TV apparently suffered a little temporary insanity in his vain quest for the answer to the burning question in every progressive heart that night: Why?!?

The fourth, deepest, and most important ripple was the one that shook the electorate.  As the great Dr. Charles Krauthammer said of Romney's performance:

"I think what he did last night is he dissolved $150 million of negative ads and turned them to dust."

Suddenly, the carefully crafted veil that Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) had been weaving for months was yanked away.  Suddenly, an almost "bizzaro world" reality was revealed, where the world's most evil corporate raider was revealed as a compassionate, credible potential president, and the infallible, godlike creature so revered for deigning to step down to earth and grace us all with his omnipotence was exposed as a man whose soaring oratory that so swept them off their feet was apparently really almost entirely due to a TelePrompTer and lots of eye contact and prep time.  Suddenly, people remembered how incredibly boring their college professors were - even the "cool" ones.  Suddenly people realized Mitt Romney didn't have horns - but did have answers.  Suddenly the post-modern Romney construct was replaced with reality for all to see.

The mystique has been ripped away.  In it's place is a man whose inevitable reelection is now not quite as inevitable as it once was and another whose unsuitability is being thoroughly reconsidered.  And I do mean thoroughly.

To say that President Obama was the only epicenter of the blast would do Governor Romney a great disservice.  Most good explosions have several points of impact, and this was no exception. The man performed like a virtuoso.  It really was a phenomenal performance for him.  He was relaxed, assured, got his points across clearly and concisely, refused to allow lies to remain unchallenged and did what a true leader does - took command of the situation and ran the show with an ease, amiability and competence that was worthy of respect.   In short, he looked - and acted - far more presidential than the actual president.

It wasn't just that Obama was a dismal (grim?) failure, it was that Romney was wildly successful.  As he is with just about every other thing he has set his mind to.

The full effects of the debate have yet to be seen.  The ripples are still resonating as the president and his surrogates desperately scramble for excuses and scapegoats.  The president has been saying that the Mitt Romney at the debate wasn't the "real" Romney.  What else would he say?  That in reality he knows he looked like a frat boy who hasn't been showing up for classes what with all the partying, and had to cram hard to try to (unsuccessfully) pass finals?  He seemed annoyed that he had to be there, and it was obvious he didn't have the nerve to brazenly trumpet the low, false attacks he so robustly parrots on the campaign trail when the object of his lies and distortions stands six feet away with a pleasant smile and direct gaze.  The high pitch and hesitation in his voice the first time he trotted out the $5 trillion lie gave him away.  Not so easy to sling that mud when you're looking the victim of your smears in the eye, huh?

Unfortunately for the president, the entire night seems to have been the highest rated, most followed political event in a very long time.  Needless to say, not a good time to choke.  No doubt Gov. Rick Perry feels his pain (and a great deal of relief for no longer being the poster boy for choking in a debate).  As for the exposure Mitt Romney got from the debate, that has translated into cold, hard cash - more than $12 million in the first forty-eight hours after the debate - and a potent combination of increased enthusiasm and voter conversion (that sometimes stirs up controversy). The bump in the polls has far exceeded expectations, with the most stunning turn around coming from Pew Research's poll of likely voters, which had Obama up 51-43% pre-debate and Romney taking the lead, 49-45%, in the three days post-debate. 

All in all, the debate was an explosion of epic proportions, complete with all of the shock and awe such a happening generates.  The challenger strode forth from the blast crater with celebratory fireworks exploding behind him while the president staggered, burned and bloody, from the smoking ruin of his negative campaign. 

Truly a debate for the ages.

On a side note, does it bother anyone else that the man who has been running the show (almost singlehandedly, if you believe the press) for the past three-plus years was so woefully devoid of facts?  This goes beyond the debate, too.  On Letterman, he couldn't seem to remember the current national debt of $16 trillion - after all, he's not worried about it.  He was apparently also unaware of intelligence on the bloodbath in Libya, continuing to peddle the laughable line that some stupid video caused the "spontaneous" mob action more than ten days after the administration knew it was a planned terror attack.  At what point do words like "incompetent", "negligent" or, perhaps more aptly, "cheap politicization sheerly for the retention of power" start to percolate up - and not to describe the republican in the race?  Even fellow administration officials were uneasy about the plan to scapegoat the video in order to cover up the egregeous policy failures that resulted in the death of a US ambassador and three others.  Hopefully Romney will mention all of this and more at the next debate, possibly setting off a second super explosion. 

One other thing: Does this frighten anyone else?  Do people really not know what a debate is anymore?  God help us:

Read more...

SHOCKWAVES

DID THEY REALLY JUST SAY THAT?

There may be hope yet!  The first step towards recovery is admitting there's a problem, right?  Can we consider this the first step?



Considering this is coming from the network that has been, by far, the most egregious offender, this is quite
an admission, isn't it?  Mika's tangible dismay is priceless.  You can see her having a "darn it, we do it too!" (or was it a "darn it, why were they stupid enough to get caught on camera?") moment.  I'm sure she won't stymied by it for long.

Oh, and don't you just love their nonchalance about something they are normally fervently, ardently and vociferously denying?   No need to deny when you're in the echo chamber, eh boys?

Read more...

DID THEY REALLY JUST SAY THAT?

IN DEFENSE OF RAND PAUL

The Rand Paul tempest in a teapot that has been unfolding for the past week has been a case study in how to sabotage a perfectly good, potentially highly successful campaign.  A textbook case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, if you will.  It's also a perfect example of the pointless depths the media will sink to in order to control the debate.  Paul's commendable attempt at being open and transparent in his views seems to have backfired on him.

Mr. Paul won his primary by a landslide, there is no denying that.  As of last Thursday, he was leading his democrat rival for the Kentucky Senate seat by a 25 point margin.  He seemed to be a shoo-in for the seat come November.  Even better, he was chosen over a GOP sponsored pick by the Tea Party, giving them some real electoral muscle and sending a message to the establishment that the run-of-the-mill candidates just weren't up to snuff.

Mr. Paul, and the Tea Party by extension, was flying high after the election.  But then he went on MSNBC and did an interview with Rachel Maddow.  Ms. Maddow went after Paul over a video interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal back in April (skip to the 59 minute mark for his comments).  In the interview, Paul was asked if he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Suddenly, with a single question, this incredibly promising candidate is battling for his political life. 

How this issue is pertinent to what is going on the country today is anyone's guess, but they sure did strike gold, didn't they?

Let's just try to put his comments in context - something the left is always clamoring for - before we continue.  He told Maddow (and the Courier-Journal) that he would have tried to change the legislation.  NOT that he would have voted against it, attempted to filibuster it or try to repeal it.   His problem with the legislation was that the corrective behavior on this issue, solely at the private level, should have been consumer based, not federal intervention.  Economic pressure to bring about change, not governmental mandates. Those businesses that continued to discriminate against people because of the color of their skin should have been boycotted by their customers until they changed their ways.  It goes to the heart of the debate over how much the federal government should be allowed to intervene in our lives.

Maddow's attempts to say that he somehow condoned the violence of the era was ridiculous, but it is also pertinent to Paul's opinion.  Yes, people were beaten for sitting at a lunch counter.  The reason this happened was because of institutional racism in the form of Jim Crow laws.  Police were not required to intervene in these cases, and when they did, it was in support of the businesses in question. After all, the people who were originally in violation of the law were the protesters, who, by law, could not sit at the counter.  Making the black community equal in the eyes of the law was necessary to stop the beatings Maddow was so focused on.  Ms. Maddow seems to have amnesia as to the role the police, state and local officials had in segregation.  Certainly there were business owners who thought the Jim Crow laws were perfectly proper and fitting.  No doubt there were also those who did not, but they were helpless to do anything about it because of the laws protecting such reprehensible actions. 

What Mr. Paul advocated was removing the biased laws and allowing human decency to do the rest.  The problem with the left is, they don't give people the chance to do what is right.  They feel people must be taken by the hand and "guided" down the proper path.  And let's not forget that it was democrats (the "Redeemers") who ran the South and enacted the Jim Crow laws. 

Boiled down, he feels that institutions do not have the right to be racist or biased, but people do. 

This is about more than just the Civil Right Act, though.  Ms. Maddow had an agenda for that interview - corner Paul and paint him as a racist.  This is classic Alinsky Rule #13 - 'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.' What better way to do that than imply that he is racist?  It's the indefensible accusation, after all.  Haven't we all learned over the past two years that that's what it's really all about with these people?  Bring it back to racism, because once they manage to label you that way, you will always be fighting it.  You have to give her credit - she's certainly tenacious.  She even managed, at the end of the interview, to add this little gem:

Dr. Rand Paul, Republican nominee for the United States Senate in Kentucky, where he'll be representing not only his own views about how to live but what kind of laws we should have in America....

That's the sum-up of the whole exercise - the big, flashing 'danger' sign the liberal media is desperate to illuminate - be careful, you idiot voters, this racist guy will be single-handedly deciding our laws if he gets in office.  The possibility that the man could or would force a repeal of the '64 Act is laughable, but what else do they have, really?  As Alinsky says, the ends justify the means.  Add in the old adage "Desperate times call for desperate measures" and you have the current liberal attack formula.

Let's not forget that Mr. Paul is a libertarian at heart.  The reason the Tea Party embraced him was because of his inherent distrust of federal intervention.  This is often a problem with the libertarian viewpoint.  It sometimes runs the risk of being taken to the extreme - borderline anarchy - or is perceived that way.  Those views, in this climate of a hyper-nanny state, are total apostasy.

On one hand, Mr. Paul makes sense - desegregating public buildings, institutions and programs is certainly within the milieu of the federal government, but forcing a private business owner to serve people is not.  And no, I do not think that businesses should not serve people because of the color of their skin - but I do think they have a right to withhold service, no matter how reprehensible their reason for it may be.  But that is easily countered, because it is also MY right to take my business to someone who doesn't espouse those policies.  Which is Mr. Paul's point.   The problem with Paul's rationale is that, in a society where racism was the norm and had been for generations, would anyone have boycotted the places that refused to serve the black community?   In a perfect world, we would all hope that basic human decency would win out over something as appalling as racial segregation, but, unfortunately, the Deep South in the 1960's was anything but perfect. 

In the meantime, Mr. Paul has inadvertently created a media feeding frenzy.  After all, nothing says "racist" like someone who doesn't agree with the Civil Rights Act!  This is really a twofer for the liberal media.  Not only do they get a golden opportunity to sink a republican senatorial campaign, but they also get to take the tea parties down a notch, too.  No wonder the media has been semi-orgasmic in their coverage of the "controversy".

They are using fear to sink a very popular candidate - as if there have ever or will ever be any attempts to repeal the Civil Rights Act.  Puhleeze.  This also has the bonus of sucking the air out of the room and leaving no space to talk about other things, like the administration's lack of response to the Gulf oil spill, government unions' role in the collapse of the European union, the rank hypocrisy of our president signing a freedom of press act ten months into a moratorium on press conferences on his part, unemployment back up to 9.9%,  the stock market's most recent roller-coaster impersonation, or the president's outright demagoguery of the Arizona immigration bill.

Who really knows how damaging this will be to Paul come November?  The Courier-Journal most certainly is working this angle as much as possible, as is most of the left-wing neo-pravda media.  They are happy to paint Paul as a racist by implication and spread the fear to Kentucky's black community that if he is voted into office, there is a chance segregation will take hold again.  It is fear baiting at it's most crass.

That Mr. Paul didn't see this coming when he was talking about a 46 year old law that has no relevance in today's politics is worrying.  This is settled law that had no pertinence to the current debate, and bringing it up should have set off some alarm bells for him.  A more savvy politician would have seen the trap for what it was, especially coming from far-left media like the Courier-Journal and MSNBC.  Of course, the main reason he gained the Tea Party endorsement was because he wasn't an entrenched, career politician who parses everything he says and makes no stands on any issues, relevant or not.  He is a principled man who doesn't pull his punches.  Perhaps he has learned from this episode that politics is a contact sport, and, as with all contact sports, strategy is required.  Sometimes that means pulling a punch or two to save your energy for the real battles.

Read more...

IN DEFENSE OF RAND PAUL