Monday, December 13, 2010

Fluff Piece of the Year

What happened to 60 Minutes? Wasn't this supposed to be the upper echelon of investigative journalism? Isn't 60 Minutes where the hard questions are asked?  Well anyone watching last night's interview with the next Speaker of the House would think that they were watching a story on Inside Edition rather than anything worthy of a spot on the once intrepid investigative journalism show.

Through John Boehner's blubbering, we found out he was one of twelve children, he met his wife while working as a night janitor to pay his way through college, and he hates the word "compromise."  In fact, he rejects the word altogether because it sounds like you're selling out. "Finding common ground" is an acceptable phrase however. He wouldn't even say the word. Couldn't bring himself to do it.  Is this a serious man?

Where were the questions on the Republicans' opposition to DADT? Why, if they're serious about deficit reduction, did they insist on extending the tax cuts to the top two percent of income earners at the expense of holding up extended unemployment benefits in Obama's compromise, or better yet, letting all the tax cuts expire?  Boehner showed he was bothered by President Obama's use of the phrase "hostage takers" saying it showed a lack of respect. But where was Boehner's respect for Obama when they rejected an initial invitation to the White House to discuss the path forward after the November elections?

But no such questions in last night's fluff piece in where most of America gets to meet (probably for the first time) John Boehner. All they saw was an admirable, pull yourself up by the bootstraps guy with a penchant for sobbing. It's a shame that he doesn't remember the roots he fought so hard to climb out of when denying others help by blocking critical legislation.

Oh, and one more thing about the crying issue. I don't care that he cries. What I do care about is the double standard. If Nancy Pelosi had slobbered all over herself one tenth as much as this guy has, she would have been vilified as an overemotional, unstable woman. But Boehner? Well, shit, he's just a regular Joe who loves America and is living the American Dream! He's allowed a little leeway in the waterworks department.


Anonymous said...

Hey BC

I’m not a regular follower of any one blog or blogs in general so just happened upon your offering. Unlike you, I do care. What do I care about?; sound logic and straightforwardness.

Let’s examine some of your statements in relation to my concerns:

You say that, “[You] don’t care that he cries.” However, several of your lines betray this assertion. You begin paragraph two with ‘Boehner’s blubbering’ and end the paragraph with, “Is this a serious man?” ‘[His] penchant for sobbing’ centers your paragraph four. You then end the paragraph by implying that his sobbing is either insincere or that it is devoid of empathy for those in need. Your crescendo paragraph has Boehner (soon to be second in the succession line for POTUS) slobbering (all over himself) 10 times more than what would be required to label some as overemotional and unstable.

Well BC, I’m willing to allow Boehner some leeway in the waterworks department and allow you some leeway in the ‘logic and straightforwardness’ department. If you fancy yourself as a serious blogger (I’m not sure yet) I will have less compassion for your next offering.

An average Joe

Broadway Carl said...

You're right, Average Joe. Let me rephrase because you've taken everything in my post regarding Boehner's crying into account in your critique except my last statement. I wouldn't care if it weren't for the double standard.

Yes, I started my second paragraph with "Boehner's blubbering" and ended with "Is this a serious man?" But if you bothered to read the everything in between, you'd know that I was questioning his seriousness in his refusal to use the word "compromise," so what is your point exactly?

I didn't infer there was a prerequisite amout of crying needed to hold Boehner's position of 2nd in line of succession after VP. For example, I think Rep. Steve King is overemotional and totally unstable, but I've never witnessed him shed a tear. And nowhere did I mention an insincerity about Boehner's crying in relation to helping others achieve the American Dream he values so highly, considering his ideology really is preventing him from helping at all.

So I'll allow you some leeway in the "serious commenter" department.

But is that all you're concerned about? If you fancy yourself a serious commenter (I'm not sure yet), maybe you can enlighten us with some substantive answers on the other points of my post, namely explaining Boehner's and the GOP's positions on DADT and deficit reduction. Hopefully you'll do a better job than he did. And please help us understand his offense at the supposed lack of respect shown to him by the President which at worse, was reciprocation. I happen to think his was a thin-skinned response to hurt feelings. Just a guess judging by the interview, no in-depth analysis on that one.

And you know where you can put your compassion.

Thanks for reading!

Anonymous said...

Broadway Carl

All ‘serious’ communication must be founded on sound logic and straightforwardness. If the foundation is not there then the dialog strongly tends toward overemotional and unstable – just plain unreliable – back-and-forths.

You have made it clear that you do fancy yourself as a serious blogger so, despite your encouragement to shove it, I will have less compassion on your most recent offering.

1) You did not say that ‘[you] wouldn’t care …’ you said that ‘[you] don’t care… .’ There’s a big difference between the two and the context does not allow you to trade the one for the other.

2) When you want to sound ‘nice’ you talk about Boehner’s crying but your big gun references are all pejoratives: blubbering, sobbing, slobbered, waterworks. Your recent offering can’t paint over your original intent. To try and do so is just plain insincere!

3) I could go on and on but out of compassion I will cease and desist and turn the corner.

As for 60 Minutes, we are in total agreement. They should ask the tough questions. But, BC, why did you have high expectations?! Don’t you read your own blog?: “… the once intrepid investigative journalism show.”

As for ‘compromise’ and ‘finding common ground’ I don’t like either one. I hope that Senator Boehner and the rest of the establishment get out of the way and let the new wave right our floundering country.

As for DADT … wait; you’re asking but I’m not telling. You loaded your blog with the questions that weren’t asked but that you feel should have been asked. If you want Mr. Boehner’s answers then ask him. And, how do you know that 60 Minutes didn’t ask him the questions?? They do the editing. Maybe they edited out the good stuff and left in the parts that made Senator Boehner look like a whimpering wuss. After all the MSM edited out the really good parts of the Barack Obama and Reverend Wright … don’t get me started.

As for Senator’s Boehner’s taking offense at the ‘hostage takers’ phrase … seasoned politicians should have a very thick skin. However, there is a big difference between the President labeling duly elected officials as ‘hostage takers’ and duly elected officials labeling their RSVP to the President as a ‘scheduling conflict.’

Thanks for blogging.

Once an Average Joe but now a Regular Joe

Broadway Carl said...

Regular nee Average Joe,

In response to #1: I admitted you were correct and rephrased. Was that not clear?

In response to #2: What makes you think I wanted to sound “nice” in regards to Boehner? Is there a reading comprehension problem? Your projection of me trying to sound “nice” is completely unfounded. Looks as if you’re not following your own “logic and straightforwardness” standards. I don't know Boehner personally, so I'm indifferent to him. My dislike is for his ideology. But I never pretended to sound "nice."

In response to #3: Why do you insist on compassion? You’re obviously here to disagree with me and state your case, so say what you feel. Continue to try to insult me in your own backhanded manner. Don’t let compassion get in the way. I don’t need it – I want your logical, straightforward opinion. Don’t worry about hurting my feelings. It’s okay, I don’t cry easily. ;)

As for 60 Minutes, I don’t know how old you are of if you watch the show or know the history of it, but it had a reputation of being the preeminent investigative news show. With Harry Reasoner, Ed Bradley, Mike Wallace, Morley Safer, they asked the hard questions, they dug into the heart of an issue. This piece however, was an introduction of John Boehner to the American people who most likely don’t follow politics on a regular basis. My questions were more rhetorical in nature. So no, I don’t believe that the questions I posed were asked of him and then edited out. But if you want to believe in some media conspiracy to edit the piece to make Boehner look like a “whimpering wuss,” go right ahead. Anyone who knew Boehner before then knows he cries at the drop of a hat.

Oh, and your stance on President Obama, Rev. Wright blah, blah, blah, is nonsense. As if the MSM didn’t inundate us with that story for weeks on end. What proof do you have that “the really good parts” were edited out? Get over it, Compassionate Joe. Let it go, you’ll feel better. But your “new wave right” comment explains it all. You’re a Tea Party Patriot. There is no compromise. There is no common ground. And yet, your taxes were cut by this latest compromise should it pass. Are you happy about that? Shouldn’t you be?

You probably didn’t follow the link I provided on the GOP leaders’ refusal of their invitation to the White House due to “scheduling conflicts,” so I’ll provide some quotes here:

“It makes no difference who is occupying the White House – when the Office of the President asks you to attend a meeting and stay for dinner, it is completely disrespectful to take a pass. I don’t care if you are congressman or a cab driver.

…And whether you like this president or not, the office represents far more than the individual who currently sits at the desk. Once the American people elect a president, he or she is the president of all Americans, including Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. When your leader asks for your participation, you don’t say no unless you’ve got something far bigger than simply being too busy.

…I seriously doubt that there is a self-respecting American anywhere – with the exception of these Congressional egomaniacs- who would reject a request to meet with the President. This is simply not something Americans do.”

Theirs was the height of disrespect. There is no excuse. And that disrespect began long before the “hostage takers” rhetoric. Let’s hope Boehner does have thick skin because his term hasn’t even begun yet.

Thanks for reading.

Anonymous said...

Broadway Carl

#1 – Your wording was not clear. Plus whether you ‘don’t’ or ‘wouldn’t sans the double standard’ my query is: why not care? Do you want a blubbering, sobbing, slobbered, waterworks kind of a guy as a potential ‘The Guy?’

#2 – BC full meaning does not come from the individual words but from the body of the work. Your original piece has the senator profusely slobbering all over himself and has Senator Pelosi slobbering very little or not at all. In contrast your reply was quite measured; some might even say nice.

#3 – I was just getting up to speed but sadly I’m losing interest and am just about done with this thread. You might hook me again if you can point to several of my continued, backhanded insults. Of course, as you see it, they were only tries at indirect insulting (talk about thin-skin!). But then that’s to be expected for I’m not much of a commenter and I’m a just plain lousy insulter.

From Average Joe to Regular Joe to Joe Cool – and with that to you a blessed Yule

Broadway Carl said...

#1 - My wording was perfectly clear. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

#2 - I was indifferent to Boehner in my post as I was in my response. That is not being nice, it's being indifferent because some might say "All ‘serious’ communication must be founded on sound logic and straightforwardness. If the foundation is not there then the dialog strongly tends toward overemotional and unstable – just plain unreliable." Sound familiar?

#3 - Attempts at insulting me to get my goat:

"[I'm willing to] allow you some leeway in the ‘logic and straightforwardness’ department."

"If you fancy yourself as a serious blogger (I’m not sure yet)"

"... sadly I’m losing interest and am just about done with this thread..."

Condescension is not becoming of those who say they're attempting to hold back out of "compassion."

Happy Holidays.

Broadway Carl said...

... my advice to you: develop some tough skin for it’s a rough world out there...

So am I to conclude from this advice that I should not respond to your comments for fear of being perceived as thin-skinned? Done.

Broadway Carl said...

The Crying Game