| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Big Government- Hot Air
- Michelle Malkin
- Wheeling & dealing: Snowe pow-wows with Obama; Landrieu, Schumer, Daschle behind the scenes
- Saturday in the Senate: Cash for Cloture; Reid gets 60; Update: 8:15pm Eastern cloture vote – 60-39; Voinovich absent; Dems invoke Teddy Kennedy; Reid: “Ted would be happy.”
- Another day, another Berkeley tantrum
- Jake Tapper
- Lynn Sweet
Hysterical revisionism
Noel Sheppard writes the best piece yet contradicting Clinton’s outbursts against Fox News’ Sunday host Chris Wallace. He also makes a point worth mentioning, and one I hadn’t considered until now:
Just imagine President Bush speaking this way to a member of the media when he is being grilled either during a press conference, or in the middle of any of his interviews since he became president. Or getting in the face of his interviewer and tapping on the host’s notepad that’s sitting on his lap.
Imagine that happening with GWB. The howls of outrage would be heard from here to Aussieland. Cries of “reporter intimidation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” would fill the blogosphere, op/ed pages of the NYT, etc.
The MSM, as it stands today, almost appears to be in defense mode for the Bubbinski, barely containing their admiration for he-who-walks-on-water and his agitated, defensive appearance on Fox News – and in some cases, they are defending him. Standard operating procedure, of course, as this clip from CBS’ Early Show demonstrates.
Update I 8:33 PM: More finger pointing from Bubba – in a 2004 interview with ABC’s Peter Jennings.
Update II 9:00 PM: Here are Chris Wallace’s thoughts on the interview he did with Clinton.
Update III 9:13 PM: LOTS of searches on the search engines for the Wallace/Clinton interview. I’m getting a lot of hits for it today.
Prior:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
14 Responses to “Hysterical revisionism”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
It’s just Slick Willey trying to revise history again…..nothing new
ChefJeff, moved this comment to today’s open thread
–ST
This is kind of like political natural selection at work, political Darwinism if you like. Republican politicians get constant harassment and “tough” questioning, it goes beyond tough, to downright idiotic and hostile, whereas Democrats get soft balls from sycophantic journalists. So, when it comes time that someone does ask them something pointed, the Dems fall apart, while the Republicans are able to take it.
Survival of the fittest at its finest.
Good Point Sev…
I don’t think Bill was ready for the tough questions. I actually like Bill Clinton as a person, but he was put in the office to do a job. And to me it looks like he wasn’t focused enough on his responsibilities.
He will never live the Monica thing down, and he shouldn’t, as it was completely improper. I also noticed someone pointing out certain mannerisms that Bill Clinton used during the Chris Wallace interview.
They match up with some of the mannerisms he used when he was in a tough spot with the Monica situation. If I was playing Texas hold ‘em with him, he would be pretty easy to figure out.
I can’t imagine George W. Bush speaking this way to a member of the media, because I can’t suspend reality that well. A certain level of mastery of the English language would be required of him first, and Dubya’s well documented deficiencies in that department remove the idea from any rational mind. One clip of the Bush the second squirming in his seat while speaking with his mouth full of food at this year’s G8 Summit ought to have removed the possibility of anyone imagining his response. Neither Bush II, nor any of his people, would permit him to be in a situation where he suddenly must answer a previously undisclosed question intelligently. Bill saw through the question and its structure and called the questioner to the carpet on it without letting him get away with it. Wallace forgot he was not addressing a garden variety fool in Democrat attire, and got slapped for it on national television.
Besides, the entire world got to see President Bush when he responded to hard questions from his own party, barely a week ago. He spluttered and stopped just short of a tantrum, and showed us that even his political allies can catch hell for daring to speak the truth to him when he doesn’t like it. He didn’t poke anyone with his fingers because he was up on a podium.
And he wouldn’t be able to put any intelligent point into words the English speaking world could comprehend even if he was.
Leftist nonsense from shipwrecked…
Not surprising that he leads off with the usual ad hominem snarkiness. That’s how the left normally opens when they have no factual grounds for the spew to follow. Of course, it overlooks the Ivy League Master’s Degree the President has earned, but since when do facts matter on the left?
In addition to two sets of unscripted presidential debates, a quick internet search will yield a ready number of no-rules one-on-one interviews with tough and often unfriendly interviewers. Sev’s point here is well-taken. Clinton is so used to sycophant interviews with the likes of Larry King and Dan Rather that anything remotely approaching a challenge sets off his well-known temper.
As a side point, think about this – Clinton could have gone a long way toward recovering some good will lost from the threats his minions made in the lead-up to P2911. All he’d have had to do was own up graciously and honestly to the errors his administration made. But you’d be hard pressed to find too many cases of gracious behavior from Clinton, much less honesty…
Translation: Bill had no idea how to answer a straightforward quiestion and resorted to a hodgepodge of accusations and conspiracy theories in an effort to change the subject.
The President spoke with passion about serious issues related to defending this country. No “spluttering” there. Clinton, on the other hand, gave a 14-carat exhibit of self-pity and irresponsibility. It wasn’t his fault he only talked with his CIA director once in eight years – it was the conservatives! the Republicans! and, of course, the neocons (left wing’s code word for the jooooos).
Nice symmetry. Begin and end with the old “Bush-is-dumb” meme. BDS at its finest.
By the way, ship, since you claim to be big on putting intelligent points into words, maybe you can explain why your far-left buddies have been completely unable to express one, single, coherent, rational thought about how to confront the worldwide threat from islamofascism. We’d love to hear one.
Simply pathetic interview, showed clintoon for what he is, an acomplished liar and a man desperate to save his most tainted legacy.
Good job GWR
Good call, Shipwrecked. Because that’s the real issue here. Whether or not Bush speaks well in front of an audience. Forget terrorism and the economy, Bush’s skills as a public speaker is indeed, what’s at the heart of the coming elections.
Thank you, again, for reminding me why I have voted Republican all my life, and will continue to do so.
Was listeningto Bill Bennet this morning and he had Byron York on, which brought up an interesting possibility.
Shortly before the interview, Clinton has a meting of several left-wing bloggers in his Harlem office.
The question the begs an answer to was perhaps this was more of a “gotcha” on foxnews, a setup, and Clinton was just waiting on them to ask the right question so he could leap off and attack them.
York posed a possibility that CLinton “could” have been acting for the outrage in trying to do what the left-wing bloggers wanted him to do.
Interesting theory and one I am entertaining because Clinton was never one to be stupid. He HAD to have known he was going to be asked certain questions, evene a it hard hitting ones from the dreaded Fox News.
I have never heard Cliton speak like his wife or the left wing bloggers before, full of BDS syndrom and then some.
Right Wing Conspiracy, hatchet job, out to get him, attacking him…ect.
Take a moment and think, has he EVER spoke like this?
Who normally talks like this, besides his so-called wife Hillary, you normally hear BDS like this from left wing bloggers and their ‘crew’, who several of them just happened to be invited for a sit down with Clinton a short time before the interview according to York.
Well, sanity, he has spoken like this, remember his finger wagging and red face when he said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman!” I’ve read some of the same ponderings, and I certainly can believe that he would do something as Machieavellian as that, but I can also very easily believe that he really is not capable of handling criticism and is so used to softballs that he has no idea of how to stay calm and collected under pressure.
Bill Clinton is the most decieving president. He could not handle criticism and did not know how to answer challenging questions. Good point that if Bush had done what Clinton did to Wallace, the mainstream media would be outraged. This is sad but true.
It would be quite newsworthy for bush to speak this way. Recalling this many facts when the interview was on a different subject, turning to a topic where the soundbites are not memorized? You’d get a lot of superlatives and maybe a mixed metaphor from bush. but not substance.
- So now we hear that the excuse that he “got legal advice from his people not to go after Ben Ladin” is also false. The state department had handed down an indictment on Usama 8 months earlier. The man’s a veritable walking filing cabinet of mis-statements.
- Chris Wallace’s said on FOX today that Clinton’s press sect. was trying desperately to end the interview. Wonder why. He also said that Clinton was heard to say on the way out, yelling at his staffers; “If any of you ever set me up like that again you’re all fired”.
- Contrite, childish, narcissistic nut job. But then we all knew that way back in the Lewinski days.
- Bang