January 31, 2011

Explained: Bachmann Was Looking Off To The Side Because the Media Insisted On Bringing Their Own Camera, Which She Wasn't Looking At
— Ace

The set-up was that the Tea Party Express had set up the camera for webcast, and mounted the TelePrompTer just above it (as they do) so that she'd be looking pretty much right at the webcast camera.

However, for purposes of televising the speech, FoxNews brought its own camera, which they set up next to the official one. That was the pool camera that CNN used for its coverage.

But Bachmann wasn't looking at that camera. She was looking at the one they'd set up. They tried to compromise, and suggest "Okay, if you're insisting on using another camera, let's put the TelePrompTer on yours, so she can look into that." FoxNews refused, deciding to do so would be to use their camera to service her speech, or, in their minds, to become part of the story instead of just reporting the story.

This was a very stupid call on Fox's part. Because, of course, the reason that Obama (and just about everyone else) can look right into the camera during a televised address is that the TelePrompTer is right above their camera, and they supply the feed the networks used. FoxNews (and CNN) were therefore not giving Bachmann the benefit of the same rules.

I don't know if they did this deliberately (it's possible -- I vented my own ire at Bachmann for trying, in my mind, to upstage an important rebuttal; it's possible that someone at Fox had the same annoyance), or if they were just being stupid.

But there you go-- that's the reason Bachmann wasn't looking at the camera is that the media insisted on not using her own camera as the feed, which they do for anyone else making that kind of direct address.

Saturday Night Live of course used this to spoof her in its cold open this Saturday (beginning of the clip here). (That's not really funny or worth watching -- I'm including it just because it's newsworthy, sort of.)

That said, while they did goof on her for something that turns out to have not been her fault, I thought it was a very mild spoof that wound up actually helping her a little.

Of all the attacks you can make on someone, goofing on them for a technical difficulty is pretty much the mildest. While they were busting on her for looking at the camera, they were not rebutting her facts and figures or suggesting they were in error.

Maybe people don't think like I do, but when a situation like that pops up, I assume (as a lawyer would) that facts not challenged are stipulated and admitted into evidence.

If I were a politician, and I had a left-leaning comedy show eager to attack me, I know I'd count myself ahead of the game if their only line of attack concerned some technical glitches.

A weak attack is almost a compliment -- it announces "This is all we've got."

Posted by: Ace at 09:04 AM | Comments (118)
Post contains 533 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Obama trying to open a locked door.  Guffaw!!!

Posted by: EC at January 31, 2011 09:08 AM (mAhn3)

2 As penance for this glitch we'll only call her stupid and crazy 100 times this week instead of the usual 200.

Posted by: The BSM at January 31, 2011 09:09 AM (4jFix)

3 Hitler never looked directly into a camera and look how that turned out. (Not too good from what I've been told.)

Posted by: Chris Matthews at January 31, 2011 09:10 AM (45DBC)

4 This will never hit the MFM, so everyone will just continue to think that she's a teabagging moron that can't face a camera.  Facts be DAMNED, damn you...

Posted by: Sponge © at January 31, 2011 09:10 AM (UK9cE)

5 I don't know if they did this deliberately (it's possible -- I vented my own ire at Bachmann for trying, in my mind, to upstage an important rebuttal; it's possible that someone at Fox had the same annoyance), or if they were just being stupid.

Keep in mind that Fox first tried to push off Rudy last time. When that didn't work they switched to McCain. They also invented the "fire in the belly meme for Fred last time. Fox loves them some RINO squishes. This was a pure hit job on Bauchman because Fox hates conservatives. That looking off to the right was what I found to be so unprofessional in that speech.

Fuck Fox I have about given them up to be just as bad as the rest of the MFM.

Posted by: Vic at January 31, 2011 09:10 AM (M9Ie6)

6 So the targeting moves over to Bachmann while the Palin Media Blackout goes into effect.   No bias, though.

Posted by: SurferDoc at January 31, 2011 09:11 AM (o3bYL)

7

She shouldn't have to explain shit.

Fuck Chris 'the Panama Canal is in Egypt' Matthews.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2011 09:12 AM (pLTLS)

8 We are no longer at war with Palin;  we are now at war with Bachmann

it's always cloudy in EastAsia......

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 31, 2011 09:15 AM (UqKQV)

9 She posted 2 videos last weekend that proved she was indeed looking at the web-cast camera.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 31, 2011 09:16 AM (sZ+lP)

10 Facts ?!  We don' got no stinkin' facts !!

 We don' got to show you no stinkin' facts !!!!!

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 31, 2011 09:16 AM (UqKQV)

11 "they did goof on her for something that turns out to have not been her fault"

Of course its her fault.  Is she too stupid to organize a speech with a video feed?  CNN screwed her over, but it's her own fault.

Posted by: Cherry π at January 31, 2011 09:17 AM (+sBB4)

12 OT - Unrest in North Africa and Middle East may spread to Syria

What began as a popular uprising that toppled the Tunisian government before spreading into Algeria, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan and, of course, Egypt, may now be headed for Syria.

Opposition movements in Syria are calling for mass protests on Saturday against the rule of President Bashar Al-Assad.

The Chinless Ophthalmologist currently in charge of Syria may emulate his father to quell this potential unrest.

Still, it looks like in the end, there will be only chaos.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 31, 2011 09:17 AM (9hSKh)

13 Yeah, I think we all knew this the day after her statement.

Ideally, politicians shouldn't have to rely on teleprompters to give a 15 minute presentation.  I wish she had occasionally moved away from her text and looked into the other camera(s), but c'est la vie. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 09:17 AM (pW2o8)

14 wow coke and nestle are pulling out of Egypt for "a while". 

Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 09:19 AM (p302b)

15 11 Alas, you are right. She should have kept checking on the weasel bastards until the curtain went up.

Posted by: SurferDoc at January 31, 2011 09:19 AM (o3bYL)

16 CNBS sent Erin Burnett to Cairo?  Who did she piss off?

Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 09:19 AM (p302b)

17 This is one of the reasons I like radio a hell of a lot more than television.  The message is heard.  That's all.  It may be a good suggestion to tell our potential candidates to focus their message on radio and the blogs. Let the 527's or whatever they're called now to do the visuals.

Posted by: Soona at January 31, 2011 09:19 AM (AdXKZ)

18 almost as if Fox wanted her to look bad... wierd.

Posted by: GOP Establishment at January 31, 2011 09:20 AM (3yT2W)

19 I think the glitch thing is silly. I still do not get why the fuck we needed a TP response when Ryan was the GOP spokesman for the official Republican rebuttal. It really looks like the right splintered so it just played into the hands of the bullshit MSM meme that we are all disjointed. If the choice for nailing down the issues and HOW TO FIX THEM, Ryan kicks MB out into orbit. If it is a battle of who gets inside the heads of the MSM and rattles their brains more, Bachmann wins hands down and thank God for that. Her election night slam against a visibly pants-wetting Matthews was fucking awesome. But does anyone here REALLY think what she had to say topped or equaled Ryan?

Posted by: CAC at January 31, 2011 09:20 AM (vxYDE)

20

Bachman was fine, but this is why I thought the whole thing was a bad idea.  We cannot afford to look amateurish right now. The R-tea party fiscal conservative party of Reagan needs to be on her "A" game.

Democrats are allowed endless mistakes, gaffes, conflicts of interest and corruption.  The R side?  We get called on a hang nail.

 

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at January 31, 2011 09:21 AM (0fzsA)

21 *it comes across looking like the right splintered, I mean. Working on 4 hours of sleep again here.

Posted by: CAC at January 31, 2011 09:21 AM (vxYDE)

22 Wait a minute, you ragged on her for giving the address in the first place, and then when other networks act seemingly in agreement with you and try to soft-pedal her address by not *really* televising it you rag on them? Of course it was stupid of everyone not to air it as a real broadcast. But the reason they didn't is because of people like you, who were so scrupulous about not stepping on the toes of the "official GOP response". That was stupid. own it.

Posted by: kathleen at January 31, 2011 09:21 AM (3Hpgo)

23 How long before we get the "stupid meme" promulgated? What country can she see from her house in Wisconsin?

We will see the MFM fire up on her now. If she does announce a run they will go into overtime.

Posted by: Vic at January 31, 2011 09:22 AM (M9Ie6)

24 So, hiring former Democrat reps and speech writers isn't a good method of determining news anchors?

Posted by: Sponge © at January 31, 2011 09:22 AM (UK9cE)

25 I'd fuck Megyn Kelly.  No hesitation, no second thoughts.

Posted by: Soona at January 31, 2011 09:24 AM (AdXKZ)

26 We will see the MFM fire up on her now. If she does announce a run they will go into overtime.

Is she really planning on running?  I thought conventional wisdom said that POTUS candidates couldn't come from the House of Representatives (without other experience)? 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 09:24 AM (pW2o8)

27 I thought conventional wisdom said that POTUS candidates couldn't come from the House of Representatives (without other experience)?

Yeah, because the Senate is a so much better source.

Posted by: Bomber at January 31, 2011 09:27 AM (qzoN5)

28 >>>Wait a minute, you ragged on her for giving the address in the first place, and then when other networks act seemingly in agreement with you and try to soft-pedal her address by not *really* televising it you rag on them? You're really quite a silly person. Everything with you is either All-In with someone or At War with someone. Most people do not share your penchant for monodiminesional, "best friends or worst enemies" thinking. Yes, kathleen, it is in fact possible to criticize someone's choice to push someone out of the spotlight and also criticize Fox's decision to not let her play by the rules granted to everyone else. I know that's a stunner to you, as you're basically acting like a teenage fanboy who only has two modes of thought -- teh ROXXOR (awesome, love 'em!!!) or teh SUXXOR (hate 'em, worst ever). Most of us don't think that way. Most of us don't have to pidgeonhole people into easy categories of White Hat or Black Hat. Does the category of "mixed review" exist for you at all?

Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 09:27 AM (nj1bB)

29

Maybe people don't think like I do, but when a situation like that pops up, I assume (as a lawyer would) that facts not challenged are stipulated and admitted into evidence.

If I were a politician, and I had a left-leaning comedy show eager to attack me, I know I'd count myself ahead of the game if their only line of attack concerned some technical glitches.

Nope, most people don't think like you do.  They get their news from John Stewart, and Tina "I can see Alaska from my house" Fey.   As far as the masses are concerned Bachman is an idiot who isn't smart enough to look into a camera, and won't pay enough attention for any number of facts to the contrary to change their minds. 


Posted by: some wench at January 31, 2011 09:28 AM (bqjJT)

30 Is she really planning on running?  I thought conventional wisdom said that POTUS candidates couldn't come from the House of Representatives (without other experience)? 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 02:24 PM (pW2o

 

I'm fucking tired of conventioal wisdom.  It's conventional wisdom that has brought us to the point we're at now.  So fuck the accepted "conventional wisdom"! 

Posted by: Soona at January 31, 2011 09:28 AM (AdXKZ)

31 18 almost as if Fox wanted her to look bad... wierd.
Posted by: GOP Establishment at January 31, 2011 02:20 PM (3yT2W)

Oh please. Many in the GOP won't own Ryan's ideas because he dared to address sacred cows. In other words, they let him speak for them because they won't deny his intelligence but they think of his ideas as being rather radical.   

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 31, 2011 09:29 AM (sZ+lP)

32 #26 There will be a pile of candidates like her. What does she have to offer though in a primary in which we have Cain, Palin, Daniels, possibly Thune, Romney, and Huckabee? Virtually every niche is filled so she would act as a lightning rod for the media. Of course, that isn't a bad thing...

Posted by: CAC at January 31, 2011 09:29 AM (vxYDE)

33 If jerks made her look bad it is on them - not her. And again she has the right to say anything she wants without the gop or anyone else telling her to shut up - something that would never be said to male pols.

Posted by: moi at January 31, 2011 09:29 AM (Ez4Ql)

34 teh ROXXOR (awesome, love 'em!!!) or teh SUXXOR (hate 'em, worst ever).

Ace - Teh BOMB!!!  Hehehe.

Posted by: Sponge © at January 31, 2011 09:29 AM (UK9cE)

35 They get their news from John Stewart, and Tina "I can see Alaska from my house" Fey.

That statement actually frightens the shit out of me because there really are several people who watch that fuckbucket Stewart for 'news'.......

Posted by: Sponge © at January 31, 2011 09:31 AM (UK9cE)

36 I'm fucking tired of conventioal wisdom.  It's conventional wisdom that has brought us to the point we're at now.  So fuck the accepted "conventional wisdom"!

I agree with you.  It just seems to me often on these "whom should we run" threads I see "Representatives never win" arguments pop up. 

If we're really willing to go with people who don't have executive or CEO experience, that's great as it opens up a bigger pool of candidates. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 09:31 AM (pW2o8)

37 Yeah, Ace, keep on attacking Kathleen instead of what she said. You da man!

Posted by: moi at January 31, 2011 09:32 AM (Ez4Ql)

38 If it is a battle of who gets inside the heads of the MSM and rattles their brains more, Bachmann wins hands down and thank God for that. Her election night slam against a visibly pants-wetting Matthews was fucking awesome. But does anyone here REALLY think what she had to say topped or equaled Ryan?

Posted by: CAC at January 31, 2011 02:20 PM (vxYDE)

Topped or equaled?  Maybe not, but it certainly COMPLEMENTED and AUGMENTED what Ryan said.

Posted by: stuiec at January 31, 2011 09:32 AM (Di3Im)

39 The last time I saw an Admiral give a nothing speech opening a conference, there were three people running around making sure everything was just right, including a Navy Captain who came in on a vacation day to oversee it.  They even straightened the banners on the wall to the side of where the Admiral was going to stand.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: SurferDoc at January 31, 2011 09:33 AM (o3bYL)

40 Most of us don't think that way. Most of us don't have to pidgeonhole people into easy categories of White Hat or Black Hat. Does the category of "mixed review" exist for you at all? Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 02:27 PM (nj1bB) NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE PURITY!!1111 ELEVENTY!!!

Posted by: CAC at January 31, 2011 09:33 AM (vxYDE)

41 If you read the live-blog, kathleen (I don't know if you did, but just noting it), I basically gave Bachmann positive reviews. That doesn't mean I agree with her initial decision to do this at all. But, having done it, she did okay. She used the charts I wish Ryan had used, for one thing. I am really sort of bewildered by people who think that all thinking, discrimination, and nuance is sort of a bad thing and just want everything to be YOU GO GIRL!!1!! or WORST PERSON EVER. Again I ask: Does the mixed review even exist in your world? Is it possible, in your way of thinking, to support someone qualifiedly -- that is, partly,depending on circumstances -- or can somone only be supported without qualifications or limits and basically by a blood oath as if they are family to be championed at every turn? This is a major source of disagreement within the conservative movement. I simply do not get people who insist on this type of Cheerleading or Sneerleading binary model.

Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 09:33 AM (nj1bB)

42 If anyone wants to see the address where it shows her looking into the webcast camera, it's here. Note she's looking straight into the camera.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 31, 2011 09:33 AM (sZ+lP)

43 Just do as Obama does: use two

Bachmann reads her own teleprompter. Obama pulls out a 9-iron when he should be using a sand wedge... every weekend. Which is the greater crime?

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 31, 2011 09:34 AM (swuwV)

44 Gotta love the one-trick pony broads that troll AoS. Lovely.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2011 09:34 AM (pLTLS)

45

Oklahoma City:  Winter cometh!

Posted by: Soona at January 31, 2011 09:35 AM (AdXKZ)

46 The more I mull it over, why couldn't Ryan (11 min) or Bachmann (7 min) give their statements without teleprompters?

Can't we do better than Obama? 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 09:36 AM (pW2o8)

47 "Gotta love the one-trick pony broads that troll AoS." Yeah, you know at least two tricks...

Posted by: moi at January 31, 2011 09:36 AM (Ez4Ql)

48 38 I don't think it added anything to what Ryan said- it was straightforward and daring (being that most in his party as another moron has already said distance themselves from Ryan's Roadmap) and stood strongly on its own. It is a tough sell but I really hope Ryan's plan become the blueprint. Unfortunately it will have to wait until 2013 when we have President Cain.

Posted by: CAC at January 31, 2011 09:36 AM (vxYDE)

49 moi, right, what she said was that it was impossible to criticize the decision she made but then criticize fox for "doing what I told fox to do" or something. Right, that's the other part of this absurd bullshit, that anything the liberals or media do against our heroes is because *I* (and other RINOs) caused it to happen. I gave them cover or something, or I told them how to cover it. Same crap with Christine O'Donnell. We warned you she would implode in the general. When she imploded in the general, you did not say "Gee, I guess you were right." Instead we were told that Christine O'Donnell was in fact ready to win and nothing could stop her UNTIL the RINOs pointed out her weaknesses, which then, in turn, caused her to implode. This is magical thinking. If we just say Positive Things all fucking day we can will events to fall as we wish by simply saying the right words. But if we say the wrong words, that jinxes the situation and we cause the demises we warn of.

Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 09:37 AM (nj1bB)

50 Kinda OT but not really - here's some major-league stupidity coming from our betters in elected office.  At least this guys knows how to look into a camera.

(If you don't want to listen to all that rambling, forward to 1:35 for the good stuff.)

Posted by: Bomber at January 31, 2011 09:37 AM (qzoN5)

51

Yeah, you know at least two tricks...

Oooohhhhh, the burn! It stings!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2011 09:38 AM (pLTLS)

52 46 The more I mull it over, why couldn't Ryan (11 min) or Bachmann (7 min) give their statements without teleprompters?

Can't we do better than Obama?


Neither of them technically needs one, which is why their performances were rather stilted in some areas. Both are far better when speaking impromptu and they've both done it for long periods of time without needing a prompter. So my question is, whose idea was it for them to both stick to reading the prompter?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 31, 2011 09:39 AM (sZ+lP)

53 This is a major source of disagreement within the conservative movement. I simply do not get people who insist on this type of Cheerleading or Sneerleading binary model.

Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 02:33 PM (nj1bB)

Might have helped if your inital comment on Bachmann's decision hadn't been to declare her "WORST PERSON EVER" for stealing Ryan's spotlight.  It kind of smacked of the Sneerleading half of the binary model.

In the event, it turned out that her presentation reinforced Ryan's points.  So maybe her decision to make that presentation wasn't purely based on "People Aren't Talking About Me Enough Lately So I Think I'll Try To Draw Attention Away From GOP Superstar Paul Ryan Because It's Not Like He Knows Anything About Reducing and Reforming Spending."

Posted by: stuiec at January 31, 2011 09:39 AM (Di3Im)

54 I love free speech.  Probably one of the reasons we're not rioting like an Egyptian.

Posted by: Soona at January 31, 2011 09:39 AM (AdXKZ)

55 CAC: "But does anyone here REALLY think what she had to say topped or equaled Ryan?"

They were complimentary. Bachmann's was a bit more focused. They both attacked one of Obama's biggest weaknesses, and the nation's failings, which was the point.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 31, 2011 09:39 AM (swuwV)

56

Bachmann did just fine, looking askance a bit or not.  It didn't take away from her speech.  And, in this case, anyone trying to make fun of Bachmann will just help to give her more visibility.  The MFM and the left are grasping at straws.

That said, what Fox did was almost unconscienable.  They know all about stagecraft and were perfectly aware of the idiocy of what they were doing.  No surprise, though.  Fox is almost unwatchable these days.  It hasn't yet stooped to MSNBC levels, but it's treading awfully close.  I can't even watch Fox most of the time.  From the insufferable Fox and Friends (which actually drove me to Bloomberg for morning news - and I will never forgive them for that) to that dingbat Jenna Lee to leftist tool Shep to the pathetic panels and Bret Baier's amazing lack of knowledge.  O'Reilly has his nose stuffed so far up Barky's butt that he even smells through the TV.  Fox is trying its hardest to drive conservatives away.

Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 09:40 AM (AK0dh)

57 Technically, you don't put a Teleprompter on top of a camera. The screen can be on top or on the bottom of the screen. The "talent" looks through a half-mirror (displaying the words) which is directly in front of the camera lens.

They are not universal. Typically, a teleprompter is custom-fitted to the tripod/camera combo that the production company is using.

There is a strong possibility that it was not technically possible for Fox or any other network to "fit" their camera to the Tea Party Teleprompter.

In any case, the TPE should have their shit together and hired professionals to shoot the message and offered all of the networks a good feed including Fox.

Rookie mistake.

Posted by: boone85 at January 31, 2011 09:40 AM (pLSn2)

58 "Oooohhhhh, the burn! It stings!" laceyhasaskidmarkinherunderalls!

Posted by: moi at January 31, 2011 09:40 AM (Ez4Ql)

59 "You're really quite a silly person."

ace, you kill hoboes.  Come on now.  Let Kathleen have her quirks.

Posted by: Cherry π at January 31, 2011 09:41 AM (+sBB4)

60 @52
That was my thought.  They didn't need them. 

We really need some better handlers in our camp. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 09:41 AM (pW2o8)

61

I'm still confused as to why this even matters?

Besdies wonky wonk types, who the hell will even remember what she said? Or Ryan for that matter?

I mean the take-away of the night was "salmon", so.....

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2011 09:42 AM (pLTLS)

62 I'm not sure about Ace's last point.  To anyone even mildly well-disposed to her sure, but to the unaligned in their own minds, the ignorant middle who mistake a lack of informed opinion for keeping an open mind, ridicule works.  Coolness works, conventional wisdom works.  And the left still controls ridicule and coolness, although their grasp is slipping on conventional wisdom.

Posted by: Dave R. at January 31, 2011 09:42 AM (Qi93s)

63
This is a major source of disagreement within the conservative movement. I simply do not get people who insist on this type of Cheerleading or Sneerleading binary model.
Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 02:33 PM (nj1bB)

Ace, in all honesty, I think it's exhaustion. The drumbeat from the left is like the Energizer bunny - it just goes on and on. 

Lots of folks on our side think that the Dems and the Left beat up on our guys enough.  That means that even if we see negatives about them as well, we should just keep our mouths shut, because anything we say is turned and used against our own guys straight from our mouths. And there's something to that. 

On the other hand, constructive criticism is meant to foster improvement.

So, pundits and bloggers alike need to decide: is the potential benefit from negative constructive criticism in a given instance worth the potential negatives from it being used against said person/candidate?  I'd say that if not, the criticism should be kept on the down low or skipped entirely.

Posted by: grognard at January 31, 2011 09:42 AM (NS2Mo)

64 >>>In the event, it turned out that her presentation reinforced Ryan's points. So maybe her decision to make that presentation wasn't purely based on "People Aren't Talking About Me Enough Lately So I Think I'll Try To Draw Attention Away From GOP Superstar Paul Ryan Because It's Not Like He Knows Anything About Reducing and Reforming Spending." It did tend to reinforce his points, yes, and was net-positive. I had feared it would be net-negative and detract from the message; I was wrong about that. I still don't like the idea of basic idea of the decision. I also am not a fan of the endlessly self-promoting Tea Party Express which I strongly suspect has more of a financial than political agenda in attempting to brand itself as the leader of the leaderless Tea Party.

Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 09:43 AM (nj1bB)

65

Seriously, moi, you need a better hobby.

That will be all.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2011 09:43 AM (pLTLS)

66 Her address to the Tea Party following Ryan's looked like a one-two punch that was planned in advance. Ryan talked in generalities and made it look like he was being nice-nice. She followed that with specifics on how OBama was screwing the pooch. I thought it looked good for the Party as a whole.

Posted by: Vic at January 31, 2011 09:44 AM (M9Ie6)

67 No matter how good or bad the candidate it matters quite a bit if the BLM is going to magnify every fault and your own side is going to announce publicly that it is open season on them five minutes after they are nominated.  Bit if the BLM is on your side and your own team buttons their lip, you can nominate a gibbering phony like John Kerry and get a pretty good run out of him.  The smart people adapt.  If someone can't pull off a public appearance without getting fucked over they are not ready for prime time.

Posted by: SurferDoc at January 31, 2011 09:44 AM (o3bYL)

68 Does the category of "mixed review" exist for you at all?

Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 02:27 PM (nj1bB)

Mixed reviews usually involve more than one person.

 

I'm just kidding with you.  The setup was too good to pass up.

Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 09:45 AM (AK0dh)

69 Neither of them technically needs one, which is why their performances were rather stilted in some areas. Both are far better when speaking impromptu and they've both done it for long periods of time without needing a prompter. So my question is, whose idea was it for them to both stick to reading the prompter?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 31, 2011 02:39 PM (sZ+lP)

It so happens that when you look someone in the eye while speaking to them, that person rates your credibility and trustworthiness higher than if you glance away from time to time.  This is why the in-line Tele-Prom-Ter was invented.  Every television presenter uses them -- politician, talk show host, news anchor, all of 'em.

It's also why people make so damn much fun of Obama's speechifying style: he NEVER LOOKS AT HIS AUDIENCE DIRECTLY but only looks from one teleprompter screen to the other.  Anyone who gives a live speech to a live audience using a teleprompter should know to check the teleprompter screen only every so often to track timing of the speech and to act as a memory aid for the MEMORIZED and REHEARSED text.  Obama seems unable to memorize his spiels and to deliver them in a believable way.

Posted by: stuiec at January 31, 2011 09:45 AM (Di3Im)

70 We really need some better handlers in our camp. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 02:41 PM (pW2o

 

Didn't we do pretty well this last election without the styrofoam greek columns?

Posted by: Soona at January 31, 2011 09:45 AM (AdXKZ)

71 60 @52 That was my thought.  They didn't need them. 

We really need some better handlers in our camp.


I agree and I still don't quite understand why both of them chose/were made to read on a night where they were being introduced to the public at large. Several networks even said they were both unaccustomed to giving this type of speech and I think both of them need to work on their reading. But if you just "let them go", they obliterate whoever they are criticizing.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 31, 2011 09:46 AM (sZ+lP)

72 "Seriously, moi, you need a better hobby." Seriously, Skids, you are the one who needs a better hobby. "That will be all." One can only hope but I doubt it.

Posted by: moi at January 31, 2011 09:47 AM (Ez4Ql)

73  Her address to the Tea Party following Ryan's looked like a one-two punch that was planned in advance. Ryan talked in generalities and made it look like he was being nice-nice. She followed that with specifics on how OBama was screwing the pooch. I thought it looked good for the Party as a whole.

Posted by: Vic at January 31, 2011 02:44 PM (M9Ie6)

 

Me too. 

Posted by: Soona at January 31, 2011 09:48 AM (AdXKZ)

74

Where is it written that Bachman needed anyone's countenance to give a rebuttal to Ebola's bullshit anyway? She was doing for a private group who asked her to.

No one in the MFM had to cover it, especially since she was not claiming the imprimatur of the GOP.

Tingles and others in the MFM are freaked because her message resonates with a lot of people, along with a certain former governor whose name I will not mention.

Posted by: beedubya at January 31, 2011 09:49 AM (AnTyA)

75 It so happens that when you look someone in the eye while speaking to them, that person rates your credibility and trustworthiness higher than if you glance away from time to time.  This is why the in-line Tele-Prom-Ter was invented.  Every television presenter uses them -- politician, talk show host, news anchor, all of 'em.

If she (or Ryan or anyone, this isn't about Bachmann per se) had her remarks memorized, she would have been able to look directly into the camera that was going to the general public, instead of into the camera that had the teleprompter.  The folks following the Tea Party feed already trust her -- the ones getting the media feed don't necessarily trust her. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 09:49 AM (pW2o8)

76 >>>Ace, in all honesty, I think it's exhaustion. The drumbeat from the left is like the Energizer bunny - it just goes on and on. People have explained this before and while I understand this feeling, I also must reject it. The "drumbeat" you speak of is this: It is a kneejerk, unthinking, reflexive automatic, almost robotic criticism. That's why you hate it. It's so expected. It's so thoughtless. It's like an automatic reflex, like the part of your nervous system that controls breathing. Right? I agree. Here is where we will have to agree to disagree: I believe the right way to fight that is with keeping our wits and our brains and our judgment intact. I do not think the way to fight a relentless, auotmatic, reflexive, robotic drumbeat of unthinking criticism from the left is to set up a parallel but oppos9te regime of automatic, reflexive, robotic drumbeat of unthinking support on the right. I think the left's model is Stalinist. I also think that an equal and opposite model on the right is Stalinist -- just a better Stalinism. But still very bad. I am not joining the people who think the way to beat the left's unthinking anger and stupidity is to lobotimize ourselves so that we meet unthinking anger and stupidity with our own unthinking anger and stupidity. A lot of people claim this, quite explicitly -- they believe, very wrongly I think, that the Left profits from its horrid, dreary message discipline and the only way to beat them is to join them. There was once a period where the right celebrated itself for its ability to have spirited (and friendly) debate and to NOT be like the left in the perpetration of a propagandistic campaign of relentless message discipline. Time was, we used to consider this a strength. Well, I think that period has passed, because a lof people no longer view that as a strength, but as a weakness, and they are convinced the way to beat the left is to make the right more like the left in this manner. I cannot believe that. Even if I did believe that, I could not do it. It was this message-discipline bullshit that drove me out of the liberal camp in the first place. I hate it. I fucking hate it.

Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 09:51 AM (nj1bB)

77 Didn't we do pretty well this last election without the styrofoam greek columns?

Well, if you think about it, we did lousy in the election in which the other side used the styrofoam Greek columns.


But I think there is a lot of stagecraft that falls well short of those gimmicks but that nevertheless helps messaging. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 09:51 AM (pW2o8)

78

Maybe people don't think like I do, but when a situation like that pops up, I assume (as a lawyer would) that facts not challenged are stipulated and admitted into evidence.

But challenging policy or the content of a speech is not funny, and SNL is a comedy show. So they'll make a joke about the thing that is funny, that she looked amatuerish.

I agree with you about her response, though. She shouldn't have done it. And I think she did worse for herself by doing it. Add to the fact that she couldn't make a 15min speech without a telepromter - that looks bad.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 31, 2011 09:52 AM (TFSHk)

79 I really do think that we're making way too much of this.  There's going to be plenty of time to review minor media mistakes (and that's really what this was) and correct them.  She'll be more savvy the next time.

Posted by: Soona at January 31, 2011 09:54 AM (AdXKZ)

80

I mean the take-away of the night was "salmon", so.....

My take-away was that the progressives are going to try and restructure the non-constitutionaly mandated sections of the government to try and counteract the revocation of their 'Man-Date'.

Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2011 09:54 AM (iWZN8)

81

If y'all recall...Ogabe gave his own "unofficial" response to the SOTU in 2008 to a particular advocacy group.

So why was a crime for Bachman to do the same?

Posted by: beedubya at January 31, 2011 09:54 AM (AnTyA)

82 It did tend to reinforce his points, yes, and was net-positive. I had feared it would be net-negative and detract from the message; I was wrong about that.

I still don't like the idea of basic idea of the decision.

I also am not a fan of the endlessly self-promoting Tea Party Express which I strongly suspect has more of a financial than political agenda in attempting to brand itself as the leader of the leaderless Tea Party.

Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 02:43 PM (nj1bB)

You don't know how amazingly refreshing it is to read the words "I was wrong about that" from an opinion site leader.  This is why AoSHQ has the durability to grow and prosper... as opposed to other opinion sites whose owners are willing to ride the rocket sled to oblivion rather than ever admit an error.

I agree with you that absolute faith in any individual politician or political organization is rarely if ever justified.  But what's also rarely if ever justified is latching onto a particular minor weakness of a politician or organization and deciding that makes the person or group in question worthless or downright evil -- the drawback of that kind of thinking is that EVERY politician and political organization can lay claim to some flaw, and the perfect candidate doesn't exist.  (A major weakness, like racial bigotry or adherence to an authoritarian creed, is qualitiatively different.)

Posted by: stuiec at January 31, 2011 09:55 AM (Di3Im)

83 BTW, Fox didn't even run Bachmann's speech live, which was another reason they are getting on my last nerve.

Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 09:56 AM (AK0dh)

84 >>>But challenging policy or the content of a speech is not funny, Certainly it can be if you can portray it as deranged, medieval, evil, or stupid, which is how the left butters the bread of its comedic attacks on conservatives. The Sarah Palin parodies were unfair, but they were, in fact, often funny, but in an ouch sort of way. Will Ferrell's bush "Impression" was similarly funny, though unfair, in depicting Bush as a borderline cretin. So that kind of thing can be done and if Bachmann had made a false or stupid statement they would have piled on. But she didn't. She wound up only giving them one good line of attack and that one wasn't even her fault or that effective.

Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 09:56 AM (nj1bB)

85 If y'all recall...Ogabe gave his own "unofficial" response to the SOTU in 2008 to a particular advocacy group.

Refresh my memory.  Was it minutes after the official Democratic one? 


Anyway, I think it was a bad idea, but I don't think there was any damage done (to the Party; I don't think it helped Bachmann personally).  We've partly been fortunate -- and also unfortunate -- that the news cycle has been dominated by other things.

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 09:57 AM (pW2o8)

86 But I think there is a lot of stagecraft that falls well short of those gimmicks but that nevertheless helps messaging. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 02:51 PM (pW2o

 

What?  Stage fog and trumpeteers?  Why not just sit (or stand) and give the message.  After all, that's what people now, not three years ago, are wanting.  Just the facts, ma'am. 

Posted by: Soona at January 31, 2011 09:58 AM (AdXKZ)

87 stuiec, I frequently admit I was wrong. I think that is a sign of intellectual character. I do not like the sort of person who sort of behaves like a street tough who insists he's always right and who clearly believes that admitting error is a sign of weakness. I think that whole syndrome is a sign of weakness itself - a lack of confidence. Now, I'm not happy to admit error but I can do it. So I'll cop to errors, but I won't cop to stupid charges like "You made Christine O'Donell lose" or "You made FoxNews treat Michele Bachmann unfairly." That's just dumb. And that sort of idiotic complaint is just an attempt to stifle dissenting opinion by claiming the dissenting opinion itself CAUSES tangible, real-world ills and defeats.

Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 09:59 AM (nj1bB)

88 Why not just sit (or stand) and give the message.

Right.  But that's not what was done.  Both of our people read the message. 


Look, it's a fine point, but I think they could have delivered their messages better. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 09:59 AM (pW2o8)

89 Obama seems unable to memorize his spiels and to deliver them in a believable way.

Posted by: stuiec at January 31, 2011 02:45 PM (Di3Im)

This.  One of the most beneficial things that I received in my 19.5 years wasted working for a third-rate electric utility was an in-house class on giving business presentations.  The person conducting the class was very good at imparting the basics on delivering a good speech.  The jugeared fuck doesn't even need to "memorize" most of it, what he needs to do is practice it so that he knows what he's talking about with just a skeletal outline and be able to look people in the eye.  With everything he has at his disposal, I think it's clear that he's a monumentally lazy asshole.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 10:00 AM (olKiY)

90 Y-Not: "If she (or Ryan or anyone, this isn't about Bachmann per se) had her remarks memorized..."

I don't care who you are or how professional you are - memorizing and giving a speech to hundreds of millions of people (potentially) and to the archives of history is no trivial feat. I wouldn't expect anyone to memorize an address to the nation short of, "The State of the Nation is strong. Good night and God Bless America."

You're applying an expectation that hasn't been met yet in national addresses. Why are you starting here?

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 31, 2011 10:00 AM (swuwV)

91 I didn't like the idea because it presented the idea of a split party, but it's over and done. The MFM is still going after both addresses, but they are no longer discussing what the schism in the GOP. It is interesting, though, that any continuing criticism has been more about her style and his substance. 

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 31, 2011 10:00 AM (sZ+lP)

92 I cannot believe that. Even if I did believe that, I could not do it. It was this message-discipline bullshit that drove me out of the liberal camp in the first place.

I hate it. I fucking hate it.
Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 02:51 PM (nj1bB)

Well, I understand all of that, but I think that's where some folks are coming from.  It's one thing to have constructive internal debates among ourselves, but it's another thing when said debates end up hurting more than helping.  There should not be endless cheering and defense of anyone with an R after their name. At the same time, it's a very real phenomenon: self-criticism becomes broader news because THEY are calling our guys out and WE are also calling them out. 

What's ignored is that we are calling their side out with far more severity and with far greater consequences to the country.

I'm just postulating that it may be how folks are looking at it.  We know for a fact the media jumps on this stuff to marginalize and ridicule otherwise good people on our side, wayyyy out of proportion to what is actually deserved.

In any case, it's imperative that any friendly fire should truly remain constructive.  I think Reagan had it right.  We should voice our problems with our own side, but in a measured fashion, and never as an initial instinct.

Posted by: grognard at January 31, 2011 10:01 AM (NS2Mo)

93 In any case, the TPE should have their shit together and hired professionals to shoot the message and offered all of the networks a good feed including Fox.

Rookie mistake.

Posted by: boone85 at January 31, 2011 02:40 PM (pLSn2)

They did and they did.

Veteran sabotage ...on the part of CNN.

...and no...I don't consider her St. Michelle

 

Posted by: beedubya at January 31, 2011 10:02 AM (AnTyA)

94

This.  One of the most beneficial things that I received in my 19.5 years wasted working for a third-rate electric utility was an in-house class on giving business presentations.  The person conducting the class was very good at imparting the basics on delivering a good speech.  The jugeared fuck doesn't even need to "memorize" most of it, what he needs to do is practice it so that he knows what he's talking about with just a skeletal outline and be able to look people in the eye.  With everything he has at his disposal, I think it's clear that he's a monumentally lazy asshole.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 03:00 PM (olKiY)

--The O-tard is becoming a worse and worse liar because he does not believe the shit he's swilling.  He is too focused on closing the deal and getting impatient with the means to the ends.  In 2008 it was easy to score on the rebound (ooo, double-basketball metaphor); in 2011 he's dealing with an people who know his tired playah lines.

Posted by: logprof at January 31, 2011 10:06 AM (BP6Z1)

95 Regardless of what happened, the GOP still needs to work on its optics. It shouldn't have been hard to ask for better arc lights and certain camera angles during Ryan's speech, and Bachmann should have anticipated that the networks were going to treat her unfairly. That's what they do, use anything and everything they can to make conservatives look bad.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 31, 2011 10:06 AM (sZ+lP)

96 You're applying an expectation that hasn't been met yet in national addresses. Why are you starting here?

Did Bush use a teleprompter to deliver his remarks at the WTC site? 

We need to be 100% on our game to win this time around.  We are going up against a guy who is so dim he has to read his messages.  That gives us an opening for an advantage.  We should exploit it.  Both of our people should have been able to deliver their remarks without relying on teleprompters.  As it turns out, had Michelle been prepared to do so, she would not have had to speak to the TPE camera; she could have directed her focus on the camera going to the most people. 

And I reject your premise that it is that it is too onerous to give remarks to large audiences without reading them.  I bet 20% of the morons here have done it in some venue or another.  Certainly all of the researchers and professors have and those were probably 50 minute talks, not 10 minute ones.


Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 10:06 AM (pW2o8)

97 Ace you are a very moderate republican otherwise known now as a RINO. Granted its a misnomer because of course you are a republican, just a moderate/liberal one. Acknowledge it, embrace it. Continue to argue your positions and tell convince us why your moderate/liberal positions are better.

Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at January 31, 2011 10:08 AM (ZTu4b)

98 If the other side can call you a Nazi and get away with it and their media will call your views extremist, you better stop thinking about learning as you go along and doing better next time and start considering things like message discipline and pulling together if you ever want to win and keep power.

Posted by: SurferDoc at January 31, 2011 10:08 AM (o3bYL)

99 And I reject your premise that it is that it is too onerous to give remarks to large audiences without reading them.  I bet 20% of the morons here have done it in some venue or another.  Certainly all of the researchers and professors have and those were probably 50 minute talks, not 10 minute ones.


Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 03:06 PM (pW2o

--Yup, and I have done it without an Ivy League education to boot!

Posted by: logprof at January 31, 2011 10:08 AM (BP6Z1)

100 NEW THREAD WITH FLAMING SKULL ABOUT OBAMACARE. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 10:10 AM (pW2o8)

101

Regardless of what happened, the GOP still needs to work on its optics.

No offense, but could people please try to refrain from abusing the word "optics" in this way?  What the hell is wrong with "appearances" or "staging" or the traditional "presentation"?

Sorry Miss80s.  This wasn't directed at you.  This misuse of 'optics' has been really bugging me for some time and it's spreading like the plague.

Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 10:13 AM (AK0dh)

102 So I'll cop to errors, but I won't cop to stupid charges like "You made Christine O'Donell lose" or "You made FoxNews treat Michele Bachmann unfairly."

That's just dumb. And that sort of idiotic complaint is just an attempt to stifle dissenting opinion by claiming the dissenting opinion itself CAUSES tangible, real-world ills and defeats.

Posted by: ace at January 31, 2011 02:59 PM (nj1bB)

And kathleen was unfair (sorry, kathleen, but you were) to blame you for keeping Bachmann's response from being a scheduled news broadcast.  It was never going to be that -- nor did Bachmann err in looking at the official camera for the webcast, which was what had been planned all along.  The producers at the Tea Party Express should not have allowed a pool camera in, or failing that, should have had it positioned to cover the event as news (that is, showing the official camera in the shot) rather than treat it as another feed of the speech itself.

Posted by: stuiec at January 31, 2011 10:16 AM (Di3Im)

103 What she should have done is tell them they would conform to her needs or they would hit the road.

Palin has learned her lesson with the MFM now.  She has bypassed them to get her message out. Rand Paul learned as well early in the campaign.

All conservative Republicans should know by now that ALL the news organizations are their enemy and will do a hit job in a skinny minute.

Posted by: Vic at January 31, 2011 10:17 AM (M9Ie6)

104

Refresh my memory.  Was it minutes after the official Democratic one

Yup..

...and if you will recall, a certain former governor -whom I don't consider perfect- once gave a 45 minute extemporaneous speech...but had 4 single-word bullet points written on her hand..

...and guess which aspect was blown up and ridiculed by the left, MFM, and the haute conservative set

Posted by: beedubya at January 31, 2011 10:17 AM (AnTyA)

105 Y-Not: "Did Bush use a teleprompter to deliver his remarks at the WTC site?"

Remarks. Not a speech.

Y-Not: "And I reject your premise that it is that it is too onerous to give remarks to large audiences without reading them."

I reject your rejection. Again, remarks. Not a speech. And the venue is utterly incomparable. They have a very restrained window of time allotted to get very specific, measured remarks in without stumbling or stuttering. This isn't some casual affair where you may riff or fudge.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 31, 2011 10:17 AM (swuwV)

106

I remember the media doing similar stuff to John Mccain when he gave speeches in the general election in 2008. The first few months he almost never got to look straight into the camera. Many times looking in a completly different dirrection.

They do similar stuff to Palin. When she does interviews, they love to do extreme close ups of her face. So that she is like ....in your face. Fox News Special Report with Brett Baer even did it to Palin during her Tucson Arizona speech. I remember thinking is was her only mistake in the clips they showed of the speech. Then I saw the whole speech online and it was from a normal distance.

Yet this stuff is never discussed by the media. Its almost like they are all in on it.

Posted by: Keven at January 31, 2011 10:35 AM (al1gg)

107

Sorry Miss80s.  This wasn't directed at you.  This misuse of 'optics' has been really bugging me for some time and it's spreading like the plague.

Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 03:13 PM (AK0dh)

Cover your left eye and read the fifth line, please.

Clearer, or more blurry?

Posted by: stuiec at January 31, 2011 10:41 AM (Di3Im)

108 101 No offense, but could people please try to refrain from abusing the word "optics" in this way?  What the hell is wrong with "appearances" or "staging" or the traditional "presentation"?

Sorry Miss80s.  This wasn't directed at you.  This misuse of 'optics' has been really bugging me for some time and it's spreading like the plague.


Okay, no more abusing scientific terms-- "staging" and "presentation".

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 31, 2011 10:56 AM (sZ+lP)

109 Pigford, Pigford, Pigford, . . .

Posted by: Scoob at January 31, 2011 11:16 AM (T7+JL)

110 Well, that settles that, I guess.

It could have been settled immediately, but the Tea Party folks with the "official" video didn't freaking bother. It took "TheRightScoop" to hack up a video first, DAYS later, to prove there was an "official" camera. Gigantic W.T.F moment.

I don't blame Rep. Bachmann, but dayum, someone in the Tea Party is either lazy, stupid, or somehow brilliantly knew dragging this on and on would benefit Michele Bachmann. As an "official" moron, I find it hard to believe the brilliant strategy concept.

Posted by: K~Bob at January 31, 2011 11:46 AM (2BftO)

111 96 And I reject your premise that it is that it is too onerous to give remarks to large audiences without reading them. I bet 20% of the morons here have done it in some venue or another. Certainly all of the researchers and professors have and those were probably 50 minute talks, not 10 minute ones. I'm not above giving credit where credit is due, even if it positively highlights a dem, so I'll relate a story that supports what you're saying. My mother used to be involved in politics, and she was helping run a bipartisan conference on disabilities where Hillary was to be the keynote speaker. On the day of the keynote Hilary's writers had crafted a completely new speech for her to give, and she had roughly ten to twenty minutes to review it before she spoke. She did, stepped up to the podium, and gave a flawless presentation of the speech, which went for an hour, with no notes whatsoever. My mom's no Hilary cheerleader but she was immensely impressed despite herself. So it can be done, in fact, but not by everybody. Certainly not by Obama, but I can't stand the guy so I chalk that up to laziness AND incompetence on his part, hah.

Posted by: LizLem at January 31, 2011 11:50 AM (lSuMX)

112 Ace, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside when you get mad at me.

Posted by: kathleen at January 31, 2011 01:28 PM (3Hpgo)

113 "And kathleen was unfair (sorry, kathleen, but you were) to blame you for keeping Bachmann's response from being a scheduled news broadcast." Uh, I didn't blame Ace, I blamed the sort of inside the beltway, too smart by half, thinking that Ace exhibited. I'm very sorry Ace thinks I'm a "silly person" (tho perhaps I am). I don't get all subtle and nuanced on here b/c i don't spend much time here. I still think I sort of helped Ace cop to some slight bit of wrongness, so thank you and goodnight.

Posted by: kathleen at January 31, 2011 01:40 PM (3Hpgo)

114 kathleen (and moi):  Keep up the good work.

and Ace:  Kudos for saying "I was wrong"; I must not notice it the other times you do it (probably I roll my eyes and move on before it happens) but displays of humility after leading with your chin are appreciated.  Hell, even I'm wrong on occasions.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 01:57 PM (olKiY)

115 This is why we need an alternate media.  You know, our own cameras/network/reporters, the whole deal.  As if politicians are going to get a fair shake no matter how polished they are.  The alternative is going on with Cenk Uygur (that's a bad Scrabble hand right there, yup) and getting condescended to, at best.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at January 31, 2011 02:12 PM (h35AH)

116 Oh, come on, you *know* it was a Republican event because everybody fucked something up!

I would have just told Fox not to cover it if they were going to be an ass about how they covered it, but then I probably am not popular enough to campaign for anything. I'm sure whoever did it thought it was the best compromise.

Kind of our specialty, compromise. (facepalm)

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 31, 2011 05:03 PM (bxiXv)

117 Yeah.

So the content of Bachmann's speech was so damn riveting that we are discussing it days later.

Wait, what did she say?

I dunno either.

Yay Tea Party Express!

You fuckin douchetools...


Posted by: Deety at February 01, 2011 12:41 AM (Jb3+B)

Posted by: kuyu at February 05, 2011 12:38 AM (45SgX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
155kb generated in CPU 0.08, elapsed 0.0928 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0315 seconds, 305 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.