Tag Archives: debate

Ben Shapiro Takes Foreign Gun Control Bully Piers Morgan Down a Notch

emvideo-youtube-LJdhAm_oUUs

Breitbart editor-at-large and author of “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans” Ben Shapiro took Piers Morgan down a notch on the issue of what should be done after the tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut. Shapiro accused Piers Morgan of being a “bully” who was “standing on the graves” of Sandy Hook shooting victims while characterizing gun control opponents as ‘unfeeling.’

Shapiro makes the important point about how the left mistakes passion for reason when it comes to policy. Those on the left mistakenly believe that because they feel more, and that means they are inherently on the side of right, meanwhile those who disagree with them are wrong. Rationality and evidence don’t enter into the equation.

And as Shapiro drove home, neither does history — the left dismisses the entire notion that citizens should have guns to defend themselves from tyranny. As Judge Napolitano echoed in his Washington Times article, the Second Amendment acknowledges that citizens’ have “the right to shoot tyrants, not deer.”

At one point, Shapiro pulls out a Constitution, which Piers once refers to as “your little book,” and makes the salient argument that the Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution not for purposes of protecting hunting and game shooting, but so citizens are legally allowed to defend themselves from government tyranny. He then made the haunting remark that “the fact that my grandparents in Europe didn’t fear (tyranny) is why they’re ashes.”

Cross-posted at Independent Journal Review

Game Over

mitt

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama argued foreign policy in the final 2012 presidential debate in Boca Raton Fl.  Romney looked like a solid, strong American Commander in Chief, while Obama resembled an ageing hippie college professor wannabe enraged at having his beliefs successfully debunked in public.

Obama insulted Romney, speaking to him in patronizing fashion while mocking his stance on defense cuts: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed.”

Then Obama became truly condescending when he said “There are these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.  The question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships, it’s what are our capabilities”.

So Obama apparently believes that Mitt Romney, someone who also graduated from Harvard, who also just happens to have earned both a business and a law degree, doesn’t know what aircraft carriers and submarines are.

In short, Obama’s performance was crude and un-presidential.

Not unusual for the narcissist in chief, the words “I”, “me” and “mine” seemed to come out of his mouth every four or five seconds.

Despite numerous assertions by the likes of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and other card carrying members of the “progressive” Party Pravda, the night was won by Romney when Obama, instead of offering viable answers to serious questions posed by Moderator Bob Schieffer, angrily attacked Romney with red herring arguments.  To which Romney replied: “Attacking me is not an agenda”.

That moment laid waste to the entire Obama re-election strategy, which was to attack Romney with viscous smears and repeated false accusations in hopes the damage inflicted would set Romney so far back in the polls he could never recover.

Unfortunately for “the smartest man in the world” and his hatchet wielding political henchmen, the strategy has completely backfired.  Going into the last two weeks of the race their campaign is borrowing money, while Romney is financially poised to blanket swing states with political ads favorable to him.  Ads that reflect the calm, cool, thoughtful, caring individual American voters witnessed in the debates.  The man who stands in stark contrast to the phony Romney portrait the Obama campaign intentionally painted.

Naturally, because “progressives” are so tolerant and open minded, Obama supporters are still threatening to riot and assassinate Romney.

Not the least bit surprising, after the debate was over Chris Matthews claimed that support for Romney is fueled by race hatred.

Once one team starts taking cheap shots and committing flagrant fouls, it is a sure sign they have lost and the game is over.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/game-over/

Obama Slips, “My Current Vice President”

Lost in the chatter of horses and bayonets is a small, seemingly insignificant, slip of the tongue by the president.

The third and final debate between Governor Mitt Romney and President Obama focused on foreign policy and was largely uneventful but for the occasional snarky remark. One exchange, though, could actually be a revealing sound bite.

When discussing the meetings with senior administration officials about the Osama Bin Laden raid, President Obama quips, “Those decisions generally are not poll-tested. And even some in my own party, including my current vice president, had the same critique…”

“Current” Vice President?

With his blatant gaffes and questionable behavior at the Vice Presidential debate, perhaps VP Joe Biden is temporary in the eyes of the current president?

Debate Highlights “progressive” Way

US-VOTE-2012-DEBATE

Obama lied about his response to the Libyan attack.  The day following the 9/11 anniversary terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, he did not state from the White House rose garden that it was a terrorist attack.

And later, he blamed it on a Youtube video.

As did White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; which was followed by UN ambassador Susan Rice repeating the same lame excuse five times in one day on the Sunday morning television political talk show circuit.  This was done again by Obama in a speech he gave to the UN general assembly, where he blamed the video six times and never once called the incident a terrorist attack.

Everyone knows the Obama administration, in a desperate attempt to obscure its foreign policy failures and defray responsibility for the deaths of four Americans including America’s ambassador to Libya, spent weeks blaming a heretofore unknown anti-Islamist internet video trailer for the violence.

Candy Crowley exceeded the limitations placed on the moderator when she stuck her nose where it did not belong by openly siding with Obama’s claim.  Meanwhile Obama’s wife violated the rules by aggressively leading the studio audience in applause when Crowley interrupted on behalf of her flailing, visibly struggling husband.

Never mind that Crowley gave Obama nine percent more time than was given to Mitt Romney.  Forget that she interrupted Romney twenty eight times.

How can media bias in America be ignored when every moderator for the debates has been a member of the institutionalized “progressive” left’s Obama cheerleading machine?

Obama lied about oil, gas and coal production.  Permits for oil drilling on public land have been reduced by over fifty percent since Obama seized power in 2008.  Attempts to produce natural gas on public lands have been obstructed.  Coal production has been demonized and prevented.  Energy prices have increased notably, especially the doubling of gasoline prices at the pump.

Romney dismantled the idea that a second Obama term would lead to economic recovery by noting the failure left in the wake of Obama’s broken campaign promises.  Obama did not cut the deficit in half, he doubled it.  He has not reduced the national debt, he has added over $6 trillion to it.  Obama’s policies have not stimulated the economy.  After spending $878 billion on non-existent shovel ready projects that turned out to be financial bailouts for fiscally irresponsible blue states, in 2012 GDP is growing slower than in 2011, and in 2011 it grew slower than in 2010.  At this point in his presidency the tax rate reduction policies of Ronald Reagan, which inspire Romney’s financial plans, had created 7.2 percent economic growth.  GDP growth is over six percent slower today than it was under Reagan.

The Frank Luntz focus group showed a huge swing in Romney’s favor by a group that was comprised of undecided voters who largely voted for Obama in 2008.  A similar MSNBC panel had a similar response.

And in true “progressive” form, the debate resulted in a flurry of assassination threats against Romney on Twitter.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/debate-highlights-progressive-way/

Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

Presidential_Debate-00985

10/16/12  Debate wrap-up. PLEASE NOTE: Show will start 30 minutes late tonight to accommodate the debate. Hey, that rhymes! Tonight at 10:30 pm ET/7:30pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on BlogTalk Radio. And don’t forget to join my live chat on kiradavis.net tonight starting at 8:45 ET/5:45 Pacific.

UPDATE: Listen to the replay of last night’s show here, or click through the link to download

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Big Bird and the Joker

thumb

Who needs debates between candidates when you can have cartoon character distractions?

First there was Barack Obama, who did so poorly in his first debate with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney that he and his campaign resorted to focusing on saving Big Bird and Sesame Street from spending cuts.

Next, there was Joe Biden auditioning to play the role of the Joker in a Batman show at Universal City Hollywood.

Biden showed he is a real natural.

His innate ability to bully, muster condescending goofy faces, to laugh, smirk, constantly interrupt, grimace, or chuckle while very serious topics were being discussed showed that when it comes to being a Court Jester, Biden is more than ready to play prime time.

Sorry SNL.

Some believe Biden’s performance in the October 11th VP debate was a win for “progressive” Democrats, because it dominated the post-debate conversation.

That perspective is a clear sign of how panicked “progressives” and their parroting lapdogs within the institutionalized “progressive” left and the ultra-obedient “progressive” Party Pravda are.

If the best they can point to is a sitting Vice President making stupid, animated faces in reaction to nearly everything Congressman Paul Ryan said, they are desperately grasping at straws.

Talk about drawing inappropriate conclusions.

An “expert” named Jerry Shuster, a University of Pittsburgh professor, claimed that Biden’s painfully rude, childish behavior helped him control the agenda.

Would it have helped Biden control the agenda had he worn tights, ridden a unicycle and juggled chainsaws?

Shuster also said Biden’s inexplicably condescending body language was an important strategic move because it kept Ryan off stride.

Of course, having al Qaeda terrorists launch a sophisticated 9/11 terrorist attack complete with rocket propelled grenades and mortars, one that murders four people, would have kept Ryan off stride.  Especially if Biden stuck to the now fully discredited story that it sprang from a spontaneous protest to a video so obscure nobody had heard of it until the White House used it as an excuse to cover up its own incompetence.

Oh wait, Biden did stick to that story during the debate.

Of course, if in the eyes of “progressive” Democrats all it takes to win a debate is cutting off your opponent while speaking, a human clown is not even necessary.

An embarrassingly flatulent gorilla would suffice.

Certainly either launching a terrorist attack or introducing a large primate suffering major digestive discomfort would throw an opponent off stride during a debate.

Serious experts agreed that Ryan was successful in his first outing on the national debate stage.  His performance against a man 27 years his senior showed that his command of foreign and domestic policies will make him a credible, acceptable Vice President.

And if after he loses his job as Vice President Biden loses out in his bid to play the Joker, perhaps his ability to cackle will help him win a job playing the wicked witch of the west in a Wizard of Oz show.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/big-bird-and-the-joker/

Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

atlas-shrugged-part-2-teaser-movie-poster-2_250

10/7/12 Atlas Shrugged: Part II opens next week and producer Harmon Kaslow joins me to talk about the movie and the new cast. Also, I’ll wrap up the debate and tell you who is REALLY to blame for Obama’s performance. And Louis Fowler stops by for his weekly Entertainment Crack-Up. Tune in tonight at 10pm ET/7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk radio.
UPDATE: Listen to a replay of this show here or click the link to download

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

The Media Beats a Dead Macaca

Macaca, the Republican gift that keeps on giving. (Washington Post)

Macaca, the Republican gift that keeps on giving. (Washington Post)

Former Virginia GOP Senator George Allen has always been more politician than movement conservative. Allen throws us the occasional social issue vote — he opposes abortions, except in the politically expedient case of rape and incest, and he’s on record as supporting gravity and man/woman marriage — but George is also a big spender and crony capitalist, which come to think of it, is also politically expedient.

But after watching his performance in the Fairfax County Chamber’s Senate Candidate debate with former Governor Tim Kaine, one starts to wonder if he’s much of a politician.

In 1994 Republicans took the House after Hillarycare collapsed. In 2010 Republicans took the House in response to Obamacare. A majority of the public still opposes Obamacare and wants to see it repealed. Discussion of and opposition to Obamacare should be a given for any conservative Senate candidate.

Yet during the debate Allen uses the leaden euphemism “healthcare tax bill” instead of the more obvious Obamacare.

This is a mistake on two levels. “Healthcare tax bill” is a term that only saw light after Chief Justice John Roberts applied for asylum at the White House and ruled Obamacare constitutional. To understand the term a listener must be reminded of the decision — something conservatives want to forget — and then connect it with Obamacare.

So it’s a descriptor that’s once removed from the topic at hand. Secondly this bloodless term has none of the baggage and negative connotations that Obamacare has acquired. So why use it at all unless your goal is to discourage your own vote?

Does some consultant think that using Obamacare will alienate independents? Good grief, even Obama embraces Obamacare as a label. And is that also why Allen talks about reforming the “healthcare tax bill” rather than repealing it?

Even in Minnesota — a state that sent Al Franken to the Senate! — a majority of likely voters want Obamacare repealed. In 2010 Virginia voters didn’t defeat Democrat incumbent Congressmen Glenn Nye, Rick Boucher and Tom Perriello because they wanted to send Obamacare to rehab.

Voters want it sent to Restland.

Consultant–pecked candidates pledging to tinker around the edges of Obamacare are everything that’s wrong with conservative politics today. It sucks the enthusiasm out of your own base in a futile effort to seem less threatening to people who won’t vote for you anyway.

However, I know this discussion is inside political baseball. Readers are really asking: What about Macaca? The term Allen used to describe a Democrat tracker during the Senate re–election campaign he lost over six years ago.

It just so happens 34 minutes and 31 seconds into the debate Macaca reared its ugly head (on second thought this particular topic might not be the best candidate for personification, so let’s just say the question appeared).

Holy smoke! What’s the statute of limitations on stupidity? George Allen is a serial apologizer for his Macaca comment. Allen personally endowed the Macaca Studies chair at the University of Virgina. He journeyed overseas and built a school in Macaca’s village. The entire Allen family sends him a non–denominational “Season’s Greetings” card every winter solstice.

What more does the media want?

Why does the MSM have a memory like an elephant for Republican mistakes, but when a Democrat sounds like a jackass interest dies in a month? In mid–August Vice Buffoon Joe Biden tells a campaign audience full of blacks that Republican policies are designed “to put y’all back in chains.” By mid–September the controversy is gone.

By comparison, what would the MSM would do if Paul Ryan told an audience of Jews that Democrat policies on Iran are designed to “put y’all back in the ovens?” Let me save you the trouble. For the next decade demonstrators dressed as kitchen appliances would appear outside Ryan events as the media jostled each other for the chance to interview the burner with a brain.

And should Ryan participate in a debate, he would be peppered with penetrating questions from Anderson Cooper, just as soon as Andy was able to remove his Jenn–Air costume.

If George is paying attention, there’s actually a lesson in semantics buried here among the bias. The debate questioner didn’t ask George about “an unfortunate slip of the tongue” during a campaign rally. She asked about Macaca because she knew the word had impact, would put Allen on the spot and would reaffirm her caring credentials among peers and watching Democrats. (Save your email. I know this is redundant.)

Obamacare does the same thing for public policy. The word is motivational. It shows conservatives that Allen is on their side and the unpopularity of the issue puts Kaine on the spot.

Allen’s consultants appear to be telling him otherwise, but I suggest if he has any doubts, George should call former Congressmen Boucher, Nye or Perriello and ask whoever answers the phone if Obamacare is a good word for Republicans and a bad one for Democrats.

Romney in Big Trouble

rumble-in-the-jungle-shook-the-world-thumb-400xauto-48021

Following the first presidential debate on October 3rd between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, one in which Romney repeatedly scored and Obama appeared lost, annoyed and disinterested; pundits, pollsters and political junkies alike unanimously declared Mitt Romney as the winner.

Obama, a long time card carrying member of the self-proclaimed institutionalized “progressive” left intellectual elite, was not simply one step ahead of the opposition.  He was so extremely clever he completely tricked, baffled and befuddled his own supporters.

What the entire watching world missed was, Obama’s apparently dismal failure in the Denver, CO debate was a well-planned, strategic, flawlessly executed tactic.

Barack Obama, being so much smarter than everyone else, thoroughly fooled the masses with his deliberately debased debate debacle.

His performance was so convincing that even Bill Maher and Chris Matthew swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker.  Maher, who has put lots of his own money behind Obama, bemoaned on Twitter “I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter”.  Matthews was beside himself, tormenting himself by wondering aloud why the real Obama failed to show up for the verbal tussle.

You would think nobody had ever heard of Muhammad Ali shockingly conquering George Foreman in the historic Rumble in the Jungle.

This must have been Obama’s strategy going into the debate, to strategically pattern the three debates after the world famous Ali-Foreman heavyweight championship bout.  Play rope-a-dope and intentionally allow the opponent to attack, all the while knowing your adversary will tire and his skills will eventually wane.

For Barack Obama, who as demonstrated by his actions in office clearly considers himself vastly intellectually superior to even his White House predecessors, much less his backwards thinking Conservative yokel opponent, there can be no other explanation.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/romney-in-big-trouble/

The Debate #Fail No One is Talking About

Photo by Elizabeth Cromwell

It’s no surprise Obama lost the debate, even for his own campaign.

The Obama camp floated the idea that the president would be under-prepared for the debate early last week. Jim Messina, arguably the brains behind the president’s campaign strategy, had a nationwide campaign conference call outlining just that. Even the president himself joined the call & jabbed that Romney is far more proficient in debate performance. Mr. Messina commented that the president has been “doing his job” which doesn’t leave much time for debate practice. (Clearly high donor fundraisers, stumping in Vegas and photo ops with Beyonce are quite time consuming, but I digress.) One has to assume media traveling with the president were on the call that included Obama for America Field Directors from across the nation. The media, now acting shocked at the outcome, was well aware for at least a week that Obama would likely not be the debate winner.

More than just ill prepared, Obama failed his own plan B.

Knowing the possibility was there that the president would perform poorly, surely the campaign had a plan B, right? And in typical progressive fashion, it was time to play the victim card.

This administration, the Obama campaign and those on the progressive left have long used victimhood as a means to gain favor and earn votes. Whether it’s a stump speech centered around the sad story of a crumbling bridge, or at the State of the Union address claiming to read letter after letter from suffering people, or an entire Democratic National Convention pandering to the manufactured hardships of the war on women, the progressive left wins when they play the victim card.

Now, I don’t claim to have definitive inside knowledge, but I would be willing to bet, looking at the full scale attacks from leftwing media pundits and campaign spokespeople, that Team Obama fully intended to play the victim card following the debate. In fact, Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter’s first interview sounded like a carefully memorized berating of Jim Lehrer saying, “I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator…”

As if marching to a synchronized drumbeat, MSNBC pundits, ABC and CBS talking heads and others on the left immediately flashed the victim card claiming Lehrer had lost control of the debate. Some even went so far as to claim Romney was given an unfair amount of time to speak, though it was confirmed later on CNN that the president had actually spoken 4 minutes longer than Romney.

I think the president fully expected to be grilled by the moderator. I think the plan was to pander to the audience, play victim as much as possible, tug on heartstrings & when in doubt, blame those darn republicans. But I also think Obama was stunned to learn 10 minutes into the debate that the plan was foiled. Romney’s use of facts, history and his obvious passion (which had been lacking in the campaign to this point) rendered the president listless. He was simply unable recover without a teleprompter & pre-written speech. Obama was so off his game and bewildered that he sounded like the Miss Teen USA contestant that went completely off the rails when trying to explain why kids couldn’t find America on a map. When asked about the economy his answer was about education and medicare, when asked about deficits or taxes, his talking points were off-point and irrelevant.

Obama failed to effectively make the case that he is a victim and thus failed to gain control of the post-debate narrative.

Debate Tonight!

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

10/2/12 Tonight marks the first of three debates between President Obama and his opponent Mitt Romney. It will be hosted at the University of Colorado and moderated by PBS’s Jim Lehrer (making his 13th Presidential Debate appearance). This also may be the first time the nation at large will get to see the “real” candidates. During the 2008 elections Obama was an unknown quantity, a blank canvas on which Americans could project their own ideas of who Barack Obama was, and who they hoped him to be. This time around Obama has a record, a string of scandals and an air of arrogance that has surprised many of his supporters. Since the mainstream media has already been grossly negligent in reporting on the Obama administration, tonight will be the first time the public will be able to see Obama directly challenged on his dismal record.

This will also be the first time many non-Republicans will get to see Mitt Romney in action. Tonight will be an opportunity for Romney to show America his “real” personality as opposed to what gets shown on the biased evening news reports from a negligent (yes, I used the word again because it cannot be overstated) national media. If played right, this could be Romney’s Reagan moment. Just like Reagan did in 1980 when running against Carter, Romney could have the opportunity to show a lighter side than has been painted in the media; to break away from the “evil Republican” caricature and give Americans the opportunity to say “Gee, I never realized he was such a likable guy”.

Already the mainstream media and the Obama campaign (one in the same, basically) have been hard at work lowering expectations for his performance tonight. There is no doubt that this debate is Romney’s to lose…but then again, Republicans have always been good at securing defeat from the jaws of victory.

There should be no issues finding a broadcast to watch this evening as nearly every major station will be covering the event, but here is a link to one live stream if you prefer to watch online. And don’t forget to follow me on Twitter as I’ll be live-tweeting the debate tonight and that is ALWAYS entertaining. You can follow me @kiradavis422 or just click on the Twitter button right here on the site to get connected.

Romney: Attack to Win

C-Romney_Obama_Debate

America’s 2012 deficit has surpassed the already outrageous and immoral deficit of 2011.  Despite hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani veterans not yet receiving their VA health care benefits Barack Obama has increased spending on foreign aid by 80 percent.

Where is that foreign aid going?  How much of it will fund America’s so-called allies in Libya, Egypt or Pakistan?  What portion of taxpayer’s money will end up in the hands of jihadists who posted threats on Facebook before their well-planned, coordinated 9/11 consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya; an assault that resulted in the death of four unprotected Americans?   Or will that money somehow end up in the coffers of the al Qaeda terrorists who bombed that same consulate twice in the weeks preceding the assault?

After repeated requests for increased security measures, why was the Benghazi consulate left unprotected by the Obama administration’s Departments of State and Defense?

If Benghazi is so unsafe that the entire U.S. staff has been pulled out, and the well trained, well equipped FBI cannot enter to investigate the “crime scene”, why were the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans sent there?

Why is the Obama administration acting in full blown denial of al Qaeda and other elements of Islamofascism being alive and well and influential in the Middle East and North Africa?

With the Muslim Brotherhood in control of Egypt’s government, Egyptian women legitimately fear they will see their rights diminished.  In Afghanistan, where the Taliban and al Qaeda are patiently waiting out the pre-announced withdrawal of America’s armed forces, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s pledge to Afghani women that America will not abandon them and their rights is skating on thin ice.

At a meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York a senior North Korean diplomat warned that North and South Korea are ‘on the verge of nuclear war’.

Feeling safer now that Obama’s policies of appeasement are in full bloom?

On the home front, while America speeds towards a fiscal cliff that will throw the economy into a double dip recession and lead to huge tax increases, the Obama administration coerced Lockheed Martin into dropping plans to issue legally required layoff notices to employees in the swing state of Virginia.  The Office of Management and Budget promised Lockheed Martin that the government would pay the legal costs if Lockheed was charged with violating the WARN Act.  That means taxpayers will get stuck with the bill for the Obama administration’s encouraging Lockheed Martin to break the law.

Meanwhile, the nanny state and the nanny state mentality continue to “evolve”.  Now, the government has plans to “urge” parents to pattern their family dinners after school lunches.  Since when is it the government’s job to use American children to dictate dinner table fare to parents?

Two more U.S. Border Patrol agents have been shot.  In what may turn out to be a replay of the Brian Terry catastrophe, one died.  In what the Obama administration will certainly describe as an “isolated incident”, Fast and Furious weapons were found in the possession of a Juarez drug cartel leader.

The healthcare reform law, which was sold on the promise that middle income families would see their premiums reduced by $2,500, has caused them to rise by $3,000.  For each and every middle income family, that is a harsh $5,500 reality being imposed upon their already falling incomes.  In addition, private property owners now face a new Federal Surtax to help pay for Medicare…and hospitals now face new fines for readmitting Medicare patients “too quickly”.  How “too quickly” is defined will be determined by an unelected, unaccountable oligarchy in Washington DC; not the hospital, not the doctor, not the patient.

Low and Middle incomes have fallen sharply since Obama took office.  The reckless spending of Obama and members of his “progressive” body politic ensures it is only a matter of time before middle income families see their taxes rise.

In the face of this evidence, Americans are expected to believe that Mitt Romney is the one who is out of touch and hostile to the interests of America’s middle class?

In such a target rich environment, Mitt Romney should attack Barack Obama’s policies and record in a grand, sweeping, big picture, presidential fashion.  By doing so, Romney will be able to draw a clear distinction between his plans for America and Obama’s.  By employing this strategy, Romney stands to win considerably more than the October 3rd debate in Denver, Colorado.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/romney-attack-to-win/

Occupy vs. Tea Party: The Series

YES! It is finally here! A reality television show that pits two of the most visible and vociferous political grassroots groups against each other in a battle of epic proportions.  Occupy vs. Tea Party is the brainchild of Mr. Gordon Gebert.  A musician by trade, Mr. Gebert hatched the idea of these two groups duking it out on live television upon seeing the growth of such activism after the coronation of Barack Obama.  He wanted a project that was fair, innovative, and fun in a time where politics is becoming all too personal. We can thank Hilary Rosen for that.  However, the dynamics of the show are actually quite interesting.

He said that the show’s will be in a one hour format (44 minutes with commercials) and will be a Survivor meets Big Brother meets Apprentice format.  Occupy and Tea Party contestants will be divided into teams of six with three females and three males on each side.  Each team will endure challenges, like in Survivor, and the winner would pick a debate topic for later in the program.  Gebert said “the meat of the show” is centered on the “Big Great Debate,” where we see our political allegiances duke it out in a battle royale over freedom, liberty, and the American way of life.  Gordon said he wanted to portray a debate that isn’t cut off by commercial breaks or abrupt endings due to time constraints, which I think a lot of us have felt frustrated about watching Hannity, The Five, or (gulp) MSNB—-(I can’t say it!)….the news in general!

At the conclusion of the debate, each side will vote a member off.  As a result, you will experience the typical fight to oust the lazy person, “the village idiot,” the poor debater, or the emotionally fragile. What fun!  The last two contestants will have one final Big Great Debate and the viewers will decide who won the contest.  Gordon feels that in similar programs, where voting off contestants is an integral part of the show, the viewer will find a Tea partier or, do I dare say, an Occupier, to connect with and will share in his or her dissapointment if they are voted off the program.

Gordon hopes that a major network will pick up the show for a weekly broadcast. He is currently raising funds to shoot the pilot episode for his summer preview.  However, if this show is picked up, then production will be given a budget to allow for such amenities and Mr. Gebert hopes that the increase in funds will enhance the quality of the show, provide more eye candy, and conduct more editing to help the narrative.  However, like in politics, it’s all about the money and if he can raise more than his targeted $50,000 budget for the pilot, he can pitch a better product to the network executives in early June or late July.  However, he knows the tough road ahead of him.  He admits that the only way he would be picked up by a major network is if they have a show that fails with audiences in their packed fall schedules.  Although, his optimism couldn’t be higher and there is always a few programs that don’t make the cut.  Case in point, Lone Star, 3 lbs, The Playboy Club, and The Paul Reiser Show were all sentenced to the chopping block.  At the very least, Occupy vs. Tea Party will be posted as a webisode on Youtube. This show has some serious potential and I wish Gordon Gebert the best in bringing this entertainment to a wider audience.

« Older Entries