MSNBC did not serve its dwindling audience very well Tuesday night. While the nation could have heard from a bevy of rising Republican stars who have compelling stories to tell, MSNBC decided it would serve up snark instead. So the speeches of former Rep. Artur Davis, Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz, and Utah congressional candidate Mia Love were all ignored by the cable net that once called itself the “place for politics.”
While these minority Republicans were delivering their speeches, MSNBC went almost all-white on the air with Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Steve Schmidt, and Al Sharpton.
How does it feel to be a token, Rev. Al?
The speeches MSNBC ignored were terrific. Ted Cruz brought a dash of Texas to the stage as he told the story of his parents’ escape from Castro’s Cuba. Rep. Artur Davis threatened to be a show-stealer as he described his journey from being Barack Obama’s 2008 co-chairman to a Republican just four years later. The contrast between the Republicans’ “get” with Davis and the Democrats’ “get” with Charlie Crist was so striking that on Twitter I observed that in this switch the GOP had made the best trade since the Dallas Cowboys bankrupted the Minnesota Vikings in the Herschel Walker trade. The ‘Boys got three Super Bowl rings out of that one, while the Vikings got bupkis.
MSNBC didn’t avoid the night entirely. During Chris Christie’s speech, host Alex Wagner snarked a time or two on Twitter. From Wagner the world got the sterling observation that Christie’s call at the end of his speech, to stand with him and fight for Mitt Romney, was “aerobic.” Fat jokes from a thin, attractive newsreader. Har de har.
Maybe I’m hopelessly out of touch, but it seems to me that helmet haired table pounders like the Fluke fool and Rabid Maddow are shamed hopelessly by Mrs Romney in any setting, anywhere, anytime.
Who but the blindest fool woman, of any age, would seek to emulate the first two?
If you’ve got cable (or FIOS TV) or the dish, just bypass the Ministry of Propaganda and Lies: Watch it on C-SPAN. BTW I thought Ted Cruz’s speech was absolutely terrific. Did you notice – no teleprompters for him.
Good call, Jack. That’s what I did. I got tired of Cavuto stumbling during every interview he conducted on FBC. I just wanted to hear people speak!
Ann Romney’s speaking skills will come in handy at the Women’s Auxiliary Club in La Jolla, Ca. That is the town where Mitt and Ann are remodeling the house with the car elevator and where they will be retiring to in November.
I don’t think this will be a surprise, however. Did you see the pained, almost constipated, look on Mitt’s face as Christie gave his speech? He didn’t even give Romney passing mention until the end. It was all about Christie and 2016. Mitt had the look of a candidate who knows he’s being set up to lose.
Speaking of losers, CW, still backing the O-man? Now there’s a phenomenal loser — from “hope and change” to nothing but hollow lies, nasty attacks and ugly smears. And why? Because nothing he said panned out despite huge expense? Because brain-dead liberalism doesn’t work? What do YOU think, you big old cynic you?
Honorable out for lefties: This time, don’t vote for president. If you do, you’ll vote for O and may be responsible for wrecking the country via another four years of leftonomics. (Europe, anyone?) If you don’t, you can’t be held responsible for whatever happens, even by yourself. I know, know — being a lefty is never having to say you’re sorry even when you fail massively. You did it for “social justice,” right? Even though social justice is neither? Hey, you really are a big cynic.
Cynical, you are truly a jerk. Whatever one thinks about her politics, Ms. Romney’s speech was heartfelt, honest and inspiring. She didn’t insult, attack or slime the other side. I don’t know what kind of world you live in, but in my world, the task of being a Mom is difficult and challenging. Yes, I know about all the household help stick, but the real task is to raise children as solid citizens who think for themselves and have real aspirations and that takes competent parents. She has done an admirable job of that and deserves commendation and respect.
You carry the lefty banner oh so high, and prove your point by insults, condescension, and a smug superiority that could not be warranted under any circumstances. We shall see what happens in November. I rather suspect that Obama will be the sorest loser in American history. The people are waking up and his poll numbers are sinking day by day. I am thankful for that.
Disturber
Cynical Wonder. Have you been posting with different names on PJM?
What I find puzzling, Cynical Wonder, is why you hate people who are wealthy. You see, in America, you can become wealthy due to your own hard work. Yet you have no value or respect for hard work, innovation and perseverance.
In other nations, you only become wealthy by political power, such as the 17th century landowners, or the rulers of the oil states in the Middle East, or the political crony dealings of someone like George Soros, or the various backroom deals of someone like Pelosi or Reid. I can understand contempt for these wealthy people. But I don’t understand your sneering rejection of the results of individual hard work and innovation.
Romney gives millions, yes millions, to charity. Obama gave only a few thousand. hmmm.
As for your comment about the fact that Christie didn’t reference Romney until the end of his speech, there’s a very good reason for that. You see, the GOP campaign is not about A Dear Leader, not about a Messiah, not about The One. It’s about America. Not an individual.
The GOP are not worshipping an individual, pontificating about Hope and Change, offering platitudes about ‘the oceans ceasing to rise’. The GOP are talking about the foundational values of Americans and how to best enable these values to function: the equality of all to have freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
How can these function? In an economy that enables the growth of private small businesses, limited government that doesn’t prevent such private enterprise by massive regulations; energy from oil, gas found in America; the reduction of the public service to lessen the financial burden on taxpayers to keep this elite class; tax reform to end the current situation where 10% pay 71% of the taxes while 47% pay zero; reform of entitlements and so on.
The Romneys are building a house with an elevator to accommodate the progressive nature of Multiple Sclerosis. Eventually, Mrs. Romney will need an elevator to get around in her own house. Wheelchairs don’t climb stairs very well. Do you kick your dog, too?
Did you miss the statement in Ann Romney’s speech (who are you kidding, you didn’t listen to it) where she made the point that there would be no attack on Mitt’s success were it not for the fact that Obama has had none. You’re only grousing about the Romney’s wealth and success because your Loser has got no game. Proof?
As a MA resident, do you support that french-looking-Christmas-in-Cambodia Corporate Wife John Kerry? Do you hate Ter-ray-sa’s money, or just her catsup?
Cynical Wonder. o Cynical Wonder
Wherefore art thou Cynical Wonder
Foreswear thy father and forget thy name
You bring nought but shame to them
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s speech was not as strong, but I suspect that that was the plan, too.
Oh, I doubt that. Christie was good, but Ann was better – and put Mr. Christie in her shadow a bit.
I only wish Mitt could speak half as well as either of them.
It was a little too girlie for me.
Romney’s “RNC Power Grab”: What Really Happened By Dean Clancy on August 29, 2012
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/dean-clancy/romneys-rnc-power-grab-what-happened
Comparing her to that Wookie who has delusions of being an internationally acclaimed nutrition specialist and whose wig and tattooed eyebrows remind mostly of a black fat Morticia Addams, Ann Romney did far more than withstand the test.
She’s everything Antoinette Obama isn’t.
Michelle Obama, I’ll admit, does not fit the mold of the peroxide blonde GOP Stepford Wife. “Antoinette Obama?” That one is pretty laughable, especially if you compare where these two women come from. An honest look will show that your comment is based in ignorance, and a sprinkling of racism and hate.
Ann told the story of the way way she and Mitt paid for their pasta and tuna fish, and the desk that was a door, was by SELLING STOCK, given to them by his family, that on a conservative calculation was worth in current money almost FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! Conveniently there was no mention of Ann and Mitt’s vast gifted wealth (and the much vaster wealth that they could of course have drawn on if in trouble). A speech eagerly reported as humanizing and successful actually had a fabricated reality at its center. In many ways Ann Romney reminds us of Marie Antoinette who is rumored to have dressed up as a shepherdess and skipped around the gardens of Petit Trianon pretending to be a peasant.
Ann Romney is out of touch with reality and if it was her job to reach out to female voters she failed miserably. Other than that, she seems like any lovely lady one might meet at the Garden Club in any generic upscale community.
Why are you so bitter and angry at people with wealth, Cynical Wonder?
The fact is that their parents earned that wealth, by their work and innovation. Same with Romney; he earned it. So? Why do you so resent these results? What do you expect the children of someone who has gone from nothing to wealth (eg, Romneys, Gates, Jobs, Obama)…to do with this wealth? Throw it away?
The fact that someone is wealthy does not mean that they are unable to empathize with others, it does not mean that they are amoral, without values and so on. Certainly, someone who is wealthy CAN have no empathy, CAN lack values and empathy. Think of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, John Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Michael Jackson and so on.
But, someone without wealth can also be amoral, lack empathy and be without values.
Your ‘evidence’ that people rejected Ann Romney’s speech is empirically empty. That is, a statement that ‘many who viewed’ lacks any empirical evidence. Equally, your statement that someone running for President OUGHT to talk about his charity giving, is logically false. There is no rule formal or informal that declares such a requirement.
I don’t see what function a tax return has as a requirement for the presidential role. After all, there is no evidence that Romney has not paid his taxes – unlike John Kerry, Geithner and others in the Obama team. Therefore, why is this a requirement? I would consider that college transcripts ought to be a requirement but Obama has sealed them. Why?
And one huge difference between the GOP and the Democrats is that the GOP are focused on America and Americans; their focus is on enabling Americans to be equal in their rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are not elevating Romney as the American messiah; he is merely the Agent of the People to obtain these results. The Democrats, on the other hand, focus only on The Dear Leader, The Messiah. The election is all about The Dear Leader and not about America.
CW, why exactly are you a vicious, jaded, misanthrope? Is it only because of your envy of those better off than you, or is it knowing that you have no hope of achieving anything of note?
Or are you simply a bitter, stupid a-hole with his head so far up Obama’s ass that you can see his tonsils from below?
What do Mrs. Romney’s looks have to do with it? It’s Mrs. My-husband-will-make-you-suffer-while-me-and-100-of-my-closest-friends-party-in-Spain’s behavior that makes her insensitive to America’s struggling citizens. Let them eat cake would actually be a step up.
Stepford wives? You mean like John Kerry?
I cannot wait for the All-vagina-all-the-time Democrat Convention. Reproductive rights as a main issue. Wow. An argument could be made that the sorry economy is forcing women to abort babies because they can’t afford them. The democrats have gone beyond advocacy to prescription. Ugly, that.
BTW, as a woman I resent being treated as a brainless sex organ that needs government support for all my clueless decisions. Women are smarter than democrats know, apparently.
The original wealth was the product of raw courage followed up by gruelingly hard work, and the ability to pass it on the result of self-discipline and prudent husbandry.
The fact that you have problems with any of that seems to me a genetic marker for willful, irremediable stupidity, so far your only “Wonder”ful attribute, despite endless head-banging attempts to “epater le bourgoisie” on this site.
…la bourgeoisie…
#3. Is that all you can come up with?
Try this on for size. In two generations, the Romneys went from nothing (a carpenter without a penny in his pocket) to a son worth millions. Why are you so upset about that? Jealousy? That’s all it can be. You wouldn’t want your kid to be him?
PS–the two of them lived in a basement apartment with a door for a table when they first got married. How about you?
That’s all you Dems can come up with anymore. Jealousy and envy–because that’s all you have.
Romney could have said “screw it, I’m worth a ton, and I don’t need this crap, especially from the morons in the media and elsewhere taking potshots at me for the next few years. why not retire to my homes and enjoy it?”
I think the guy really wants to make a difference, if you ask me, and he’s sincere.
The difference in character between Mitt and the Big O is enormous. Just wait for the debates, brother. By then it won’t matter. This is 1980, even if you can’t see it yet beyond the NYT and MSNBC.
Finally–newsflash—while everyone is very positive right now with their message, don’t for one minute think that the Romney campaign can’t be as negative and as nasty as they need to be. Just look at the primaries.
At a time and a place of their choosing, they will do so. When they are done, I’m not sure there’s going to much left of O. There wasn’t much substance to begin with anyway, as we are all finding out, so it shouldn’t be that hard.
When you do take an honest look (you’re not) at the reality of the Romney’s situation (see my above response), which was anything but poor or hard times, you say that because we are doing so it amounts to “jealously and envy.” You can do better than that.
Many who viewed Ann’s speech felt at if we were in the prop department of Paramount Studios. Ann’s refusal to step beyond these props is telling. “You can trust Mitt,” she said. “He will take us to a better place, just as he took me home safely from that dance.” A “better place” might not have been the best phrase; there was already something stultifying about the frozen way we were asked to look at set pieces from their marriage without inquiring too much…. Her line about Mitt not liking to talk about how he helps others is baffling on its own—shouldn’t someone who is running for President give us a hint?—and also echoes the shameless explanation that she and her husband gave, in an interview with Parade, for not releasing their tax returns: that it would embarrass them by revealing just how charitable they were? What?
I look forward to seeing Ann’s tanned visage in the likes of Town and Country magazine in future years. There, she will be able to take us on a tour of her La Jolla mansion (the one with the car elevator and where they’ll be retiring to in November). She can guide us through all the carefully arranged props of her perfect life. In many ways her speech laid the foundation for it.
Good lord are you boring, and pathetic. How much is Georgie Soros paying these days.
Apparently, not enough to refute anything I said …
Cynical Wonder. Have you posted recently on PJM as Jaycen?
So much I want to say. But Wrath is a Sin. And I am a Christian, or try to be. You sow the seeds of Envy and Avarice with such enthusiasm that I would not not to be there when you see what you reap. Still, I might be, and I will struggle to show you the Patience and Mercy you withhold from everyone around you, even if I cannot find it in my heart to feel either. It is my job as a Christian to be a better human being than you.
I groaned through the first couple minutes of her speech and thought she was going to bomb. By the time she finished I was setting on the edge of my chair, I thought she was terrific.
GR #9. I watched the first minute of Ann’s speech and was cringing so much I had to change the channel. I’m hearing today from my mother-in-law that the second half of the speech was very good. I’ll have to give it another chance, she’s got it recorded. Hope Nielsen didn’t find a big percentage of viewers changing the channel like me, you want to make that good first impression.
Artur Davis had me tearing up at one point, not sure why, but he was very appealing, and Chris Christie gave a rousing speech.
watched the first minute of Ann’s speech and was cringing so much I had to change the channel. I’m hearing today from my mother-in-law that the second half of the speech was very good. I’ll have to give it another chance, she’s got it recorded. Hope Nielsen didn’t find a big percentage of viewers changing the channel like me, you want to make that good first impression.
So glad I’m not the only one who was cringing at Ann’s speech. I’ve always been impressed with what I’ve seen of her in interviews and I was not expecting such a girlie, giggly appeal to the emotions. Chris Christie’s speech made up for it though. And Mia Love was incredible!
It seems to me the kind of swordplay that enabled her to repeatedly hit her mark in establishing the stark contrast between the Romneys’ marriage and those of a couple of prominent Democrat couples who shall remain nameless would be characterized as anything but “girlie.”