So I'm watching a post Ames one on one with Michelle Bachmann and they address her views on atheists and gays showing her ON VIDEO expressing them from HER OWN LIPS.. She is then asked would you appoint a gay or atheist to a cabinet position or supreme court. Of course because her handlers know they must soon start moving her towards the middle if she has any chance of getting the nomination (which I don't believe she does) she is trying to backpeddle and soften her basically primitive fundamentalist rhetoric.
She answers the question "I would appoint strict constitutionalists" which in itself is open to interpretation and certainly subjective.Okay,fair enough. No harm, no foul. Then she adds to that it has to be people who share her viewpoint. When asked again specifically about whether she would appoint atheists or gays she fires back with that exact scripted answer.
Here's what pisses me off. If they just ran VIDEO of her talking about how everything needs to be Christ centered and how gays and atheists are basically just a breath away from the fires of hell at any given moment then OBVIOUSLY those people don't share her view and no chance they could ever be appointed to a damn thing or have ANY sort of voice in her administration. So she answered the question while hiding her answer from the public she's trying to hoodwink. WHY didn't the interviewer take that opportunity to state the obvious and make her say in a one word simple answer that if she won't appoint people who don't share her view then she HAS answered the question and the answer is just plain "No. No chance." Why can't these interviewers from both the right and the left, but more so the ones on the left show some damn sack and used the bully pulpit of GLOBAL television to make these people get to the damn point?
Sorry for the rambling rant. I just can't believe that every one word answer is disguised in 100 obfuscating words and these assholes are allowed to get a pass for it. In fairness, Bachmann of course isn't the only one, this comes from both sides of the political fence.
I don't think presidents can be expected to appoint people who they don't think are qualified for the job. And to flip things around, if I were president, I don't think I would be appointing many Creationists to anything either. It all depends on functional ability to do the job of course, but I don't know of many jobs to be done which don't require a firm grip on reality, and Creationists (with a capital "C") don't have a firm grip on reality.
Why dont you assume that all pols are liers? I do.
0 Replies
joefromchicago
3
Reply
Mon 15 Aug, 2011 09:13 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
I think he went as far as he could go given that he may want to have her back on the show someday.
And there we have the real answer. Interviewers would be out of a job if they ran out of interviewees, so they make sure they don't ask a lot of tough questions that might piss off the interview subject and scare off potential guests. When an interviewer asks genuinely difficult questions, it causes something of a scandal.
I too get annoyed by the failure of these interviewers to ask even obvious follow-up questions and press their subjects for responses that actually are responses rather than canned talking points. I've found a solution to that, though: I just don't watch tv or listen to news radio any more.
I may be fast reaching that point myself. At this moment, I can't imagine voting for ANYONE in 2012. That really sucks.
0 Replies
blueveinedthrobber
1
Reply
Mon 15 Aug, 2011 09:18 am
@rosborne979,
You're correct of course, but why not just say so and be done with it? That's my point. I realize interviewers have to make a living and all that but enough already.
Since it's illegal to ask a person about their sexuality or religion during the job interview, she is safe in saying that she would keep with hiring people who share her "company policy'. It's done all the time.
It would be hard to prove that she didn't include gays or athesists in her cabinet for any other reason.
Tolerance is a virtue, but forcing people to be over-acceptant is wrong.
I think you're missing my point. Tolerance isn't the issue, we know she's intolerant. The issue is hitch up your pants and just say what you mean in one or two words instead of a thousand. Get to the damn point and stop wasting our time.
I don't give a damn what anyone's personal views and/or habits are off the clock, just don't bring them to the office.
I've just watched the interview, and it does seem rather timid by UK standards. I think it's one of the consequances of having a far right propaganda channel like Fox. Far right figures like Bachmman can decide to limit their interviews to fellow travellers, instead of journalists. Over here we've got Paxman, if anyone refused to be interviewed by him they'd be accused of 'running scared,' and wouldn't stand a cat in Hell's chance of getting in.
You're correct of course, but why not just say so and be done with it? That's my point. I realize interviewers have to make a living and all that but enough already.
I'm not sure. They may think it's a battle they can't win and opt instead to try to continue the conversation to elicit some other information that helps corner the candidate. Giving them some rope to hang themselves with?
I realize interviewers have to make a living and all that but enough already.
And isn't it sad that they make a living by not doing the very job that they are supposed to do?
People made a big to do about that big oaf Tim whatever the hell his name was as some kind of probing journalist. He was nothing but a government facilitator.
0 Replies
izzythepush
1
Reply
Mon 15 Aug, 2011 10:56 am
@JTT,
Yes he did, there's loads about Paxman on youtube. I just can't be bothered to look for it right now, sorry.
I think that's a good point.
It's really not necessary for a journalist to martyr their self in order to pin someone down. I think there is every reason to trust in the intellect of their audience, if I can figure it out how hard can it be
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace