On Monday, November 2, at yet another fundraiser, our Community Organizer in Chief went full Alinsky on his enemies, aka the opposing political party, mocking them for complaining about the “moderators.” (read inquisitors) in a recent CNBC GOP “debate,” universally acknowledged to be a complete train wreck. We haven’t seen three imbeciles mess something up so thoroughly since Curly, Larry and Moe tried to fix the plumbing in that mansion in that one episode. Actually, I think that happened in almost every episode, but you get the idea.
While invoking that really annoying semi-giggle speak that he likes to use when deriding Republicans, he said
Every one of these candidates says, “Obama is weak, Putin is kicking sand in his face, when I talk to Putin it is going to straighten him out.
Just by looking at him, I’m going to — he’s going to be…
And then it turns out they can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators on a debate.
If you can’t handle those guys, you know, then, I don’t think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you.
For a moment, let’s leave aside the disappointing fact that, right on cue, nearly everyone in the media, even the allegedly conservative network Fox News, and even some Republican candidates (I’m looking at you, Gov. Christie) has adopted this inaccurate “the Republicans need to stop whining” narrative, and focus on how breathtakingly inaccurate Obama’s remarks were. Not only did the Republican candidates “handle” the three imbeciles, owing largely to the leadership of the magnificently articulate and brilliant Sen. Ted Cruz, they demolished them.
No matter. Barack Obama has never allowed facts or law to constrain him, as you well know.
Now, let’s focus on the issue of candidates being able to answer “tough questions.” Defenders of the CNBC troika of partisan fools say “these candidates need to answer tough questions.” I agree, except I know the definition of “tough questions” in the context of a political debate. “Tough questions” are not talking points from opposition campaigns designed to destroy the people on the stage to helpfully assist that opposition.
To illustrate the point, consider some questions that the crusading seekers of truth in the media could ask Hillary Clinton. Here’s a CNBC style question:
1. “Mrs. Clinton, you explained that you deleted over 30,000 emails from your private e-mail server because they had nothing to do with official State Department business. Instead, you explained, they contained information about Chelsea’s wedding and yoga routines. We’ve all seen you from behind. Are you seriously expecting the American people to believe that you do yoga?”
I know. Cheap shot, and not the sort of question I’d like to see Hillary Clinton answer. Here are some actual “tough questions” that she should have to face before getting back to the White House:
2. Mrs. Clinton, in 2009, you accepted accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award, and expressed tremendous admiration for Ms. Sanger, saying that you were “in awe” of her. Margaret Sanger was an enthusiastic supporter of eugenics, a movement whose goal was to prevent what she called “dysgenic breeding;” that is, stopping African-Americans and other “dark” people, as well as the “feeble minded” and disabled from reproducing. Does your admiration of Margaret Sanger extend to her promotion of eugenics?
3. Mrs. Clinton, you have stated that “I believe the decision on abortion should be the woman’s, not the Government’s.” Do you believe in sex-selection abortions? Should a baby be aborted simply because it is female?
4. Mrs. Clinton, on September 15, 2015, you tweeted “to every survivor of sexual assault: You have the right to be heard and believed. We’re with you.” On that same day, at a speech at the University of Northern Iowa, you said “Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.” Does that right extend to Juanita Broaddrick, who claims that you husband raped her in 1978? Is she lying when she says you personally went after her when she came forward in 1998?
5. Why did you tell an audience at a George Washington University campaign event on March 17, 2008 that you had to dodge sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia when it was not true?
Just one more because, let’s face it. This is fun!
6. Mrs. Clinton, in a 2003 radio interview, you stated, ““I am adamantly against illegal immigrants,” not just illegal immigration, but the immigrants themselves. Yet in a Democrat debate in October, 2015, you stated that you believe states should extend health care benefits to them. Can you explain this obvious inconsistency?
Of course, I have only scratched the surface of the sort of substantive questions Mrs. Clinton should have to face. I haven’t mentioned the very questionable and disturbing contributions from foreign governments to her family foundation, or the many shifting stories on the terrorist attack at Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
I don’t hold out hope that Hillary’s fellow Democrats, aka “reporters”, will ask her these questions, but perhaps a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz will. We can only hope and pray.
Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, the flagship show of the Informed America Radio network, The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in vivid red, white and blue, Sundays 5-7 pm Eastern time (4-6 pm Central) at teriobrien.com and http://www.spreaker.com/show/the-teri-obrien-show, and anytime on demand on iHeart Radio, Stitcher Radio, and iTunes.