The American Spectator

Captain America| 11.9.08 @ 12:08PM

I seriously question the futility of being interviewed by Chris Matthews (MSNBC), Rick Sanchez (CNN), and their ilk.

Clearly Sanchez was attempting to generate his own headlines by pushing Goldfarb to name more than Bill Ayers. Just as clearing, Goldfarb had to maintain the position held by Sen. McCain. But that was when Sanchez smelled blood and wouldn't relent.

Not only was the interview insulting to any objective observer, Sanchez played up this story to his audience in his subsequent program the next day.

How differ was Sanchez than Chris Matthews' treatment of Representative Michele Bachman? It wasn't. In fact, Matthews colluded with the DNC and the Soros crowd in an attempt to have Bachman defeated in her election. It didn't work thank goodness.

So, my question remains: Why waste the time with these show hosts? Can any conservative seriously believe they will be given equal treatment to a democrat?

Captain America| 11.9.08 @ 12:15PM

While the topic is of Michael's interview with Sanchez, the more recent interview Sanchez conducted with Joe the Plumber was very disturbing.

The tactic Sanchez employed with Joe was to coach his questions of him as being from Sanchez' viewers. But it became very clear what was generating the questions. They were coming from Sanchez.

There needs to be a litmus test for agreeing to go on with these show hosts: (1) Does the show host demonstrate a willingness to have an equal number of guest from both sides to to debate the issues? In most cases, you see a disproportionate slant in favor of liberals; and, (2) Does the show host engage in attempts to generate their own stories for commercial gain? Better known as attack journalism.

Dan| 11.9.08 @ 3:35PM

Robert, don't go blaming Goldfarb.

He had his instructions from the McCain campaign, and tried his best to expose creepy Obama's creepy associations.

Yes, Goldfarb may have been made to look odd.

But what was really odd, and will be recalled for decades to come, was the sight of a media wholly prostituting itself for the Obama campaign.

So cut Goldfarb a break.

And by the way, your idea of creating relationships with members of the media as a strategy around media bias is brain dead.

That's what McCain spent the last two decades doing, and no Republican before or since had a better relationship with the media. Yet that didn't stop the media plunging a tomahawk into the back of his skull, now did it.

Nobody flattered the media as did McCain.

Nobody poured scorn on Conservatives, even the Bible Belt, as did McCain.

Nobody swapped stories as did McCain.

Where did it get him?

Matthew Vadum| 11.9.08 @ 4:57PM

What liberal journalist Jonathan Alter called "low-information voters" appeared to overwhelmingly break for Obama. I suspect Alter thought they would break for McCain. Ha.

Robert Stacy McCain| 11.9.08 @ 10:29PM

1. Captain America: Sanchez is doing a very old trick, of attributing to some nebulous "many people" the journalist's own viewpoint: "Many Americans are wondering ..." etc. It is a method of employing bandwagon psychology in journalism, and anyone who aspires to independent thought must learn to spot such tricks.
2. Dan: The McCain campaign, at the candidate's own insistence, would not raise the Wright issue. I like Goldfarb, but his response to Sanchez was not calculated to sway undecided voters in CNN's audience. It therefore reminded me of that idiot Tucker Bound' awful encounter with Campbell Brown. The host's transparent bias ought not distract campaing spokesmen from keeping in mind that there are persuadable undecided voters in the audience. As to media relations, I don't consider policy defections and mocking grassroots conservatives (as Crazy Cousin John loved to do around reporters in 2000) to be sound strategy.
3. Matthew: Of course, Democrats always do well among "low-information voters," since the entire rationale of their party is based on economic hooey. The poverty of the poor is not caused by the wealth of the rich, and anyone too stupid to understand that simple fact will inevitably vote Democrat. (And keep in mind I was a Democrat until about 1994, when I finally realized that the Democrats were never going to institute "economic justice," and that even if they could, it would only be because they had universalized poverty.)

Dan| 11.10.08 @ 12:30AM

Robert, I never addressed "policy defections and mocking grassroot conservatives."

I was speaking much more narrowly to the suggestion, made by you if I recall, that the Republicans need to build relationships with the media as a way around media bias.

As for Goldfarb, ----------------- it was impossible for him to do his job within existing insturctions laid out by McCain's team.

The longtime Senator foolishly thought the electorate gives two damns about the faux comity that prevails in the Senate.

THAT was a killer.

If McCain hadn't any attention of hitting the Democrat standard-bearer, he had NO business seeking the GOP nomination.

Bob| 11.10.08 @ 9:09AM

You guys make the mistake of talking to yourselves. It was wrong strategically to demonize Obama with either Wright or Ayers. From a media standpoint, a story only works if it is consistent with the persona of the individual used against. Obama has a non-threatening, study, intellectual demeanor. Trying to tag him as a Jew hater or terrorist was not ever going to work. The target voter you were trying to reach sees the vitriol of a Limbaugh or Hannity and does not believe anything they say. That's an outgrowth of the 24 hour news cycle and very partisan outlets like MSNBC and Fox. It's akin to crying "wolf" once too often. Stop blaming the media for a poorly run strategy.

The attacks against Palin's intellect works because she does not speak English well and was a disaster in the Gibson and Couric interviews. The "erratic" charge against McCain worked because he was not steady in either demeanor or rhetoric.

This was a "change" year and not an "attack" year. The Republicans should have laid out a POSITIVE plan for fixing the economic and national security issues. Instead, the McCain campaign (and American Spectator) concentrated on a primarily negative campaign in the belief that the only way they could win was to bring Obama down. Reagan won by bringing a friendly face of hope to voters -- you guys should have learned that lessen.

To be sure, McCain was not a good candidate and Palin was a disaster as the exit polls showed. However, if the Republican party would have let McCain be himself, choose someone like Romney or Ridge for VP, there would have been a greater chance for success.

This points to the current problem with the Republican party -- are we going to be the party of belief, or the party of reason?

ruth| 11.10.08 @ 5:12PM

Bob, you claim to be a republican but I am suspicious. You haven't said one positive thing about 'your' party. Could you be a troll or just another moderate??? Couldn't we just be the party without Bob?