The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
George Savage ·
Oct 17, 2010 at 4:44pm
Watch the clip below of California's Senator Barbara Boxer being interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and explain to me how the conservative-as-troglodyte meme has such durability in our culture. In what alternative universe could women like Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle be regarded as not ready for prime time while the likes of Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi are simultaneously feted as knowledgeable, mainstream public servants?
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
Rush Limbaugh popularized the notion of the media "template" - the set of notions that determine how a story "must be". Regardless of the truth, they must force things to fit their preconceptions.
A major template is that the only women who are representative of women are liberal feminist women. You can be a box of rocks like Sen. Boxer, but if you mouth the correct liberal/feminist platitudes, you are wise.
If you defy the template, and worse yet show that you do not need the template to succeed, then you are a threat to the whole system, and must be beaten down.
The problem is, most American women fit the "Palin model' than fit the "Boxer model". Timmy - we're gonna need a new set of templates!
Oct '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
Because "journalists" like Wolf Blitzer are also feted as knowledgeable, mainstream public servants. These birds of a feather have reduced common public discourse in the USA to nearly meaningless blather in which "up" can mean "down," "in" can mean "out," and "refute" and "disprove" have become synonyms. We are all speaking Newspeak now, whether we know it or not.
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
Wolfe shows his own cluelessness when he allows her to use her "votes" for 2 trillion dollars of (Phantom) Tax Cuts (votes which do not exist) to create jobs as proof the she's not simply a carreer politician with NO Experience in the REAL WORLD.
He gets caught up discussing the amount of her phantom tax cuts, yet she is busy establishing that Carly's accusation is in fact true!
She also gives BOGUS numbers of Jobs Created under Clinton and Bush (Reagan saw far more jobs created during his term incidently)
.
In the end her answer actually establishes that She IS a CAREER POLITICIAN and she as ZERO Experience in the REAL WORLD.
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
Listening to this makes My ears bleed.....
May '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
High five Jimmy. That was painful.
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
Michaeld Savage is right. Liberalism really is a mental disease.
She sounds like a raving bag lady.
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
My nominee for Ricochet Line of the Week.
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
"The stim"?
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
Give her a break guys. Babs had a tough day, just like all of us do occasionally.
She was much sharper when she debated Kaus.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/05/mickey-kaus-vs-the-box.html
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
Palaeologus, that is a fantastic image. I agree that "the Box" looked much, much sharper in her exchange with Mickey.
May '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
Kenneth, I noticed that too. I think we just got a backstage glimpse into either
a) Boxer's conversations with her campaign staff, or
b) the shorthand approach taken by the Democrat Congressional caucus as they decided to spend, oh, let's say, $800 billion. (Strike that! It's not spending if it comes in the form of tax cuts! Unless it's on the rich! I can't remember anymore!)
If I had to guess, Republicans probably talk this way as well. It must be maddeningly boring to go over the details of a thousand-page bill, along with the rest of the work they have to pore over, and some level of abbreviation surely takes place when discussing how one bill fits in with the remainder of the party's agenda.
But from here, it makes it seem that our Congressional overlords don't see any of this as real. It's all talking points, big numbers, and percentages they can rattle off on cue. Without any serious thought put into it on the front end.
Which is how you end up touting shovel-ready projects that don't exist.
May '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
George, you got it almost right. try "Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi are simultaneously fetid public servants?
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
Nick Stuart
George, you got it almost right. try "Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi are simultaneously fetid public servants? · Oct 17 at 8:04pm
Nick, that explains everything. Thanks for the laugh.
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
George, would you mind posting the URL so those of us in NoYouTube land can sieve it through a proxy browser?
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
Sure, Claire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvLuArjGsc
Aug '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
I tried to watch the video - but I shut it off after Blitzer's initial question. Three minutes of Blitzer and Boxer would have ruined my breakfast.
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
Thanks, George. Am I the only one who is constantly annoyed when anyone in government--of either party--uses the phrase, "We created jobs?"
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
I've been laboring for years to create, oh, one-hundred or so jobs, and just-like-that Bill Clinton can summon 23 million into existence, like so many interns delivering pizza.
However, the capper for me is the insouciance with which Boxer treats her most critical talking points. Let's stipulate that all politicians dissemble, cherry-pick friendly facts, etc. But can't we expect a pol to stick with a particular factoid for the entire marathon that is a CNN interview segment? How hard is it to maintain internal consistency for three entire minutes? Instead, Boxer is caught between touting tax cuts totaling $2 trillion and $2.2 trillion, out of a "stim" of--what was the amount again?--oh, yes, $1.2 trillion.
Sure she has ample confidence that nobody will ever seriously run her to ground to substantiate whatever she says, but shouldn't Boxer at least make it easier for Blitzer, et al. to save face?
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
You are not the only one.
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Barbara Boxer
George Savage
But can't we expect a pol to stick with a particular factoid for the entire marathon that is a CNN interview segment? How hard is it to maintain internal consistency for three entire minutes?
Could it be that the pols know that nobody is watching CNN?