Sometimes she's campaigning like she's in Napoleon's march on Moscow, just like a trudge through the winter. This was a little more upbeat, a little more fun...A little more fun than this...
_-_detail.jpg/2880px-On_the_big_road_(Vereshchagin)_-_detail.jpg)
Brooks continues:
She's basically has a defensive posture. And that means she's erecting walls, not trusting people, and there's no romance. People, especially this year, they want a little romance, they want a lot of ideological action going outward. But she's on the defensive. And so that's the core problem. It's not the emails. Nobody's going to disqualify her as president because she used one server versus another. That's not a real scandal. It's her attitude.Later, asked whether Hillary Clinton is "in tune with the mood of the electorate," Andrea Mitchell says she is not because...
She's not angry enough. She's not-- And it's hard for her to be angry because then you've got, you know, Donald Trump saying, "She's shrill," which is a sexist word, let's face it. But she has to get around that. But the anger, the passion is all on people going on the attack, whether it's, you know, whether it's Donald Trump, whether it's Carly Fiorina, or whether it's Bernie Sanders."Shrill," yeah, it is used to push women back, but Carly Fiorina is a woman, and she's not cowed at all. She, too, was interviewed earlier in the show, right after Hillary, and she was fierce, utterly on the attack, especially as Chuck Todd tried to get her to concede that she'd misstated what she thought she saw in that harvest-the-brain Planned Parenthood video. Watch it:
Why won't she concede that the fetus we see is stock footage, intercut to increase the emotional impact of the story that is related by a witness? I say it's a deliberate trap. The video makes us feel we saw the event. One could be wrong, and maybe eventually Carly will say she did look back and sees now that she was conflating the image with the spoken account. But until then, she's creating pressure on everyone to view the video for themselves, and once people do that, most will be horrified by the story and want to know if it's true, and those who want to say but Carly was wrong about seeing the incident in the video will seem morally unbalanced, perhaps monstrous. That's what you want to talk about?!
Posts
137 comments:
Carly's looking better all the time.
The media attack on her is going to have to start soon. Ten. Nine. Eight. . . .
Arent they just arguing about which video shows the scene?
That is the first video, and presumably the one Fiorina was talking about, just has a woman describing the scene, but when that was challenged, and not just in Fiorina's case, another video was found that indeed showed exactly what the woman had described?
This is supposed to make Fiorina wrong?
How many more such clips are out there?
The march on Moscow took place in the summer, Napoleon entered Moscow in mid-September 1812, about the same time the British were bombarding Ft. McHenry to such star-spangled effect. The trudge through winter was the retreat from Moscow.
Or the MSM could do their job and just show the video to disprove Carly.
The painting is by Russian artist Vasily Vereshchagin and depicts the RETREAT of Napoleon's Grande Armee's from Moscow not its "march on" (i.e. advance)the city. Napoleon's invasion of Russia took place in the summer, beginning on 24 June and culminating in the capture of Moscow on 14 September. Needless to say there was no snow on the ground at that time; the weather was actually pleasant during this phase of the campaign.
History is hard, but fair.
The wicked solution did not begin with dismemberment, harvesting, and trafficking of clumps of cells, organs, and body parts from wholly innocent human beings. Elective abortion was supposed to be simply about the premeditated termination of an unwanted or inconvenient human life subject to the superior force of the woman caring for her. The escalation of rites was either implied in its conception, or it is evidence of progressive corruption in the abortion industry. Perhaps an inevitable outcome that follows from selectively denying scientific evidence, due process, and human rights, coupled with the lucre of blood and green money, environment, etc.
How many Democrat politicians were repeatedly asked to admit after watching the Eric Garner video that he was not killed by a choke-hold?
We’ve seen sickening videos of unarmed, black Americans cut down by bullets, choked to death while gasping for air – their lives ended by those who are sworn to protect them.
Warren parallels Black Lives Matter, civil rights movement
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/09/27/read-elizabeth-warren-full-speech-civil-rights/74ig4kwa8deNgIgxlPx0kO/story.html
The most famous single map ever:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minard.png
Hard to write (and read!) a sentence containing the words "Hillary" and "romance."
Carly was fierce and she will not back down to the MSM! Another reason why she is my #1.
The footage may be stock, but if the former employee and eye- witness is both accurate and credible, the events of which Carly speaks DID happen. Good enough under the circumstances and given all the other video evidence.
What I want to know is where is the CEO of Planned Parenthood? Total radio silence. As far as I know she hasn't even been interviewed by the insufferable BobseyTwins, Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow. That says volumes. Volumes.
Andrea Mitchell, as shrill a shill as they get, says Clinton isn't "in tune with the electorate" because she isn't angry enough.
BULLSHIT. In fact her analysis (I use the term with generosity, as one would say "thought process" when speaking of an anencephalic moron) isn't even fresh, it's STALE BULLSHIT. How is it that Andrea Mitchell even has a job? Who on God's green earth listens to her, believes her? It must be because she's the among last breathing New Journalism journalists, the generation who were educated by real journalists, but decided demonstrable truth wasn't truthy enough to advance the Agenda.
Clinton isn't out of tune because she lacks anger. She's floundering because we all know her to be a GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING LYING-ASSED BITCH. Even her supporters admit that, they're just too stupid or corrupt to admit that's not a feature, but a bug. And we all know that if any of us non-connected tax peons tried the shit she's been shitting we'd be indicted, jailed, and awaiting trial. We're the ones who aren't angry enough. Personally I'm angry enough to start shooting, but I'm too well-mannered (and cowardly) to open fire.
Beorn said...
"Or the MSM could do their job and just show the video to disprove Carly."
I know what you mean — why can't the MSM just do their job? There must be a reason, right?
So there are still 2% undecided, and she is only 15 points underwater on approve disapprove, but "what difference does that make at this point?"
I am not sure she is going to get those Sandernistas to march to the polls holding their nose, which is apparently her plan, while at the same time getting labor which she slapped in the face with Keystone, to march side by side with the out of work coal miners to vote her in.
I am sure she has a plan to win, and if she does, it will have been a brilliant plan. I can't imagine what it is though.
"Shrill" is not sexist unless it is only used to describe females, where males displaying the same behavior do not get called a pejorative. Trump may otherwise be sexist, but not for this. Hillary is shrill because she is cold, nasty and unpleasant and many men are like that too (John Kerry was shrill too).
Hillary won't look like she's having fun, because she enjoys no part of political campaigning, only the power she thinks she's entitled to, and she doesn't have the skill to fake it. She'd be better off sticking with "Unhappy Warrior" and trying to sell that as what America needs.
She doesn't have Bill's intellect, nor his rhetorical gifts, nor his creativity, but she does have his moral flexibility, I guess she has to start somewheres.
No, Mr. Brooks, People will not vote against Hillary! because of her choice of server. They'll vote against her because she acted like she had something to hide, and then she actually did try to hide things (it's all just my personal e-mails, trust me); and then it turns out that some of the things she tried to hide were not really personal. And because she uses Clintonesque language like saying nothing on the server had been officially classified at the time it was sent or received (because the Secretary of State has No Way of knowing that her emails about national security matters are secret until some bureaucrat stamps them classified), and then says "wiped", what does that mean, like with a sponge?
So that's why people will vote against her, Mr. Brooks.
The trudge through winter was the retreat from Moscow.
Shame on you, you're expecting actual knowledge from a NYT pundit. That would mean like, studying the careers of dead white guys, and who wants to do something as boring as that, when they could be spending quality time with the chronic among friends?
If Hillary were dumb enough to take Andrea Mitchell's idiotic advice, and fake more anger, I don't know whether I'd find that hilarious or frightening. Remember when Gore tried that and he just looked insane?
Quaestor, you need to shed the flowery prose, and just tell us plainly what you really think about Andrea Mitchell and Hillary CLinton.
Megyn Kelly did show a video the other night (one time only, she says - too gruesome) that had exactly the scene described.
I do not know what they mean by "stock footage." Can someone explain?
Lucien is exactly right--the server thing isn't a mere technical violation, the problem is she lied and changed her story repeatedly and yet there is still no plausible legitimate reason for what she did. It also reveals a level of incompetence that shoots down her whole experience pitch.
Not to mention the likelihood that she actually broke the law and jeopardized national security. Brooks would be overpaid even if he were working for free.
tim in vermont said...
I am sure she has a plan to win, and if she does, it will have been a brilliant plan. I can't imagine what it is though.
"I have worked ten years on this plan. It is a very precise and a complicated plan. I am sick of you terrorists fucking it up. Now take the weapons where I told you and wait for the goddamn signal this time! Goodbye!"
http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=MP3S&type=Movies&movie=Team_America_World_Police"e=thesignal.txt&file=thesignal.mp3
As for Hillary!, it is not just a question of which server she sent her e-mails on - and the administration undoubtedly has all her e-mails and will continue to leak progressively worse content until she gets the idea and quits.
Nobody's going to disqualify her as president because she used one server versus another.
The FBI may beg to disagree, Davey-Boy.
I mean why should a little something like 1) a crime 2) or if not a crime, at least a fireable offense for us peons, and 3) a stupid move which almost certainly exposed Top Secret State Dept information to foreign powers not disqualify her from the Presidency?
If HRC was Republican we'd never be hearing the end about that stupid, f**king, email server.
For being the liberals go-to Conservative, Brooks really is a box of hammers. At least, Mickey Kaus, the Conservative's go-to pseudo Liberal, actually sometimes has something interesting to say.
That's not a real scandal.
I hope Brooks never gets a security clearance, he doesn't seem to understand what it requires from the holder.
"That's not a real scandal."
Says "conservative" David Brooks.
I sure hope this isn't wishful thinking, but Hillary! will get angry soon enough -- at losing.
At the end of World War II, General Eisenhower made a decision to personally visit as many Nazi concentration camps as he could. His reason? He wanted to document the camps and their appalling conditions.
Anticipating a time when Nazi atrocities might be denied, General Eisenhower also ordered the filming and photographing of camps as they were liberated. Members of the U.S. Army Signal Corps recorded approximately 80,000 feet of moving film, together with still photographs.
An Inconvenient Truth.
I am sure that exposing her server to hackers run by every foreign intelligence service is nothing compared to the whole Valerie Plame folderol.
That was some serious stuff. So serious that even people not involved went to prison!
Ah ha! Althouse's new tactic is to discredit the story like it never happened.
A friend of mine had a lab tech job which required her to snip the tiny heads off of newborn mice and put them in a blender before culturing the cells. She had to quit after the first day. Because the PP people go out of their way to remind everyone that "fetuses" are no different than new born mice, the story makes a certain amount of sense. So I know that sort of thing described in the video happens.
To tone down the spleen for a moment, let me say this. I think the panel has a point but it wasn't expressed very well.
Carly Fiorina actually looks like she's having fun getting in front of that camera & smacking the shit out of Chuck Todd. The Moxie is strong with this one, Obi-Wan.
HRC most of the time looks like she'd rather be at the dentist getting a root canal than fending off reporters questions. And, sadly for her, the "root canal" look seems to extend to those times she interacts with voters.
I do not know what they mean by "stock footage." Can someone explain?
The stuff they watch in the warrooms looking to spin...
Why won't she concede that this does not play on silk on an Amazon fire?
Brooks knows it's not a scandal because all of his co-workers at the New York Times have assured him it is not!
It would be interesting if he reported stuff that happened outside of the walls of that paper, but that's not how it works.
The server and Hillary's choice is a big deal. Everyone else in the department was offered an email address and she consciously chose he own path. The purpose was to avoid scrutiny. There is no other reasonable conclusion.
She can't blame her lawyers for their email culling process. The responsibility was hers and any mistakes with that process can't be blamed away. She may hire others to do a job for her, but the responsibility, good or bad, is hers and hers alone. The dog ate my homework can't fly.
Why can't the PP sympathizers like Hillary et al. see that this parting out and selling of people is a new and insidious evil which has little to do with the long-standing old practice of abortion??
??
??
I think it's entirely reasonable to be prochoice and be horrified at the what PP is doing in these clinics. It's a monetizing of tragedy. Denial will only last so long. Eventually the truth will out.
Oh and, where is that long list of diseases conquered with fetal parts/cells?
It's a 'vast right wing conspiracy'...but we all know what that means..
You know, "stock footage" of them carving up unborn babies for spare parts. The kind you can get from any stock footage site...
If "stock footage" exists, that makes the case stronger, not weaker. But these guys are not known to think too deeply about possible flaws in their own arguments.
"That is the first video, and presumably the one Fiorina was talking about, just has a woman describing the scene, but when that was challenged, and not just in Fiorina's case, another video was found that indeed showed exactly what the woman had described?"
Could you link to it?
"Or the MSM could do their job and just show the video to disprove Carly."
That's the trap.
And it doesn't answer the question whether there is another video.
maybe eventually Carly will say she did look back and sees now that she was conflating the image with the spoken account.
We're talking about killing babies and harvesting their organs for profit, and you're worried about something that is at worst "fake but accurate"?
Do you dispute Carly's contention that live babies are being dissected for profit?
I wish politicians on the campaign trail didn't sound so much like politicians on the campaign trail.
I do not know what they mean by "stock footage." Can someone explain?
The baby that was being dissected in the video was not the same exact baby whose dissection was being discussed, and was instead a generic baby who was being dissected. Somehow this is supposed to matter.
Post above. Megyn Kelly showed it, and I saw that.
Kelly speaks too fast for me to catch everything she says, besides the video kind of made me gasp.
Ann Althouse said...
That's the trap.
So the trap is what the MSM is more loyal to: Democrat talking points; or the truth.
Hmmmmm...
The truth as a trap.
Ain't that some shit!
Gahrie wrote: The baby that was being dissected in the video was not the same exact baby whose dissection was being discussed, and was instead a generic baby who was being dissected. Somehow this is supposed to matter.
Did you know that Clint Eastwood used a fake baby in some scenes of "American Sniper"? It kind of undermined the whole film and the greater message of the film.
/snark
According to Todd, the baby we see was from a miscarriage.
Unless there are dramatic advances in transgender surgery, I will never have to decide whether or not to have an abortion. I am, however, old enough to be in the mortality zone. I have seen several friends and relatives perish after a painful illness. It's not pretty to watch. I myself would be open to the idea of assisted suicide. That said, I would not want the physician in charge of such a program to have a financial interest in my early demise. I'm sure that some bastard like Biden would pay top dollar to get his hands on my hair follicles......This is a big scandal for PP. It's an even bigger scandal for the media who tilt the story in such a way as to make PP look put upon by religious fanatics.
"Shrill," yeah, it is used to push women back, . . .
Rather than just being an accurate word for the higher register of the female voice? Like using 'gruff' for men?
Come on. Up your game, huh?
I heard someone speculating that the "stock footage" baby could have been one that had been miscarried, not aborted, and my reaction was that this seems impossible because the baby was not receiving any care. Of courses thanks to President Obama and others, I suppose that is possible but it hardly improves the moral standing ov the proabirtionists.
Still I'm curious now - did Chuck Todd say this was definitively a baby born of miscarriage? And how did he know that?
Shrill is shrill. If it applies, it applies. Can't help it if it applies far more frequently to women than men. Women speak at a pitch that lends itself to shrill. Hillary's voice is often shrill and her laugh can make your ears bleed.
Nancy Pelosi wants the Center for Medical Progress investigated:
“And I think they should be investigated as to how they obtained those and doctored those and then had them be accepted as something that was an indictment against Planned Parenthood because that’s not true,” Pelosi told CNN’s Jake Tapper.
Apparently she hasn't seen the videos herself, but she's seen some news reports and knows it’s not real, and you can create any reality you want. She also considers Cecile Richards a spectacular leader in our country.
Her secret server and quid-pro-quo Foundation deals are not a real scandal?
BullSh*t.
According to Todd, the baby we see was from a miscarriage.
1) ..and you believe him why?
2) Even if true, does that invalidate the underlying horror.....the fact that people are dissecting live babies for their organs?
3) Do you deny that the horror is occurring?
Anybody know offhand what kind money PP gives to Democratic candidates? I'm really looking for a deeper cause of Hillary's amorality. We all know that she likes money -- probably more so than supporting heinous crimes.
Some "miscarriage." The baby was moving when laid down, but was handed about like a dead rabbit.
The Daily Mail has a post today about a 1.5# baby born at 23 weeks on a cruiseship, and the medical staff on board saved it with first-aid kit and ingenuity until they could get ashore to a proper hospital.
IOW, this 1.5# baby was a "miscarriage" until he wasn't.
The conressbitches that will not vote to defund PP are dispicable animals. D and R both.
Carly is an outsider from washington, true. But here support for Rino's is a long history. She isn't on the team, but shes a groupie of it. Besides, she was mysteriously given a large enough donation from some PAC so her campaign could continue. The GOPe was planning on using her to trash Hillery. Say th things a man couldnt say without the ol war on women shit.
Trump threw all their plans in the crapper, and for that, he gets my vote.
"Clinton isn't out of tune because she lacks anger. She's floundering because we all know her to be a GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING LYING-ASSED BITCH."
"We need the president to be a good liar."
Circle squared. Day done. Blood moon.
>
Why won't she concede that the fetus we see is stock footage, intercut to increase the emotional impact of the story that is related by a witness?<
because slicing and dicing innocent humans is ok with the effin' "ruining class". go to hell monster!!11!!
"It's not the emails. Nobody's going to disqualify her as president because she used one server versus another."
Yeah that's what Kael said decades ago Brooks.
Hillary is Nixon.
The video Kelly aired was a shocking Fiorina ad. No one claimed it was that self-same baby which was harvested for its brain. (Pronoun regrettable but accurate, don't you think?) Implied maybe. In the way all ads do. As noted earlier, entirely fake but accurate.
Drudge is flogging the story of a 23 week baby on a cruise ship out of Puerto Rico. The doctors claimed miscarriage, but mom insisted upon seeing her baby and now both are doing ok.
I loved that Carly Fiorina pointed out to Chuck that the soi-disant financial reporter dissing her record at HP also claims she was never a secretary and has no crediblity.
Classy move by the left today, throwing rubbers at Carly. Think that'll get mentioned on the evening news?
Doesn't Chuck look old?
And tired?
People don't like leaders with high pitched voices - which leads to shrillness. Name one POTUS candidate with a high pitched voice.
Further, when women start accepting bald, short men as POTUS candidates I'll care about women being "pushed back" for being Shrill.
I'm starting to feel about Fiorina the way a lot of Trump's supporters seem to feel about him.
I don't know if she'd make a good president, don't know or care that much about her consistency on issues. I am just enjoying that she won't back down, and I want to see her chew up and spit out every last damned member of the MSM.
Pretty much every POTUS before 1960 couldn't be run for President Today. too fat (Taft) too bald (Ike and Hoover) too short (Truman) too cold/intellectual (Coolidge/Wilson) too sexist (Harding).
Women should learn morse code. It's pleasant, it has a musical timing to it that you can learn. A woman could be as good at it as a man, probably. Why be shrill all the time.
...the passion is all on people going on the attack, whether it's, you know, whether it's Donald Trump, whether it's Carly Fiorina, or whether it's Bernie Sanders.
What's with this proliferation of "whether"?
A functioning brain might conceive of "the passion is all on people going on the attack, whether it's Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, or Bernie Sanders.
Carly is a $3 phony. She didn't run as a conservative in her 2010 Senate race. She was the "Moderate" in the Calf primary, and as everyone knows being 'Conservative' in Calf isn't very Conservative.
I don't she ever mentioned abortion in 2010. She's just latched on to the issue because she needs some conservative street cred and its a harmless - if popular - social issue. By that I mean, what is she actually going to do about Abortion as President? Answer: Maybe appoint a couple SCOTUS judges who may - or may not - vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Which is what pretty much all of them would do.
Hillary has secret server protection.
Carly is the exact opposite to Hillary.
One is a sexuall seductive woman persona targeting the voters with every female charm in the book. Her goal is to be seen and loved. Her policies are cannon fodder in a game of seduction of weak minded men.
The other is a complete unknown that hides herself totally behind a Yale claim to power complex. Her goal is to never disclose a secret, and everything about her and what she does is top secret. Her policies are cannon fodder in a game of enrichment for herself and her family.
The feminists need to get behind a mature female leader, but neither Carly nor Hillary is one.
Could somebody post a link to the site where I can get stock photos of baby’s being dismember or sliced up and their organs being harvested? Thanks.
Carly is not my choice. But. This is how you deal with the press. Republican politicians want to at least be respected by the press.......they NEVER will respect conservatives, true conservatives want to reduce the federal govt to its constitutional size and power. Carly is making the point, that Todd refused to admit. The video is a true accounting of the words of Planned Parent hood contractual relationship in the selling of baby organs. The words were spoken.'we must keep the baby alive so we can cut the brain out.' Cut the brain out of a living baby. The video used to convey the message, is what liberal Democrat political operatives, like Todd are using, tying to deflect the truth. Planned Parenthood is parting out babies like stolen cars for their own profit. The planned Parenthood videos are much more faithful to the truth and intent of the message than any of the Democrat operatives. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etal. they have all started with the message they wanted to deceive the public with, and then invented footage to tell their lies. You know. "False but accurate" or the Ford pickups that blow up.
I couldn't get the Althouse link to play but I was curious enough to google it up. What stooge Chuck Todd looks likes in that clip. And you gotta wonder why Althouse falls for him.
Nobody is going to criticize the play solely because Lincoln was shot.
Smart Pauly Kael doesn't know a thing about criticism, never did, and doesn't understand why she was given her voice. I appreciate her honest transparency.
I appreciate every moment of, as Mother Teresa is a heretic according to some, transparent bigotry exposed through the idea "We are Good They are Bad" so common throughout disparate countries and conditions but correlated with Leftism to an extent if Mark Steyn were to document it you might have to take other than ignorance for your wealth.
"Name one POTUS candidate with a high pitched voice."
Abraham Lincoln
Gahrie said...
Classy move by the left today, throwing rubbers at Carly. Think that'll get mentioned on the evening news?
Well, she (Carly) got it on the morning news at least, didn't she? But condoms? Even the optics are all wrong. That's what you toss at Trump or Cruz or Huckabee. I assume they wanted to throw diaphragms but couldn't afford them. Perhaps PP assumes that Carly's supporters are all men.
Nobody's going to disqualify her as president because she used one server versus another.
Likewise if money her foundation was supposed to disburse to charity instead went to her personally, nobody's going to disqualify her because she used one bank account versus another.
Although I don't like it that I feel I must, I congratulate Althouse for decency revealed through the encouragement of free speach.
Spelled like shit, free speech is still cool.
Would it were I could say Cass Sunstein or Larry Tribe or Skip Gates or John Roberts or David Souter or Anthony Kennedy cared as much about free expression as Althouse has demonstrated she does. And would it were I could castrate the little bitch argument from nearly a century ago "women shouldn't vote." Alas.
Call me extreme for feeling the way I do: it's your best argument save the government' guns and their bullets made to kill citizens like me as predicted by our founders.
@Guild: You write like absolutely nobody else but Althouse is blogging this. And frankly you were better as notquiteunbuckley.
Per Chuck Todd's desperate "it was stillborn!" claim...here is a quote from the Executive Director of The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform regarding that clip:
“The video clip we provided to CMP depicted an intact delivery abortion. It was filmed at an abortion clinic. It was not a miscarriage. Mothers don’t go to abortion clinics to miscarry. Had this case been a miscarriage, the mother would have presented at a hospital and her baby would have been rushed to an Isolette for appropriate neonatal care — not abandoned to writhe and eventually expire in a cold, stainless steel specimen vessel. As regards the organizational affiliation of the abortion facility in which this termination was performed, our access agreements forbid the disclosure of any information which might tend to identify the relevant clinics or personnel with whom we work..."
So who do YOU believe, Professor? Chuck Todd, or the source of the video?
In the past to claim the New York Pauline Kael didn't matter because her opinion was shit wasn't politically correct nor indeed relevant because pop cunture.
Althouse has always been stylish, not understanding style is itself a concept meant to sell and she's the salesperson unpaid, like the law school guilds in America that deny freedom, but without the monopoly to claim superiority when thieving, we all suffer.
Till we don't.
Etc.
Well then, my teachings will become spectacle yet rational (if I get paid someday which I haven't hence been) somehow.
God?
You bet!
rcocean @8:39 PM:
I don't [think] she ever mentioned abortion in 2010. She's just latched on to the issue because she needs some conservative street cred
Not true. She was outspokenly anti-abortion in the 2010 campaign in California, and Boxer came at her hard on it.
"Stock footage" just means that it is an actual picture illustrating an event that has been archived and used in a different circumstance. It is humorous how Todd keeps saying that it is "stock footage", but not denying that the "stock footage" shows exactly what Carly says.
I don't know how anyone could take a steady diet of an asshole like Todd. I thought Fiorina handled him deftly.
Agreed. I have Stock Footage of Chuck Todd being a total weasel. Its hard to select just one.
"Name one POTUS candidate with a high pitched voice."
Abraham Lincoln
That has to be the dumbest interpretation of anything I've ever posted. Congratulations.
---That has to be the dumbest interpretation of anything I've ever posted. Congratulations.
I thought it was one of your dumbest posts as well as the one most susceptible to interpretation.
"She didn't run as a conservative in her 2010 Senate race."
I would hesitate to question your intelligence but she was running in California which has elected governor Moonbeam three times.
What I like about Carly, and which was very evident this morning, is that she answers the question and stops talking. No blather. No filibuster like most politicians. She is disciplined and succinct and that will take her a long way. I'm not sure if it will be the White House but it might be.
She also takes no bullshit. The lefties on MTP all agreed the video was not real. Groupthink.
Name one POTUS candidate with a high pitched voice.
Abraham Lincoln
Not only was Lincoln our first gay President, he was also our first shrill-voiced one.
It's not the emails. Nobody's going to disqualify her as president because she used one server versus another. That's not a real scandal.
Bullshit. That is a CRIME. My husband would have gone to prison for that when he had a security clearance.
@Althouse, something like 8 (out of 12) videos have been released. You can find them at www.centerformedicalprogress.org, and also transcripts. I haven't seen all of the footage, but what I've seen is sickening enough.
Planned Parenthood says that they don't sell baby parts, but CMP thoughtfully provides the schedule of "service charges" that Planned Parenthood charges to prospective recipients of fetal tissue, and the service charge for a first trimester specimen is $550. This is in addition to separate charges for HIV screening ($95), dry ice freezing ($80), and FedEx delivery ($120, plus an additional $50 for Saturday delivery). Hard to believe that these charges do not generate what might be called a "profit" in a corporate environment, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that it is not so -- provided that Planned Parenthood exposes their books to a certified forensic accountant and said accountant vouches that the listed service charges cover only the cost of recovering and delivering the fetal tissue, and do not contribute to general operations.
FWIW I believe that abortion ought to be legal and safe. To the extent that Planned Parenthood pressures young women into choosing abortion over taking the baby to term, as has been thoroughly documented, I think they are a reprehensible organization. To the extent that they apparently (per the videos) are willing to add risk to the mother during the abortion procedure so as to increase their ability to provide research samples and generate a revenue stream, I think they drop well below despicable.
Althouse, I have to wonder whether you have drunk the leftist Kool-Aid that posits that any restriction on abortion at any time for any reason is tantamount to going back to bent coat hangers in back alleys. It's not going to happen.
"she needs some conservative street cred and its a harmless - if popular - social issue"
Harmless? Well OK then!
Regardless, If she's willing to throw down on this issue she has more than bogus street cred. Carly has learned something from Trump. Quite soon, the other candidates will catch on. The fur is going to fly in the general election and no matter who wins the MSM will continue to lose. I wonder if there is some threshold of decline where the media barons can no longer allow their partisan employees to indulge their biases.
David fucking Brooks? Does Althouse read anything else besides NY Times?
I'm gonna use that Moscow Campaign analogy.
What's the new job like zyz?
- More fun than Napoleon's Moscow campaign!
How was the party last night?
- More fun than...
How would you like to go see 'The Perfect Guy'
- Frankly, I'd rather march on Moscow
There were two babies in the clip. One was miscarried, and the parents are shown cuddling the baby. The other is a recognizable as a baby fetus lying in a tray, and you see him kick his tiny leg.
"In the footsteps of Napoleon, the shadow figures stagger through the winter..." ~ Al Stewart
I don't know how they did it, but Al Stewart and Roger Taylor (later the drummer for Queen) captured the whole scope of the Eastern Front in WW II in the song Roads To Moscow.
The video is intercut with a lot of stock footage, but still it's a fascinating story about the consequences of marching on Moscow.
This is the video that Todd is asking her about.
I always hear David Brooks described as a conservative. Does anyone know of any conservative issue he has championed or any conservative stance he has supported? Personally, I can't recall a single one.
She is a lying leader of the party of lies...no one is really surprised, are they?
"Carly is a $3 phony. She didn't run as a conservative in her 2010 Senate race. She was the "Moderate" in the Calf primary, and as everyone knows being 'Conservative' in Calf isn't very Conservative."
Does that have something to do with my saying "she's not cowed at all"?
Why won't she concede that the fetus we see is stock footage, intercut to increase the emotional impact of the story that is related by a witness?
Because only morons are confused about what "B-roll footage" is.
According to Todd, the baby we see was from a miscarriage.
How would he know? He isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Nobody's going to disqualify her as president because she used one server versus another.
It was third rate burglary at the Watergate. Nobody actually cares about it.
...though, it should be noted, if the press covered Watergate as they cover PP, nobody would've given a shit about it.
"So who do YOU believe, Professor? Chuck Todd, or the source of the video?"
I haven't professed belief in any of the statements here.
You and many others in the comments don't seem to care to read exactly what I wrote and to think about it and respond appropriately. If you don't give me that respect, I'm not going to put time answering your questions and correcting your distortions.
I am very attentive to the statements I make and I don't make assertions about things I don't know.
I am very attentive to the statements I make and I don't make assertions about things I don't know.
That is almost certainly false. I'll keep an eye out for future examples. Stay tuned.
I think what's in the video is a person purporting to have witnessed something telling us a vivid, disturbing story. While we are hearing that, the video cuts to a visual of a fetus. We do not see the scene in which the original statement is made that the fetus should be kept alive to harvest the brain. If there is a second video where we do see that scene, I have asked that a link be put up so we can see it. That has not happened (unless I missed it here).
I am not pushing one side or the other on the abortion videos. What I'm writing about is Fiorina's political strategy, which I believe is designed to force more people to view the videos and thus to become outraged about the substance of the controversy.
"That is almost certainly false. I'll keep an eye out for future examples. Stay tuned."
I suspect that the reason you feel that way is that you let your emotions overtake you and jump to think that what you've read is what you think you will read. You really should pay more attention and read every word. You did take the trouble to say "almost certainly," so you know how language is used to avoid making assertions. And "assertions" is a carefully chosen word.
I agree Fiorina's strategy is to get people talking about and viewing the films. Beyond that though, I don't get your point. She is doing verbally what the film does- connecting the audio account of a heinous act with the image of a fetus at hat stage if development, Are you asserting that it is somehow dishonest of her to do that? She never said that she saw the image if the baby's face being torn apart to harvest it's brains. She verbally described exactly what she saw.
A good reply for Fiorino to the trap fetus questions of the Media:
Hillary's stock answer! "What, at this point, does it matter?"
(Or whatever Hillary said)
In the video that Carly says shows a moving fetus, there are two fetuses shown, one wrapped in a blanket because it was a miscarriage and one not wrapped because it was an abortion. The one that Megyn Kelly showed was the aborted fetus. The language that Carly speaks of was from technician who worked for Stem Express (the company that tried to get a restraining order not to show so the videos (got one and then had it rescinded, if that's the correct word)), who explained how she was taught how to collect a brain from an aborted fetus, from a fetus she saw move.
Just because Chuck Todd says something, Professor (7:38) does not make it true. He has an agenda and he shows his hand quite clearly.
I am not pushing one side or the other on the abortion videos. What I'm writing about is Fiorina's political strategy, which I believe is designed to force more people to view the videos and thus to become outraged about the substance of the controversy.
So blatant lying is okay if it furthers a political purpose?
And you got so bent out of shape about Benghazi!
"So blatant lying is okay if it furthers a political purpose?"
How does it work for you, Freder ?
Ann Althouse said...
Could you link to it?
You can skip ahead to about 5:30 minutes.
Link
The Groupthink on MTP was astounding. Not one of the media persons assembled had watched the videos from CMP at all. If any ONE of them had, the minor differences between what they think Carly described and what the videos actually show would melt away. Instead we get this weird exchange where four people who DID NOT WATCH ANY OF THE VIDEO gang up and tell each other how wrong the fifth person is WHO DID WATCH.
The unreality and 1984ish quality of that exchange was stunning. I told me wife there's millions of people who KNOW what Carly said is true (the visuals exist almost exactly* as described and the voice-over says what Carly reported) and with every "Why won't she admit the 'facts'?" comment made by the MTP mob their credibility withered away even more. No wonder the press's popularity is lower than Hillary!'s
*I didn't see the thump on the heart to get it beating but if that's all we're quibbling about then we're in agreement about the horror of the baby harvesting!
Agree with what Mike said, and this is why Prof Althouse's admonition that Fiorina should concede anything is completely off base.
It's not as though Fiorina's opponents and the left wing MSM are honest, moral actors. If she were to concede even a fraction of an inch- which is unnecessary because nothing she described was untrue- they would not react with shame that they were focused on the wrong thing, they have no shame and the entirety of their reaction would be that they can now put this whole issue to rest because she admitted that she got it wrong.
Once again, Prof Althouse gives far too much credit to the MSM- like when she justified her vote for Obama with the idea that a Dem president would force the media to cover war and terrorism fairly and honestly.
While we are hearing that, the video cuts to a visual of a fetus.
No. Absolutely not.
The video cuts to the visual of a baby.
Althouse: According to Todd, the baby we see was from a miscarriage.
Kicks and writhes around an awful lot for a "miscarriage," don't you think, Professor?
Miscarriage? Where, at the local hospital?
Ask yourself this question: when was the last time you saw a video from a hospital of a live baby from a miscarriage?
One more question: what do you think would happen to any doctor/nurse or any other employee of a hospital that video taped a live baby from a miscarriage?
This is what Fiorina said:
“Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’ ”
That is a complete fabrication and not backed up by the linked video.
Freder is a liar.
The video Allen links to, at 5:56 and following...
The image is self-explanatory.
The audio, from immediately afterwards.... "This looks like a really good fetus. We can procure a lot from it. We're going to procure a brain."
Fiorina was right. Freder and Fiorina's Planned Parenthood critics and their flying monkeys are lying their asses off, hoping their lie can make it around the world twice before Fiorina's truth can put on its pants.
It's their standard playbook. Lie like crazy, hoping something else comes along to knock the truth out of the news cycle. Make the debate about the horserace and not about the substance: That PP is cutting babies' faces open to sell their brains to labs for money.
There is no truth in these people. They have become completely corrupted.
@Althouse, sometimes you really do need to go and look and make up your own mind.
Brooks continues:
And so that's the core problem. It's not the emails. Nobody's going to disqualify her as president because she used one server versus another. That's not a real scandal. It's her attitude.
Wow, is he dishonest, or really that ignorant?
1: Clinton set up a private email server because she's a dishonest hack who knew that she would be engaging in unethical and / or illegal activities as Sec of State, and so enabled the coverup before she ever even committed the crimes. If that doesn't disqualify her to be President in your mind, then it's because you're just as dishonest as she is.
2: By setting up teh server, Clinton enabled America's enemies to steal a lot of information they otherwise could not have obtained. Her willingness to put America's secrets at risk, and to open herself to blackmail by foreign powers, shows an amazing lack of judgment, and shoddy decision making skills. If that doesn't disqualify her for President in your mind, then your judgement and decision making skills are equally lacking.
Look, it's over a year before the election. Supporting Clinton now isn't a matter of wanting a Democrat to win, it's a matter of being so completely corrupt, and stupid, that obvious cases of corruption and stupidity simply don't bother you.
And that's a pretty sad way to be.
"Fiorina's political strategy, which I believe is designed to force more people to view the videos and thus to become outraged about the substance of the controversy."
I agree that Fiorina is working to get the LameStreamMedia to show or at least talk about the videos. They think they can force her to back down so they keep going at her and she thinks that controversy is getting her TV attention so she doesn't back down. Moreover, by Hillary Clinton standards she is exact in what she is saying: Fiorina says: "Look at the child able to move its legs" (clip) while some one (the Stem Express person) says "I was told 'we have to cut through its face to its brain." That is what the video shows and that is the content of what the Stem Express person is saying she saw and that is a child of the age she was told to cut up through its face. Is it a scandal that it was one aborted five-month old child and not another? At this point - one five month old unborn child whose body parts are being sold for profit after an abortion paid for by tax payers or another. What difference does it make?
Was Hillary using one server or another? What difference does it make? The point is: she (or Bill) sold secrets in exchange for cash and made it plain to foreign leaders that if she were President she would not protect their talks with her.
Well we all know that a Democrat cannot tell a lie (that the LameStreamMedia would notice) and a Republican cannot tell a truth (that the LameStreamMedia would notice).
I think the stock footage actually underlies a common issue that occurs with people brains. A lot of what people think they see is actually based on things like seeing stock footage and then hearing a voice describing something and then the brain extrapolates that to seeing that thing, even though all that was shown was stock footage.
The problem for Planned Parenthood is that they are on tape saying things they do. And describing how it might look bad if it were to get out. and the media is ignoring that and instead trying to get Fiorina on things the video doesn't show. Fiorina, should simply say "x says this occurs" is it true or not? If true, its a problem, yes?
Was the statement itself doctored or did they say what the video suggests they said? If yes, then it's a problem.
""This looks like a really good fetus. We can procure a lot from it. We're going to procure a brain."
They would argue that its stock footage of a fetus overlayed over someone saying this looks like a really good fetus. But the people may not have been talking about the stock footage fetus but a different one. (Who's brains they were going procure)
"Could somebody post a link to the site where I can get stock photos of baby’s being dismember or sliced up and their organs being harvested? Thanks."
I don't think the video shows it. Rather it describes it. Unless I miss the video that does show the procedure.
But you know what? We should see more video of abortions. When women film their abortions for empowerment they always have their face shown as they endure the trials of the abortion.
What they don't show is the baby getting scooped out. Why not? Lets see the parasite and clump of sells having its brains scooped out. Or the fetus on the operating table after it was removed.
Notice the forceps on the umbilical cord. What do you think happened to this fetus?
I'll bet that it can feel pain.
Newsflash: Hillary's not angry because the status quo is of her own design and making.
Hagar:
a 1.5# baby born at 23 weeks on a cruiseship, and the medical staff on board saved it with first-aid kit and ingenuity
That is extremely impressive. A dedication to life that goes above and beyond the call to duty.
Technological development to sustain and extend life applies at both ends of human evolution. And when coupled with a suitable moral philosophy and our innate human empathy, has a remarkable ability to realize virtual miracles.
A dedication to life that goes above and beyond the call to duty.
No.
Dedication to life IS the duty.
Funny thing is none of the Murder Incorporated defenders deny that it happened, they are just jumping up and down saying that there is no actual video of what we know actually happened.
You guys remember when LBJ was given a whole lot of shit for showing "stock footage" of a nuclear explosion to scare voters?
He didn't show an actual nuclear explosion over a US city.
And the press just hounded the ever-loving hell out of LBJ.
Because "stock footage".
Carly would get no credit from the media or the left for clarifying that her remark conflated a sickening image with a sickening eye witness testimony (though surprisingly acurate and in keeping with the tenormous of the vides as a whole). Instead, it would be used to turn the story away from the videos and what planned parenthood is doing, and make it all about Carly and her story telling. It would allow for more "nothing to see here" parroting.
But she is relatively safe if she sticks to her guns for the reasons Ann states.
Chuck Todd was incorrect. Fiorina was partly correct and partly mistaken.
I have not seen any video that shows an abortion worker talking about "needing to keep a baby alive in order to harvest its brain" in those exact words. However, I did see a video where a former Stem Express employee described a case she participated in where a baby was delivered intact and while its heart was beating (she did not know if it was considered alive in that state), she was instructed by her supervisor (whom she names, IIRC) to cut through his face and procure his brain. While she is describing the scene, the video cuts to the footage that the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform claims it obtained of a baby boy--of similar gestational age to the one the employee is talking about--that survived an abortion but was left kicking and twitching in a metal bowl to die. Their executive director said, "The video clip we provided to CMP depicted an intact delivery abortion. It was filmed at an abortion clinic. It was not a miscarriage. Mothers don’t go to abortion clinics to miscarry. Had this case been a miscarriage, the mother would have presented at a hospital and her baby would have been rushed to an Isolette for appropriate neonatal care — not abandoned to writhe and eventually expire in a cold, stainless steel specimen vessel."
Later in the video, another baby of similar gestational age is shown being held in a parent's hands with a telltale clip on his umbilical cord. The baby's name was Walter Fretz; he was born prematurely at 19 weeks and died afterward.
Neither baby in the footage shown was technically a miscarriage, as Walter's parents were told during the labor process that Walter was "still viable."
There is also footage of Dr. Theresa Deisher saying that she has strong suspicions that babies have been kept alive for the purpose of procuring fresh heart muscle.
Carly is winning when Chuck Todd asks about her comments, because it gives her a chance to talk about the despicable practices of Planned Parenthood. It keeps the issue alive.
Tools like Chuck Todd can whine about whether or not her remarks were strictly accurate and she will repeat what we all know is true; that Planned Parenthood harvests baby body parts for profit.
Democrats will just have to choke on that.
Post a Comment