Thursday, October 4, 2012

Rule one: don't get high on your own supply

Every successful drug dealer knows this. Going down that road leads to ruin, complete and total ruin. Hell, every halfway decent stock broker knows it, too. You make the jingle with the transactions, off of your client, not by using your own money for naked speculation. It's no less true for successful venture capitalists: they don't actually use their own money.

Who doesn't know it? Well for starters, the self-proclaimed smartest people in the room, the political pundits of cable news.

Last night in the first Presidential Debate, Romney rolled Obama like a drunken sailor. Towards the end of the debate, I actually think Romney felt sorry for the President, as Romney noticeably backed off from the debilitating body blows he had been landing all night. There were almost no counter punches from Obama to speak off, much less any true offense. It was cover up and hold for the President all night long, from start to finish.

And Romney's total domination of the event was readily apparent in the forlorn looks on the faces of various journalists, both during and after the actual debate. It was even more apparent from the crush of news stories about the debate from the mainstream media: all of them involved admitting Romney did well, many actually allowed that he won, and a few that he won handily. If Obama sycophants say Romney won or even won big, what that means is that Romney won the debate with a crushing landslide of a victory. Imagine how difficult it was for Andrew Sullivan to say this:
Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high-information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.
But note how Sullivan characterizes himself: a "high information viewer." In other words, "hey, I'm damn smart, smarter than most everyone else." Sure you are, Andrew. Sure you are.

But there's at least one group that is smarter still, at least according to their leader: the crowd over at MSNBC. Chris Matthews, looking like he just came home from an all night tequila and stripper binge, went on a mini-rant after the debate:

Matthews takes Obama to task for not standing up to Romney, for not having a plan of attack in the debate. He bemoans the lack of counter-punches from Obama and how Obama let Romney get away with "crap." But Matthews has a solution for the President, to shore up his apparent lack of knowledge:
Here's my question for Obama: I know he likes saying he doesn't watch cable television but maybe he should start. Maybe he should start... 
He should watch -- well, not just Hardball, Rachel, he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al, he should watch Lawrence. He would learn something about this debate. There's a hot debate going on in this country. You know where it's been held? Here on this network is where we're having the debate... 
Obama should watch MSNBC, my last point. He will learn something every night on this show and all these shows. This stuff we're watching, it's like first grade for most of us. We know all this stuff.
First of all, there's no "debate" going on at MSNBC. There's just propaganda being spewed by people like Matthews and Maddow. The former's characterization of what he does as legitimate debate is hilarious, made even more so by the fact that he actually believes what he is saying, even as his spittle strikes the camera lens and his guests, alike.

And that leads to the more significant issue here: pundits like Matthews and Maddow really do think they know better, really do believe they are not just "high information viewers," but the highest information viewers. Night after night of talking smack and they now actually believe they really are what they pretend to be. They've swallowed so much of their own propaganda that they are no longer capable of functioning as rational or objective critics. Think I'm wrong? Maddow is so far gone, she is incapable of even accepting what she just witnessed in the debate, declaring afterward:
In terms of how the overall debate unfolded, I personally do not know who won this debate.
You don't know who won, Rachel? Really? At what point did the synapses in your brain cease firing? Apparently, just after the candidates were introduced.

It's a sad day when our political "experts" need to take lessons from drug dealers on how to think.

Cheers, all.

No comments:

Post a Comment