Some of you have kids; do you know what "parallel conversations" are?
That's when a very young kid is discussing something with someone, and the kid is going through the motions of having a conversation (statement/response/statement/response)--but they're not really having a conversation.
An example of a parallel conversation:
Kid One: You have a big head.
Kid Two: I hate baloney sandwiches.
Kid One: My dad drives a pickup truck.
Kid Two: We got a new puppy.
If you turn the sound off and watch, it looks like these two juvenile minds are having a conversation. They are addressing each other, they are hearing the words--but nothing is signifying, in fact the participants are trying to acknowlege each other and ignore each other at the same time.
It's cute when it's young kids; it's scary when it's an interview with an elected official. See Sean Hannity interviewing Michele Bachmann, below:
(CONTINUED)
Now you know that low-forehead conservative Sean Hannity is not going to throw any hardball questions at Michele Bachmann. He's a fan; he's one of the many conservatives promoting this career.
Nonetheless: as you watch the video below, note the number of times that Hannity asks her for specifics (trying to get a quote) and she pretends that he asked her something else and doesn't give him an answer. How much lower can the political discourse go, when Michele Bachmann won't even give Sean Hannity a straight answer?
You'll see that they are having a parallel conversation. Turn the sound down, it looks like they are talking to each other--turn it back up, and you'll see that her responses have practically nothing to do with what he's asking her.
Here, look: I'll write down four of the questions that Hannity asks her. You read these, and listen carefully to see if Bachmann responds to any of them with a sincere attempt to give him the info he is asking for...
But first some definitions so you understand what they are saying. First: when Bachmann refers to "the American people," or "the people," she is not referring to the American people. She is referring to a group of American people who hate the Democrats and the Obama administration.
Second: when Bachmann and Hannity refer to the "establishment" candidates that are now in disfavor, they are referring to the conservative Republicans that Bachmann and Hannity have told everyone to support for the last ten years.
Here's four of Hannity's questions to Bachmann...
- "What do you make of the (GOP) establishment's-- their slash and burn tactics number one, leading into the primary and then the reaction of some after (the primary)? Even Mike Castle's reaction, he wouldn't call (Christine O'Donnell) the night that she won, saying he wouldn't endorse her the day after...What is this? Why do you think the establishment is acting this way and what do you think the consequences are going to be?"
2)"I agree with you, and I don't even really think it's that complicated.
We saw last Sunday when John Boehner was on Face the Nation and he made the statement that he might be able to go along with a compromise extension of the Bush tax cuts which would not include every American.
Because every American that pays taxes, under the Bush tax cut, got a tax cut.
The reaction was sure and swift, by the conservatives and the tea party and the people like me--saying "Wait! What did you mean by that? We want tax cuts across the board."
Those (Republican elected officials) that have said they are not going to repeal health care--they have been confronted by conservatives. So in other words--do you think the leadership's fully getting it?"
- "We saw what happened in 2006. Republicans were fired. And I would argue they were fired because they abandoned some of their principles. They paid a very heavy political price in the two recent election cycles.
We're going to see what happens within 48 days. We're told, and the polls show, that this could be a huge, massive year for the Republican Party.
I was encouraged when both Minority Leader McConnell and Boehner said they would take spending and move it back to 2008 levels.
Bob McDonald, the new governor of Virginia, he moved it back to 2006 levels.
Is that a good enough start in your mind?"
- "We had the "Young Guns" (oh, Jesus Christ) Cantor, Ryan, McCarthy on the program earlier this week. They wrote a book--"Young Guns"--they were talking about the conservative ascendancy, and I said it's interesting you use the word 'conservative' and not 'Republican.'
I also pinned them down, they said there will be a document Republicans are putting forward, a plan, a pro-active agenda that they're gonna promise if the Republicans get the majority back.
I couldn't get the specifics out of them, but you used the term that I'm using: it's got to be bold.'
How would you, Michele Bachmann, define bold in terms of specifics you think need to be in there?"
Sean is pitching (asking for straight answers) but Michele isn't catching. Shameless cowering, even in a sweetheart conservative forum.
....aaand YouTube "embed code" won't work. Here's the link.
http://www.youtube.com/...
As to the "substance" of what Bachmann's claiming here:
Every year we ask ourselves: how can anyone who follows politics and has lived through the past twenty years, be so stupid as to believe in the kind of conservative garbage that Bachmann is selling?
Their answer is Bachmann's answer: this time, it will be different. Not like all those other GOP conservative congresses, '94, '96, '98, etc. No sir.
Because this time, the tea party revolt means that conservative voters will be sending real conservatives to Congress with a real mandate to cut taxes and spending. The problem is: that in 1994 conservative voters sent a previous bunch of real conservatives to Congress with real mandate to cut taxes and spending--and they didn't do it.
Not only did they not do it, during the twelve years they ran D.C.: the size, the power, the reach of government grew. The taxpayer's burden grew. And the spending grew, unstoppably, to the point where the GOP lost all but about 24% of the voters.
And Michele Bachmann was applauding that Congress, telling voters they should support it, puffing it as much as any conservative talk radio host in this nation. All the same people, the career conservatives who are telling you this time it's for real, were telling you last time that it was for real: even though they now admit that it wasn't for real in '94, in '96, in '98, etc.
As for Bachmann, the question is one of those things you ask her all the time: were you lying for the first six years of your career (about how establishment Republicans doing a great job) or are you lying now (about how establishment Republicans just never got it until the tea party happened along?)
The answer to that one is the same as always: she's lying all the time. That's why she's popular with the angry crazies.
ACTION LINK: Please help the sanity.
http://tarrylclark.com