Gay Patriot Header Image

Left Can’t Let Social Issues Go

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 11:30 am - August 18, 2011.
Filed under: Social Issues,Tea Party

If you haven’t seen Jamie Farr cum Larry King wannabe Piers Morgan getting into it with Christine O’Donnell, here is that video:

(apologies for the adverts at the beginning of the clip…apparently going on a quasi-news interview show to whore for a new book is matched dearly by a ‘news’ network playing commercials before even online videos)

I have no beef with Morgan being a tough interviewer, and I never really followed O’Donnell’s run for the Senate from Delaware. I realize she’s a social conservative and had run as such.

That being said, Morgan’s insistence on discussing not the debt problem, not the out-of-control runaway spending, not the unconstitutional interference of the current ruling class that led to historic turnover on Capital Hill in last year’s midterm elections; but rather topics such as DADT and gay marriage is a perfect example of why the Left keeps losing elections.

While controversy and drama are good for ratings, there’s also a seriousness in Leftists in the media like Morgan and others insisting on painting the Tea Party with an intolerant brush.

It’s the Alinskyite drubbing and constant drone about Tea Partiers being anti-gay, racist knuckle-dragging Bible-thumping social conservatives that the Left and the media (pardon my redundancy) are hoping to use to discredit their opponents rather than engage in the real argument that they know they’d lose: Is our government too bloated, is it doing things it shouldn’t be doing, and is it impeding our recovery?; or is it not big enough, not spending enough, and not regulating sufficiently?

The Left knows it can’t win that argument in a center-right nation, so they will search for social conservatives within the Tea Party movement (which, unquestionably it can easily find), and then generalize such positions broadly to paint us all as intolerant neanderthals hoping to cast homosexuals into prison.

Can anybody relate an experience at a Tea Party rally or other such event that even addressed social issues? Were gay marriage and DADT even topics of conversation (other than the court’s overreaching in many big cases, and the lack of 10th Amendment appreciation by the ruling class, that is)? I search and search Rick Santelli’s original rant on CNBC but can’t find either of these topics (nor religion, abortion, or race issues) having anything to do with his anger.

I, for one, am completely tired of hearing about social issues. Totally and completely. I can’t believe that with $14,000,000,000,000+ in debt and a new credit line of another $2,000,000,000,000 recently added on, three wars, 9.1% unemployment, GDP growth rate out of a recession at only 1.5%, housing failing, hiring failing, a credit downgrade, that to some morons, the issue of gay marriage and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is actually pertinent.

As I had admonished them a couple weeks ago, the Social Left in America is ruining our Nation because they care more about their social issues than they do about the fiscal and economic strength of our country.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Share

41 Comments

  1. Treat obama or any dem. candidate like that and I’ll believe Piers that he is a kind and gentle interviewer.

    Comment by Leah — August 18, 2011 @ 11:43 am - August 18, 2011

  2. So how much more media attention will Ms Christine get for her new book by walking off of Morgan’s Show? She has been out ‘promoting’ her book and said in the interview that she was running late for another promotion event but her ‘people’ got her onto Morgan’s show.

    Comment by rusty — August 18, 2011 @ 11:50 am - August 18, 2011

  3. Ha Ha… She can’t even make the decision to leave… She has to be told by a handler to leave… Oh, and I don’t think this is the first time she’s walked out on an interview.

    Piers plays the fool and she looks like a child in this. They both look ridiculous.

    Don’t get me wrong, I have no qualms with him asking about it. But, after the third attempt to inquire on the issue fail, when it is perfectly clear the quest has shut off on that issue, when the interviewee says for the third time she’s not going to talk about it, you, the host, move on. THAT’S what makes a good interviewer!

    Watch some clips of Tim Russert, or David Frost. Yes, they were bulldogs… Tough as nails, and pugnacious… But also knew when to back off. Another aspect of Russert that Morgan doesn’t have. O’Donnell is inconsequential. She’s a nothing… Easy prey. And this is retread material – Gregory already used “gay” against Bachmann. Morgan is doing a poor copy of that interview. Piers does not, and will not, ask tough questions of someone substantial, be it politician or celebrity. Russert would. THAT’S why he had such gravitas.

    Part of the reason they are revered and considered greats in the industry is because they knew where the line were, and knew how to delicately cross it to get the guest to open up. Morgan is like a bulldozer in a china shop in comparison. He’s dreadful, which is why his ratings suck!

    I don’t like O’Donnell at all… She’s just another know-nothing candidate waiting to run for the next office. But Piers Morgan is an even bigger idiot! When she says she doesn’t want to talk about it…. After the third time… Move on!

    I swear… Where does CNN find these talking heads?

    PS. And to think, Tea Party supporters, if you would have left things alone in Delaware, and / or chose better candidates for Senate than O’Donnell and Angle out in Nevada, we WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A BETTER DEAL ON THE DEBT CEILING THAN WE ENDED UP WITH!!!!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 18, 2011 @ 12:06 pm - August 18, 2011

  4. That may be true of Nevada, Sonic, although Harry Reid would have gone scorched Earth against Tarkanian or Lowden, so it might not have made a difference who the GOP put up. But the alternative to O’Donnell was a RINO squish in the mode of the Maine Sisters, Lisa Murkowski, and Scott Brown. I don’t think it would have made a difference in the Senate. Just another pissy old RINO to stand next to John McCain and namecall the Tea Party.

    That said, I hope the Tea Party learned from the 2008 elections to do a better job of vetting their candidates. Seeing as their petulance cost the GOP the NY-26 election, I doubt it.

    One way to absolutely ensure Obama’s re-election would be for the Tea Party to run a third party candidate in 2012.

    Comment by V the K — August 18, 2011 @ 12:27 pm - August 18, 2011

  5. Completely unrelated from the remainder of the post…

    How exactly are free news websites supposed to be maintained if not through advertising? Why is advertising on TV news legit – yet ads online warrant quotes around ‘news,’ as if it no longer is?

    I’m not going to lie – I’m very glad Fox News bests both MSNBC and CNN on TV. And that’s frequently used (rightfully) as part of its defense that its more in line with the American public. But I do think it is worth noting that CNN.com has double the visitors as the Fox News site. CNN’s web operation has a lot of original content, both text and video not featured on TV and to support this – it needs to have a revenue source.

    It has to be either ads or subscription – I prefer ads. And I don’t think that makes its content any less ‘news’

    Comment by Eric — August 18, 2011 @ 12:32 pm - August 18, 2011

  6. But the alternative to O’Donnell was a RINO squish in the mode of the Maine Sisters, Lisa Murkowski, and Scott Brown.

    Bull Crap! You would have had THE MAJORITY in the Senate! Harry Reid would not be majority leader and would not have been able to block CC&B the way he did!

    There is a reason each party wants to be a majority in each chamber you know… It’s the power to influence the outcomes of just such events. Now, you may not have been able to get CC&B, but, even with the couple of extra “squishes” you certainly would have had much more leverage to get something better than you got!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 18, 2011 @ 12:34 pm - August 18, 2011

  7. This is the kind of thing republicans/conservatives need to do more often. Especially on the “main stream” Sunday morning shows. When Daivid Gregory starts his biased nonsense people need to just get up and walk out.

    Comment by Richard Bell — August 18, 2011 @ 12:40 pm - August 18, 2011

  8. Bull Crap! You would have had THE MAJORITY in the Senate! Harry Reid would not be majority leader and would not have been able to block CC&B the way he did!

    No, if Castle had been the GOP nominee in Delaware and a Republican had won in Nevada (which I doubt would have happened anyway), the Democrats would still hold a 51-49 majority because the two independents … Sanders and Lieberman… still caucus with them.

    Comment by V the K — August 18, 2011 @ 12:41 pm - August 18, 2011

  9. But getting back to the post, this is why it annoys me when douchebag liberal moderators ask Republican candidates if they believe in Creationism or Evolution. That question has zero relevance to our country’s fiscal, economic, or security issues; but it amuses the head-tilties in the salons of the left.

    Comment by V the K — August 18, 2011 @ 12:42 pm - August 18, 2011

  10. (It also occurs to me that when Republicans are in the minority, it makes it easy to hold the Caucus together and vote as a bloc. It’s when Republicans have a majority that the squishes … Brown, the Maine Sisters, McCain, Graham, Kirk… start throwing wrenches into the works, start demanding concessions in return for their “loyalty” and you get crap like the “Gang of 14.”)

    Comment by V the K — August 18, 2011 @ 12:45 pm - August 18, 2011

  11. Also, if Harry Reid had lost, Schmuck Chumer would have been the Democrat Leader of the Senate. Good luck getting CC&B past him.

    Comment by V the K — August 18, 2011 @ 12:51 pm - August 18, 2011

  12. But getting back to the post, this is why it annoys me when douchebag liberal moderators ask Republican candidates if they believe in Creationism or Evolution. That question has zero relevance to our country’s fiscal, economic, or security issues; but it amuses the head-tilties in the salons of the left.

    The evolution question is legitimate, not for its own sake, but because it generally speaks to how someone thinks and how they present arguments. Do you rely on evidence or on gut feelings? Are you persuaded by scientific consensus or your own wishful thinking? If people are putting faith in God because it suits their preferences, doesn’t it stand to reason that they put their faith in economic policies because it suits their preferences? This is the exact kind of thing we ought to be finding out about our public leaders if you ask me.

    Comment by Levi — August 18, 2011 @ 1:01 pm - August 18, 2011

  13. And, of course, Levi is too stupid to imagine that questions that elucidate a candidate’s thought processes can be asked in the context of relevant issues and not religious philosophy.

    Comment by V the K — August 18, 2011 @ 1:25 pm - August 18, 2011

  14. So in other words, Levi would consider a legitimate question asking him why he feels that brown people are incapable of democracy?

    Now hush Levi, Adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 18, 2011 @ 1:51 pm - August 18, 2011

  15. the left doesn’t want to talk policy, so they bring up social issues…. take Sarah Palin – they attack her personally and her whole family, but not her policies, for they know she is right

    Comment by Mark — August 18, 2011 @ 2:18 pm - August 18, 2011

  16. PS. And to think, Tea Party supporters, if you would have left things alone in Delaware, and / or chose better candidates for Senate than O’Donnell and Angle out in Nevada, we WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A BETTER DEAL ON THE DEBT CEILING THAN WE ENDED UP WITH!!!!

    Darn, if people had just voted the way Sonicfrog and their betters told them to do, things would be just peachy.

    I also love how this is inevitably followed by the RINO squish supporters demanding that people drop issues they don’t like and refrain from criticizing in the name of “party unity”.

    Sorry, Sonic. People did that for McCain in 2008 and learned their lesson; given the choice between an Obama Party member and a Republican who votes and attacks other Republicans like an Obama Party member, the Obama Party member wins.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 18, 2011 @ 2:54 pm - August 18, 2011

  17. This is the exact kind of thing we ought to be finding out about our public leaders if you ask me.

    But of course, you don’t ask it of Obama Party members. Indeed, Levi, during the 2008 election and now, you screamed that asking ANY question of Obama was racist.

    Which makes you a hypocrite, Levi. And that’s what is being pointed out here — your hypocrisy and lies in demanding of Republicans what you absolutely will not of Obama Party members.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 18, 2011 @ 2:57 pm - August 18, 2011

  18. We have to remember, folks, that Levi is an insane antireligious bigot. Levi believes that all people with religious beliefs are unscientific and stupid and unfit for public office.

    What makes Levi particularly foolish and hypocritical is his own endorsement of Barack Obama, who by Levi’s own standards doesn’t use facts and listens to “wishful thinking” instead.

    Now watch as Levi runs away.

    My suggestion at this point; since Levi won’t stick around to defend the wet farts he drops, there’s no reason he should be allowed to put them up in the first place. Since the screaming brat Levi will never back up or defend his statements, there’s no need to allow him to make them in the first place.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 18, 2011 @ 3:00 pm - August 18, 2011

  19. The evolution question is legitimate, not for its own sake, but because it generally speaks to how someone thinks and how they present arguments.

    It does? Since when, and says who? Do you have an objective understanding of why people have religious beliefs, or do you assume all religious people must be morons who are incapable of rational thought?

    Comment by Naamloos — August 18, 2011 @ 3:05 pm - August 18, 2011

  20. North Dallas Thirty @ #18, if all that is true, then you answered my questions (and your comment wasn’t visible to me while I was writing mine). I will not make such judgements at this point, however.

    Comment by Naamloos — August 18, 2011 @ 3:09 pm - August 18, 2011

  21. V the K @#4:

    That said, I hope the Tea Party learned from the 2008 elections to do a better job of vetting their candidates. Seeing as their petulance cost the GOP the NY-26 election, I doubt it.

    I see it from looking through the other end of the straw. I hope the Republican country club establishment learned from the 2008 elections to do a better job of vetting their candidates to meet the demands of why the TEA Party has come into play. Seeing as the petulance of the Republican bosses lost them the base support in NY-26, they have a lot to consider.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 18, 2011 @ 3:13 pm - August 18, 2011

  22. I write romance novels, a creative endeavor which can often be a sourc3e of amusement among the media. Romance Writers of America often run articles to its membership about how to handle hostile questions. If I were running for office and asked about Evolution/Creationism, my response would be on the lines of. “I’m not sure I understand the premise behind your question. I’m running on a platform to restore fiscal sanity to our country, please explain to me how my beliefs about the assumptions in reason behind the interviewer. They can ask about it 3 or 4 times, with me always POLITELY asking them to explain the connection with fiscal policy so I can answer their concern.

    Comment by Louise B — August 18, 2011 @ 3:30 pm - August 18, 2011

  23. if you would have left things alone in Delaware, and / or chose better candidates for Senate than O’Donnell and Angle out in Nevada, we WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A BETTER DEAL ON THE DEBT CEILING THAN WE ENDED UP WITH!!!!

    Wow SF, you are full of crap. Truly!

    You’re not even clear on which houses of Congress are which, are you? Some hints for you:
    - The Senate is different from the House of Representatives.
    - The House was where the Republicans had a majority and hence, where the Tea Party action was.
    - The Senate has 100 members, and the Democrat majority in it is 53, with a Democrat Vice President casting a tie-breaker. That means the Republicans would have needed four more seats, to gain control. I learned this thing called ‘arithmetic’ in elementary school, which helps me learn that 51 – 47 = 4, not two.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 18, 2011 @ 3:40 pm - August 18, 2011

  24. (continued)
    - The only way the debt ceiling deal could have been significantly better, is if it had much larger spending cuts in it. With a victory for the Republicans already on not raising taxes, and with both the Senate and the Presidency being Democrat, that was not in the cards. Anyway I don’t lose any sleep over it; I look for ways to profit from it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 18, 2011 @ 3:43 pm - August 18, 2011

  25. I remember walking to school and listening to the radio on the day homosexuality was reclassified in 1973. Homosexuals/bisexuals hate heterosexuals and that has never changed in all my life.

    Comment by rjligier — August 18, 2011 @ 3:45 pm - August 18, 2011

  26. More on the Senate, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators

    Note that 2 of the Democrats’ 53 are technically Independents, but as left-wingers (and yes I mean Lieberman as well as B.S. of Vermont), they are effectively Democrats on organizational votes.

    More on arithmetic, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 18, 2011 @ 3:47 pm - August 18, 2011

  27. The evolution question is legitimate, not for its own sake, but because it generally speaks to how someone thinks and how they present arguments.

    Likewise, with the Global Warming question. Anyone who believes in AGW-BG (Anthropegenic Global Warming, with Big Government always offered as the alleged solution) is truly an idiot. We may rightly laugh at them and dismiss them. Exhibit A: The contempible, absurd Algore.

    Now, Levi – Do you believe in AGW? And do you advocate Big Government policies, as the alleged solution?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 18, 2011 @ 3:52 pm - August 18, 2011

  28. - The Senate has 100 members, and the Democrat majority in it is 53, with a Democrat Vice President casting a tie-breaker. That means the Republicans would have needed four more seats, to gain control. I learned this thing called ‘arithmetic’ in elementary school, which helps me learn that 51 – 47 = 4, not two.

    Sorry… My bad.

    For some reason I was thinking the Repubs had gained more seats than they did. It was probably my continued disbelief that Boxer yet again won here in California. I often try to block that out as much as I can. It’s just so unpleasant to think about….

    On Christine O’Donnell…. Like many, not all, but many of the politicians who have jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon, she’s a Social Conservative FIRST, and is simply using the Tea Party to try and gain political office. Though he was absolutely stupid in pushing the issue when it waas clear she was not going to respond, Piers bringing it up shines the light on that, and she scurries away like a roach.

    I’m amazed that so many are fooled by some of the so-called fiscal conservatives. I know many of you don’t like John McCain in 2008, but he had a better record of vetoing stuff due to cost over-runs than all of the candidates he was running against in the primaries. Ron Paul, love him or hate him, is the most FC guy out there, yet he is considered un-electable.

    The Republicans still would have been better if they had the Delaware and Nevada seats…. Harry Reid would be gone. That counts for something.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 18, 2011 @ 4:16 pm - August 18, 2011

  29. Sorry

    cool :–)

    On O’Donnell: Yes, she’s a social conservative. And yes, she was a poor candidate. We agree on that. From there out, we don’t agree. She did the right thing in refusing to play the game that left-wing interviewer wanted her to play. The winning move is to stay calm and pleasant, but get up and leave… she did it right.

    John McCain

    …was the author of McCain-Feingold, a violation of the Constitution. Enough said. (I’m sure he’s connected with several other travesties, I just don’t need to catalog them.)

    Ron Paul, love him or hate him, is the most FC guy out there, yet he is considered un-electable.

    He’s untrustworthy on foreign policy, as he gyrates between blaming America for 9-11 and what used to be called “isolationism.” A pity, because yes he is *so* right on the Federal Reserve, the budget and other economic matters.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 18, 2011 @ 4:23 pm - August 18, 2011

  30. [if only] Harry Reid would be gone. That counts for something.

    Yes… though I don’t know enough about Angle to have an opinion on her, one way or the other.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 18, 2011 @ 4:25 pm - August 18, 2011

  31. Piers Morgan is a marshmallow; therefore, O’Donnell should not have walked off the show, but thrown her darts back at him. She plays the victim too much. She should have taken control away from Morgan in the interview.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — August 18, 2011 @ 4:58 pm - August 18, 2011

  32. Re: 31…she wasn’t smart enough to joust with Morgan. That’s only one of the reasons she lost. I’d put Bachmann up against Piers any day and watch her mop up the floor with him. He has his own problems in the UK with the hacking scandal. His name comes up frequently. Hmmmm….wonder if that’s why he jumped the pond.

    Comment by Mary — August 18, 2011 @ 5:15 pm - August 18, 2011

  33. Colorado Patriot is right on target.

    So-con issues are important – provided we stick to the important ones (like saving western classical liberal values such as free speech) but if we don’t get our fiscal house in order, quickly, then a lot of other issues will become luxuries. Only a prosperous people have the luxury to debate gay marriage, NPR, and whether or not tax money should support the arts (no).

    If the fiscal house collapses… see Mark Steyn’s latest for a taste.

    I suspect Levi, having committed drive-by silliness, won’t be back for a while but I am curious as to why liberals are so hot to display their faith in rationalism when it suits them (mocking someone who believes in God or creationism) but when the science doesn’t suit them (global warming or uncomfortable discoveries in genetics or neurosciences), all they hear are clicking noises.

    Someone in power who believes in creationism may be wrong but they’re not likely to do any damage. Someone in power who formulates policy based on junk science is in a position to do great damage to a lot of people.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — August 18, 2011 @ 6:14 pm - August 18, 2011

  34. [...] Left Can’t Let Social Issues Go [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Will Obama’s Big Jobs Speech be, like his other big speeches,full of sound and fury, specifying nothing? — August 18, 2011 @ 6:49 pm - August 18, 2011

  35. [...] Left Can’t Let Social Issues Go [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » The Michele Bachmann Obsession — August 18, 2011 @ 7:08 pm - August 18, 2011

  36. Back to my comment @ 2
    Seems like the CSM are asking the question about how the situation might have http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2011/0818/Did-Christine-O-Donnell-plan-to-walk-off-Piers-Morgan-VIDEObeen planned

    Comment by rusty — August 18, 2011 @ 7:34 pm - August 18, 2011

  37. Rusty, the link is broken, but I did find the story. The walk off could have been a planned strategy, but I don’t think so. If so, it would have been a lot more firm and resolute. Watch it again. It’s a confusing mess. Her handler is the one who makes the call, and she takes too much time to get disconnected. If you do plan this, the idea is to look bold, in the “I’m not going to put up with this BS” type thing. She looks weak, like a confused little girl.

    Plus, here is another reason why I don’t think she planned it. She says that she walked because she had another event to go to, AND she’s accusing Piers Morgan of borderline sexual harassment for asking that line of question.

    All I can say is… Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha…. HA!

    What a nincowpoop!!!!… What an ultramaroon!!!!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 19, 2011 @ 11:44 am - August 19, 2011

  38. What no Levi?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 19, 2011 @ 1:25 pm - August 19, 2011

  39. FYI … I happened upon Piers Morgan’s interview with Hollywood mogul & Obama apologist Harvey Weinstein earlier this week. The contrast to the O’Donnell interview was astounding.

    Piers alternating between blowing smoke up Harvey’s ass to allowing Obama talking points to go unchallenged.

    Piers is a joke.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — August 19, 2011 @ 3:42 pm - August 19, 2011

  40. Bruce… Agreed! I’ve half watched a few of his interviews, and that one whit O’Donnell is the only one where he decided to get tough. It’s second rate all around. Not only is the interviewee, Mrs O’Donnell, inconsequential as she isn’t running for anything (at the moment anyway), but David Gregory already did this, so Pier is yet another who is leading from behind!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 19, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - August 19, 2011

  41. Likewise, with the Global Warming question. Anyone who believes in AGW-BG (Anthropegenic Global Warming, with Big Government always offered as the alleged solution) is truly an idiot. We may rightly laugh at them and dismiss them. Exhibit A: The contempible, absurd Algore.

    Now, Levi – Do you believe in AGW? And do you advocate Big Government policies, as the alleged solution?

    You have on one side overwhelming scientific consensus.

    On the other, you have businesses who hate environmental regulations and a vast army of drones willing to believe whatever they’re told by the business community which they fancy themselves a part of, who think they’ve won the argument when it just so happens to snow again in February, and who take pride in their anti-intellectualism.

    Who has more credibility?

    Comment by Levi — August 21, 2011 @ 11:03 am - August 21, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.