The Chirac Broadcasting System, desperate to boost its own failing ratings due to hostility towards many things Americans support, decided to run a sensationalist promo attacking Nicolas Sarkozy.
The buildup to the interview was a clip meant to make it look like he stormed out of an interview. Granted, this is not as bad as “fake but accurate” memos, or fake footage of cars exploding, but it is still typical leftist dishonesty.
The truth is Mr. Sarkozy was very busy, and did not want his scheduler booking that interview on that day. Then, to compound the problem, the interviewer asked stupid questions.
Nicolas Sarkozy is the Bill Parcells of politics. Parcells, the former NFL head coach of the New York Giants and other teams, was the master of taking the media bullies, and bullying them right back. He would look at a reporter and say, “Now that was a stupid question.” What gave him the right to insist he was right? Two Super Bowl rings, and a history of turning losers into winners.
Nicolas Sarkozy has a much tougher job than turning around a losing football team. He is trying to turn around a country mired in failure. France is collapsing into mediocrity. He is willing to stand up and say what few Americans on the left would dare say…that right now, America is a winner and France is a loser. Rather than hate us, he wants to emulate us. For this, he is a rock star around the world.
So what does CBS do when given a chance to interview a world leader? They ask stupid questions. What does he think about being called “Sarko the American?” That ranks right up there with asking him what tree he would be. The final straw was when he was asked about the breakup of his marriage. He insisted the matter was private. The interviewer would not let go, so Mr. Sarkozy took off his earpiece and walked out.
Good for him. If more American presidential candidates would stop being so gracious to people who don’t deserve it, our race for the White House would have more substance. Mr. Sarkozy should have been asked about his economic proposals, and Islamofacism. Those are appropriate questions.
Sometimes it is the candidate that debases things. Bill Clinton mentioned in front of stunned General Motors executives that he enjoyed having astroturf in his pickup truck, and that after he left office, he would want the same. Once he lowered the bar, it was no surprise that some MTV airhead asked him if he wore boxers or briefs. When somebody else asked the same question of Newt Gingrich, Gingrich was criticized for pillorying the girl. He told her it was a stupid question. How dare Gingrich be a meanie! How dare he upbraid a woman for being undignified!
Most of the media does not get it. Americans crave substance. We can handle it. We worry about Islamofacism, the falling dollar, and even lesser known stories that matter, such as a shortage of bees, which could send food prices skyrocketing.
Yet when given a chance to interview one of the most revolutionary world leaders in some time, they fail to understand that the rest of the world does not follow American protocol of media debasement. Bill and Hillary Clinton had their marriage under a microscope, and then the media felt so guilty that they left them alone on issues that should have been under that very same lens.
I am thinking about this more than usual because I am struggling to suppress the occasional urges to write about things that make certain powerful people uncomfortable.
When I started my blog, it was a hobby, and I had complete freedom. Now in a short time it has grown beyond my wildest expectations, and I may have to make some compromises to make it palatable for those that have the power to really benefit me.
A dear friend of mine took me aside last night and said, “Eric, 95% of the people I talk to love you, and love your stuff. I am your biggest fan. Yet some of the powers that be are simply uncomfortable with some of what you write, primarily the sexual stuff. On the one hand you write brilliantly political, but you also want to be funny in a risque way. Dennis Miller can pull it off, but it is not easy to do.”
Now these people have no power to censor my blog, but if I want to get “respected” people to boost me, I have to be “respectable.” It is the same argument that forced me to go from being a long haired rocker a decade ago to a corporate altar boy. I had to “look” the part.
My friend continued. “It is one thing if your focus was purely pop culture, but you focus on political stuff, and some people simply won’t be ok with it.”
I asked him for advice, and his suggestion was to have two blogs, one for the political, and the other for the nonsense, including any sexual stuff.
Our conversation took place after a lecture we were both attending, and it was one of the most intelligent, cerebral lectures I ever remember being at. The fellow’s name is Richard Baehr, and his website is the “American Thinker.” He prefers the Charles Krauthammer method of quiet cerebral analysis. Mr. Baehr does not offer fire and brimstone, but he does speak on the upcoming elections, health care (his field), and foreign policy with a demeanor that conveys “gravitas.”
When listening to him, I began to notice that being liked and being respected are two different things. Bill Clinton was treated as your brother that you laughed with and at him because he projected that image himself. He had enemies, but they only reinforced a perception he created.
Most perceptions are based on our own actions. I know that many people find me entertaining, but would they feel comfortable having me lead a political army into battle? I am not sure. I might be a liability.
Yes, I write about General Petraues. Yes, I can crystallize serious matters of life and death proportions in a cogent way. Yet sometimes I want to analyze whether or not C3PO is a homosexual, the haiku brilliance of Fraggle Rock, and of course, wild sex with hot republican Jewish brunettes.
My grandmother would not approve of that last part, and neither will certain “elders.”
After the lecture is when I had the conversation with my friend, and he brought the lecturer into the conversation. The lecturer also suggested two separate blogs.
Here is the problem with that. Let’s say I rise in the ranks, and powerful people decide to make me their top blogger. Everything is fine, and then one day some leftist hate site, in an attempt to destroy a conservative candidate by association, “uncovers” my other “secret” blog where I write about my abnormal fascinations with Bea Arthur and Monique from “Showtime at the Apollo.” I will have disgraced and scandalized somebody I am trying to help. I would rather just be upfront about it. I am a conservative republican with a liberal sexual appetite. I am single, and like getting laid. So what is the problem?
The problem is it is beneath the “dignity” of serious people. If one is not seen as “serious,” or “respected,” one does not break through to the next level.
The solution is I am going to be myself. Even if I tried to tone it down, I am undisciplined. More importantly, I like being undisciplined outside of my real job. Me being caught with a woman in a scandalizing manner should not be a scandal because I have shouted from the rooftops that, flawed and all, me likey!
The needle that will be thread will be this. I can be sophomoric when writing about my own life, but I have never…and will never…be sophomoric when doing an interview.
My friend told the lecturer, “He did not go to professional journalism school, so he has not been tainted by the infectious diseas eof the typical media.”
So I am raw, undisciplined, unpolished, and very talented. However, in the same way I got a haircut a decade ago, and put on a suit and tie to look the part, I will always be professional in my interviews. That way when somebody powerful expresses discomfort with some of the things I say, the rebuttal can be, “look at how he interviews. You will be treated with respect.”
That is the best I can do, because I think that is the best I want to do. Yes, I want to be taken seriously, but I also want to find a hot republican Jewish woman and bite her underwear off with my teeth. That should not make me any less qualified to analyze the Global War on Islamofacism. Some may disagree, and I guess they will not change their opinions.
I have done well in life doing things on my terms, and some convey that as an “f.u. attitude.” It is not. It is just knowing who I am.
I do know this much. There are plenty of people who are “respected,” and I think they are pretentious, and full of their own garbaggio. Many of them work in the mainstream media, and while they may not get caught in sex scandals of their own, they take delight in delving into the private lives of others, humanity be d@mned.
Mr. Sarkozy, I would be delighted to interview you. If you can tolerate that my sex life is out of control by choice, I promise to never talk to you about it or ask you about yours. I could care less about whether you rip off your wife’s undies. I care about you finding terrorists, pulling down their underwear, and shoving the flags of freedom and democracy up their hides until they surrender.
eric
Sarkozy is an interesting character. He had quite a life. I’d be curious to hear what you have to say about his want to give public funding to Mosques in order to lessen their foreign influence. That’s the kind of outside-the-box thinking of his that has all sorts of implications. And what do you think about his strong stands against deficit spending and the importation of skilled labor?
I believe that public funding of religious instituions is a bad idea. I think that deficits are a bad thing. I think that importing skilled labor can be a bad thing. So Sarkosy is 1 1/2 to 1 1/2 on those two issues. Surely you realize that a rightist French nationalist is not quite an American conservative. But there is one thing he has in common with modern American conservatives – ____ & spend. He’s cut taxes while increasing spending. Where do you find common ground with Sarkozy? Or Bush, fo that matter?
;)
JMJ
“three Issues”
Sorry about that!
JMJ
“Everything is fine, and then one day some leftist hate site, in an attempt to destroy a conservative candidate by association, “uncovers” my other “secret” blog where I write about my abnormal fascinations with Bea Arthur and Monique from “Showtime at the Apollo.””
It could just be another way to prove that the left lacks a sense of humor.
Yea, they would jump you on any issue that wasnt totally “missionary position”
At least you wouldnt be runnung around Market St. in a pink thong wearing full Moulen Rouge makeup and a tottooed gerbal hanging out of your ass.
Hot Republican Jewish brunettes, eh?
I equate the task to that of Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Finding one is as rare as finding another Hope Diamond.
The bulk of available, single Jewish women seem to liberal, secular Jews. If you happen to find one that is Republican, chances are she’s Orthodox, so you’ll have to marry her to have hot sex with her, (and then only on Shabbat).
The choice is clear. Marry a liberal woman and have a spasm every time she wants to watch Brian Williams and the NBC Evening News, or marry an Orthodox woman to be in sync with your political views and give up lobster for the rest of your life!
Sadly, like the saga of the Magtag repairman, it’s the cost of being a Jewish Republican.
Good Luck!
Jonathan
As I understand it, Sarkozy has embraced Israel, which is a plus for the U.S. as well. The French president also made it clear after his election that he wished to open a sincere dialogue towards alliance with President Bush. So it makes sense to me that CBS — or any of the other liberal MSM TV or radio stations — would want to wreak havoc and damage upon a country and their president who appears to want to be an ally to both America and Israel.
Just grabbin’ at straws here, folks.
Or a hot republican christian brunette…give her the opportunity to save you…from terminal priapism.
She must’ve had a religious experience. She kept screaming “Oh God! Oh God!”.
Can that really be the oldest joke in the world?
“I would rather just be upfront about it. I am a conservative republican with a liberal sexual appetite. I am single, and like getting laid. So what is the problem?”
No problem here. Unlike with the kiddies in front of the TV, where it requires prodigious effort to lift up the remote and change the channel (or better yet, turn the damnable thing off), in the case of a blog, viewing in the first place requires purposeful action. I know it’s not exactly what you were getting at, but it is the thought that popped into my head. Oh yeah, as a married guy, those days are far behind me, so I can root for you.
“The problem is it is beneath the “dignity” of serious people. If one is not seen as “serious,” or “respected,” one does not break through to the next level.”
“Serious people” are too often those who take themselves too seriously. Maybe the whole libidinous aspect can be the thing that grounds you, like Ghandi’s spinning wheel.
Check me out, I’m comparing you to Ghandi. What a kiss-up.
“The solution is I am going to be myself.”
You have found the true path, Grasshopper.