THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

At the Palm Springs Lincoln Club, I had the pleasure of speaking as the opening act for Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack.

(This column does not constitute an endorsement of me by her, although rumor has it I am as delightful as she is hot.)

http://bono.house.gov/

The event was set up by San Bernardino Radio Host Elyse Richmond.

I got to speak with Congresswoman Bono Mack at length, and she is an incredibly funny and thoughtful person. She is not just thoughtful in her kindness. She is thoughtful in terms of the careful deliberations she puts into studying issues. She is not an ideologue. Far from it. In a world where being a moderate is seen as a curse word, she is an openly proud, out of the closet, moderate Republican.

Yet she is also tolerant. She does not denigrate the more conservative members of the party. She understands that moderate and conservative Republicans are interdependent.

Before getting down to policy, she began by telling a hilarious story about her neighbor, an American Indian. She looked at her neighbor in the audience before cracking us all up.

“Your dog leapt over the fence and impregnated my dog. I should now be entitled to 1/16th of the Indian gaming revenue.”

She also pointed out the reason why he liked to tell that embarrassing story of what happened to her dog.

“I won $700 at your casino.”

Later in the evening a supporter offered to make a $700 donation to her campaign to match her winnings. She was quick to respond.

“Did I say $700? I think it was close to $1000.”

She then pointed to me and said, “Eric, it is good that you do conservative comedy. You are in the business and support the GOP. That makes four of us.”

She then got down to nuts and bolts.

“The Axis of Evil is spreading. I wish President Obama took foriegn policy more seriously.”

(Her tone the entire evening was respectful and calm. She was not tossing out red meat.)

“We will not have health care reform until we have meaningful tort reform.”

“I am a moderate Republican. I reach across the aisle.”

“I sponsored the MATCH Act. This created a national registry of arsonists. We do this with sex offenders, and we needed to do it with arsonists. I worked on this with Adam Schiff.”

“I would be a prime suspect for President Obama to reach out on health care reform. He never did, not once.”

“We need to scrap this bill and start over.”

“They are going to tax Coca-Cola. Sorry Eric.”

(The crowd laughed since I was drinking from a Diet Coke bottle as she said this. I put the bottle down, horrified. Her timing was impeccable.)

“The doctors at the Veteran’s Administration are good. The bureaucracy is not.”

Congresswoman Bono was asked about President Obama’s lack of transparency. She was very charitable toward the President.

“President Obama is still getting his sea legs. He has only been in office a few months. Yet I work in Congress, and Nancy Pelosi is not being transparent. Bills are available only 12 hours before we vote on them. She needs to create a more transparent House. Obama is still getting his sea legs.”

“Nancy Pelosi lives in San Francisco. She is not hearing the rest of America.”

“We benefit by her being speaker. Steny Hiyer would be an amazing speaker. I disagree with him, but he would be effective. We do not want Pelosi to be removed as Speaker.”

“Pelosi has a 727. She doesn’t have to stop in Fargo, North Dakota, to refuel. She doesn’t meet the people in Middle America.”

“Barbara Boxer has said that on health care, the Federal government should cover 75% and the state government should cover 35%. She said this. You do the math.”

“Nobody should be dropped from their insurance due to preexisting conditions.”

“The crisis is not with healthcare. It is with the uninsured. How do we deal with the invincibles? Many young people don’t want coverage. We can’t force them.”

“This bill is a political ploy. It is a chicken in every pot.”

What surprised me was that nobody in the audience brought up cap and trade. Congresswoman Bono Mack was one of only eight Republicans in the House that voted for it. She has taken considerable heat from conservatives. Some have vowed never to support her again, while those in the audience fiercely defended her and said that they would not judge her by that one issue.

To the credit of Congresswoman Bono-Mack, she decided to bring the issue up herself. She had every opportunity to hide and accept plaudits, but she decided to show a spine and honestly explain her rationale in voting for what many see as an awful bill. Even if opne still disagrees with her, her integrity and courage are admirable.

“Put yourself in my shoes on this vote. The administration on cap and trade was doing the equivalent of performing surgery with a hacksaw.”

“The EPA was beginning to move toward regulating greenhouse gases. They worked with Shell, British Petroleum, John Deere, and others who wanted to help craft legislation rather than be regulated out of business.

“I needed to head off Henry Waxman. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are upset about this, and I understand.”

“Remember, the Federal government has broad powers to punish businesses. They are currently shutting the water off for Central Valley farmers.”

“We also need to fight for nuclear energy as part of any energy policy package.”

“I am a pragmatist. I had to represent the district. Thank you for not marching on my office. We should be marching on Barbara Boxer’s office.”

Congresswoman Bono-Mack stuck around the entire night. She had dinner in the hotel with everybody else, and did not leave until most everybody else had done so.

As I said, she is a classy, gracious, and intelligent woman. She is not interested in slash and burn politics.

She is in Congress for the very reason people are supposed to be in political office.

She wants to make the lives of her constituents better. She understands that nobody has a monopoly on good ideas.

A very good idea would be for her to be reelected repeatedly.

eric

Fox News just turned Lucky 13, to the consternation of ideological bigots and the celebration of those that actually believe that true tolerance of all people includes those politically right of center.

http://www.foxnews.com

While I watch Fox News on a daily basis, what still should shock most people is the depth of hostility toward Fox News by those on the left.

The left despises Fox News because it is perceived by them to be “conservative.” What they claim is that Fox News slants the news with a right-wing bias.

This is ludicrous, and I question whether the left actually believes this, or if they just spout it in the hopes that others will believe this.

First of all, even if Fox News slanted the news to the right, which it does not, the left keeps insisting that CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, the Jayson Blair Times, the Los Angeles Palestinian Times, and National Palestinian Radio are neutral and unbiased. The issue is not bias, but a refusal to admit bias. Anything not reflexively liberal is automatically deemed right-wing.

Yet what separates too many media organizations on the left from those on the right is that media outlets on the left will not place a wall between their editorial pages and their hard news stories. The Wall Street Journal editorial pages are brilliant and conservative, but this does not bleed into the rest of the paper, which is spectacularly written and non-partisan. The Jayson Blair Times is in the gutter ethically and financially because it is one giant editorial page with little resemblance to news.

(Liberals love to mention David Brooks, as if one right of center individual who spends most of his time bashing conservatives creates ideological openmindedness.)

Fox News has an opinion division and a news division. The opinion division consists of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, newcomer Glenn Beck, and to a lesser extent, Greta Van Susteren.

Let’s eliminate Great Van Susteren from this equation for two reasons. First of all, most people criticizing Fox News are not talking about her. Secondly, although she did interview Sarah Palin more sympathetically than most media people, this was a case of a woman sticking up for another woman. Greta focuses mainly on tabloid journalism, such as Natalee Holloway and Anna Nicole Smith.

(I have been sharply critical of her for this, although her show has gone from being totally unwatchable to being much better now that she focuses somewhat on stuff that is not complete cr@p.)

Critics who say Fox News slants the news are referring specifically to O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck.

These critics are wrong because these shows are not news. Let me say this again. They are not news.They are opinion shows. I happen to more often than not agree with the opinions, but they are opinions nonetheless.

Also, people who lump these shows together are the same people who think all conservatives are the same.

Hannity is the easiest to pin down. He is a partisan Republican. He opposes President Obama and Democrats. Yet his show is a debate show. He frequently has Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers, and other liberals as guests. He recently sparred with Michael Moore. To say that liberal views are unrepresented on the show is ridiculous and false. Some will argue that as the host, Hannity controls the agenda. Yet for 13 years, Alan Colmes was his liberal cohost. The show was absolutely fair and balanced.

Beck is different in the sense that while he is a conservative, he is not a Republican. Hannity wants to fix the Republican Party. Beck could be perfectly happy blowing it up. Beck is similar to Hannity in the sense that he is outwardly and vocally opposed to virtually everything President Obama stands for. His show is not balanced, but he never claims that it is.

O’Reilly is the most complicated. He leans right culturally, but he is no conservative. He is certainly not a Republican. He is an independent. More importantly, he is not a partisan. He bends over backwards to be fair to President Obama, to the point of getting critical mail from conservatives. Hannity and Beck do not have this occurrence. Bill O’Reilly has plenty of guests who disagree with him. To put it more simplistically, O’Reilly is not an ideologue, while Beck, and especially Hannity, are.  O’Reilly has concerns about some of Obama’s agenda, but is certainly not in vocal opposition to everything he says and does. He also has views that liberals support, such as opposition to the death penalty.

Yet again, and this must be repeatedly emphasized…these shows are not news.

The news division consists of professionals that are capable of putting bias aside and simply reporting news without editorializing.

Neil Cavuto covers business and financial news. The stock market is non-partisan, and Cavuto simply sticks to his area of expertise without trying to change the subject.

Jim Angle, Wendell Goler, and Carl Cameron are very respected White House Correspondents that report the news in a fair, and yes balanced, manner.

Shepherd Smith, Brett Baier, and John Gibson report the news. They tell the story, but do not try to become the story. Chris Wallace conducts tough but fair interviews.

None of these people are hyper-partisan hacks. Neither are Harris Faulkner or Lauren Sivan.

Some will argue that because the opinion shows come on in the evening when most people are home from work and watching television, that this trumps everything else. This is false because when major news stories break, it is not the evening opinion hosts that are reporting. The best example of this were the 2008 political conventions. O’Reilly and Hannity did not report from the convention. They did their shows, but the reporting was done by the news division and only the news division.

Contrast this with MSNBC, which was prepared to have liberal bullies Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann reporting the conventions until a public backlash ensued. Chris Matthews is the one who said that he “felt a thrill go up his leg” when Obama spoke. Olbermann is the one who picks a new conservative every day to declare his “worst person in the world.” This is far beyond anything Hannity has ever done.

MSNBC does not separate its news and entertainment divisions. Even the rare commentary by “conservatives” are done by people like Pat Buchanan, who absolutely does not represent mainstream conservatism.

Yet what drives liberals crazy about Fox News is that it consistently wins the ratings battles. Fox News has better ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined.

(CNN began to decline rapidly from a quality standpoint when Bernard Shaw retired. He was as good as it got. Bill Schneider remains a fair political analyst. Yet overall, they remain left of center, although not to the level of lunacy that is MSNBC.)

There are two explanations for why Fox News has the largest audience. Neither of these explanations makes liberals comfortable.

The first explanation is that America is a center-right country. This explanation is the wrong one, even though we are. For one thing, it only reinforces the stereotype of bias that I am debunking. Yet I cannot dismiss the explanation simply because I disagree with it. I dismiss it because the ratings victories are so substantial that the country would have to be hard right to explain the numbers. America is not hard right. Democrats control the White House and Congress. One must concede that many Fox News viewers are independents and Democrats.

The accurate explanation is not ideology, but credibility. The liberal media simply has none.

Yes, there are plenty of individual liberals that are paragons of virtue. I have some of these people as friends of mine. Yet the main institutions that are seen as liberal are also seen as corrupt.

Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, and Katie Couric wrecked CBS News. The New York Times did not become the Jayson Blair Times due to one bad hiring decision. It is due to decades of corruption by Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr. Tim Russert was a rare liberal that put aside his bias in favor of fairness. Tom Brokaw fails to do this. Peter Jennings helped Hillary Clinton write speeches. These and other liberal institutions can’t stop cheerleading for the left, disparaging the right, or getting stories wrong and then covering up the truth. This also comes in the form of suppressing stories.

O’Reilly, Hannity, and the Wall Street Journal do not have this problem. If they did, the millions of liberals monitoring them on a daily basis would have something, and MSNBC would gleefully report it.

(O’Reilly had a brief personal scandal. The left covered it with the enthusiasm of the landing on the moon.)

ACORN is a prime example. ACORN is a criminal enterprise. We know this. They are a top down crooked entity that would make John Gotti proud from a tactical and results standpoint. Fox News is covering the story, while the rest of the media is ignoring it.

So what do liberals do? They say the story has no validity specifically because Fox News is reporting it. This is circular logic. Fox News says it is important, liberals go after Fox News, and then use that as a basis to get rid of the story as biased. Is Fox News going after ACORN because it is liberal?

A better question would be if the other outlets are refusing to tackle ACORN because it is liberal.

Enough independents and Democrats think that even if Fox News is letting ideology lead to the story being covered, the story itself is completely legitimate. The fact that Andrew Breitbart broke the story does not devalue it. Anybody on the left could have broken the story. They chose not to do so. That is bias.

The reporting of the story itself on Fox News has been tough, but absolutely fair. Megan Kelly gave a one hour interview to ACORN’s founder. He stated his case, and the viewers decided.

I will offer one more explanation of why Fox News and other non-liberal news outlets succeed, although it is less important.

Liberal news is boring. Rush Limbaugh is not just conservative. He is lighthearted, jovial, and fun. He can talk about football, music, and other things beyond politics. His conservatism is less important than his gift for entertaining.  Air America collapsed because three hours of hatred, rage, and anger toward conservatives gets very tiresome very quickly. Limbaugh never claimed to be a news reporter. Air America DJs did.

Even when George W. Bush had 28% approval, liberals never figured out that many people were disappointed in him, but they did not hate his guts.

Liberalism has become a philosophy of “anti.” Liberalism hates conservatism, and has contempt for non-liberalism.

Fox News is not a shill for the Republican Party, but it is not afraid or unwilling to question Democrats. It is willing to let Republicans speak without being abused. In the liberal world, that is conservative bias.

Fox News is hated because the left simply wants to silence all discussion and dissent. They romanticize the good old days when everyone was in harmony and perfect agreement because conservatism had no voice. They lament being challenged.

Fox News challenges orthodoxies without accepting tired old shibboleths at face value. Fox News makes people think. MSNBC makes people froth at the mouth from the news version of rabies.

The evidence is in the numbers. People watch Fox News. They ignore the competition.

So either most of the viewers are biased, or Fox truly does do a better job of presenting things without an insultingly obvious left-wing lens.

So yes, I will continue watching O’Reilly, Hannity, and until his head explodes, Beck. They are enjoyable entertainment.

I will also watch the honest members of the news division. They are fair, balanced, and usually accurate.

They have credibility.

The people have spoken.

Happy Lucky 13 Fox News.

Given your fabulous coverage of Israel, I hope I get invited to your Bar Mitzvah next week. Dennis Miller can lead the opening benediction.

eric

I have been doing some research (ok, that is a lie) about the tragic events surrounding 9/11.

President Obama needs to convene a Blue Ribbon panel immediately to investigate things.

The truth is painful, but Jack Nicholson reminded me that I can’t handle the truth.

It is time that we finally acknowledged what happened.

The clues were in front of our faces, and I finally connected the dots.

Charlie Sheen was responsible for 9/11.

This is absolutely factual because I said so. Like global warming, the debate is now settled and the discussion needs to end. If you disagree with me than you are a rude angry mob, even if you are a singular individual.

Think back to the California Achievement Tests. Now think about the following syllogism.

Premise 1: “All cats chase mice.”

Premise 2: “Tony has a cat.”

Conclusion: “Tony is a mouse.”

This proves not only that California should abolish all public schools and allow for homeschooling, but that Charlie Sheen was responsible for 9/11.

For those still not convinced, let me paraphrase the rantings of conspiracy nut Louis Farrakhan that makes others seem sane.

There are seven days in a week. There are seven letters in the word Judaism. There are seven letters in the word slavery. Therefore, the Zionist moneylenders named JP Morganberg and Merrill Lynch Glassberg have inflicted Africans with Malaria. Malaria also has seven letters, as does the word disease, which malaria is.

For those still not convinced, the evidence can be found in the lack of coverage by the liberal media. Dan Rather, Katie Couric, and the Jayson Blair Times never bothered to cover the story. Given that they deliberately slant the news and get stories wrong, this story must be real news.

Also, according to liberals, every Muslim is a good person, and every rich white male is an oppressor. The television show Law and Order, which Charlie Sheen is not on (part of the coverup) constantly teaches us this fact. Charlie Sheen is a white male.

Finally, look at the similarities between Charlie Sheen and the Islamofacists from 9/11.

Charlie Sheen spent time with hookers. The day before the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers were in the casinos with hookers. Hookers are not monogamous. They have multiple clients.

Charlie Sheen has used drugs. The hijackers engaged in drugrunning.

The hijackers were human garbage. Charlie Sheen appeared as a garbageman in a movie that featured a guy who had Vietnam flashbacks. Vietnam was a war, which is what the terrorists are waging.

Charlie Sheen has been to Pennsylvania, New York, and Washington, DC.

The terrorists were considered brothers, even though they did not have the same last name. Islam, like other religions, teaches that all men of the faith are part of a brotherhood. Charlie Sheen is brothers with Emilio Estevez, who also has a different last name. In an even eerier coincidence, they have different first names. So did the hijackers.

Charlie Sheen’s father was President of the United States. The terrorists tried to kill the President.

If you take the numbers from 9/11 and add them up, you get the number 20. Now if you take the convenience store chain 7-11, which has been known to hire Middle Easterners, and add the numbers together, you get 18.

In early 1999, what was the score of the Atlanta Falcons playoff victory over the San Francisco 49ers? That’s right. 20 to 18.

18 is a lucky number in Jewish culture, but Charlie Sheen is not Jewish, meaning bad things would happen. The terrorists were also not Jewish.

18 and 20 add up to 38, which when looking into a mirror appears to be 83.

83 consists of 8 and 3, which adds up to 11. 11 is the other half of 9/11 and 7/11.

9 means no in German. Therefore the Germans were not responsible for 9/11.

7 brings us back to Farrakhan, but since he is always wrong, the Jewish slave masters could not have been responsible.

So if the Jews are innocent, but the Germans are innocent, and Arabs are always innocent, then what can we ascertain from this?

That the words Saudi Arabia have 11 letters in them.

So doesn’t this mean that the Saudis were responsible?

Not entirely. The word Saudi has 5 letters. So does the word Sheen. The word Charlie has 7 letters, as do the words Jewish, African, and slavery. Arabia does not, but Arabia is a country. The individual person is an Arabian, which does. Some would say they are Arabs, but that has 5 letters.

1/2 of 5 is 2 1/2. Charlie Sheen appears in the tv show 2 1/2 Men.

There we go!

Lastly, liberals criticize George W. Bush for being born to a famous father who guided his career path.

That would be Charlie Sheen, and Al Gore and the uselessness that is the current crop of Kennedys for that matter.

Kennedy is an airport frequently targeted by terrorists. Charlie Sheen has been seen there.

He was even wearing a head covering, presumably to keep away the paparazzi. The terrorists also use head coverings to disguise themselves.

I am sure President Obama will engage in a high level shrouding of the truth, which I still can’t handle.

Nevertheless, if Charlie Sheen thinks he will get away with being behind 9/11, he has another thing coming.

I did my part America. Now do yours.

Find Charlie Sheen, Rosie O’Donnell, and some Ron Paul supporters, and find out if scratching a dime on their forehead yields either proof that fire melts steel, or at least a free Slurpee.

Oh, and Charlie Sheen has tasted a Slurpee in his lifetime (that is not a prostitute reference.). Slurpees are sold at 7-11, which as we know comes right before…

Well, you know. 9/11.

eric

It took some barely relevant people on this planet to finally expose America’s First Gasbag in Chief.

It is one thing to be scoffed at by Armageddonijad and Kim Jong Il. When one is not important enough for the International Olympic Committee, one truly ceases to matter.

Before getting to my own commentary, I received a Top 10 List on the matter that is priceless.

Top Ten Reasons Obama Failed At Winning The Olympic Bid

” The IOC ‘acted stupidly!'”

Now back to our First Gasbag in Chief.

In past years I would say that Barack Obama would be starting to look French, but Nicholas Sarkozy has shown that real change can make a positive difference.

Let me again reiterate that I could care less about the Olympics. I find them collosally boring. President Obama’s trip to Copenhagen is not the issue in itself.

First of all, the argument of wasting taxpayer dollars is criticism that goes too far. Presidents take trips all the time, and pursuing the Olympics is a legitimate undertaking. Yet presidential prestige cannot be squandered recklessly.

There are plenty of reasons why a reasonable person could have expected Rio De Janeiro to win the games. South America has never hosted before. America has many times. Holding the games in a new and pleasant location is sensible, and certainly fits in with the liberal notion of fairness and global equality. So the issue is not that Chicago was a terrible choice, but that Rio was an exceptional one. Mr. Obama cannot and should not be faulted for this.

What he should be faulted for is his narcissism. There is no way he would have taken the trip to Copenhagen if he thought Chicago would lose, especially so badly. Yet he is so in love with the power of his own words that he actually believed that he would carry the day.

Remember, he prostrated himself before the world, and apologized for America ever existing with George W. Bush at the helm. Some blamed animus toward President Bush for New York losing out to London in a previous round.

Yet in a theme that has been all too common, Mr. Obama is liked, but not respected. Simply put, he is irrelevant. He doesn’t matter. More importantly, as the gulf between soaring rhetoric and meager accomplishments widens, Mr. Obama simply declares victory.

Chicago loses the games? So what, he declares his presentation a success.

Economic trouble? So what, he states that things are getting better.

The CBO says his numbers do not add up? So what, he states that they do.

He announces talks with Iran and that the Iranians promised to be nicer. The next day the Iranians break their word, because that is what they do. Obama claims that things are moving in the right direction.

A couple of girls are kidnapped in North Korea. They are then released after we make concessions. Obama calls it a diplomatic success.

Mr. Obama is not a stupid man, not by any stretch of the imagination. Yet he does think that everybody else in America is stupid. He declares things to be truthful, with nothing to back up these things except for the fact that he said them. His entire rationale seems to be that if George W. Bush said or did something, it is automatically bad. If Obama does it, it is automatically noble and virtuous.

By trying to show that he knows everything, people come to the conclusion that he knows absolutely nothing. What he should be seen as is a man who knows some things and listens to his advisors when they know more.

President Obama is becoming more and more like Julius Caesar every day. Up until the moment Caesar is stabbed by Casca, he is convinced that everybody loves him to the point of worship.

Yet despite all of these setbacks, Mr. Obama simply does not allow humility to enter his behavior patterns. His speech to the IOC was not about the beauty of America or even about Chicago. It was about him personally. Michelle Obama spoke about her own father and her husband. Simply put, Barack Obama said that Chicago deserves the Olympics because Chicago gave us him.

The world is finally waking up to the fact that our President slathers himself in “Eau D’Obama Anus” cologne.

Their is no there there. His speeches are 45% platitudes, 30% bromides, 25% meanderings, and 5% nonsense. That adds up to 105%, which in Obamaworld adds up perfectly because he says so.

So if Barack Obama is irrelevant, why does all of this matter?

Because the President of the United States cannot and must not ever be irrelevant. People thought it was ok for Bill Clinton to be irrelevant, because the 1990s was a decade where “nothing really happened.” Yet sleepy decades are often followed by turmoil, often avoidable turmoil. Inaction is not “peace.” It is complacency, which is a threat to peace.

The world is a tinderbox. Iran is ready to explode. North Korea is selling bad stuff to other bad people.

The issue is not that Mr. Obama went to Copenhagen when so many other problems are occurring. As I said, if he could have won, the trip would have been worth it.

The issue is that the world is not taking him seriously. Anywhere. On anything.

Illinois Senator Roland Burris, a product of Chicago corruption himself, actually blamed George W. Bush for Mr. Obama’s failure. This is getting ludicrous. Does any sane person think that George W. Bush is to blame for Chicago not getting the Olympics?

Barack Obama as a candidate was elected because enough people wanted change. Yet he needs to stop campaigning, stop blathering, and stop being irrelevant. In short, he needs to get off of the television, sit down at his desk, and just stop showboating and do his job.

He needs to stop responding to defeats by just declaring them victories.

Liberals all over the world respond by saying “Well George W. Bush did (X, Y, Z, etc).” That doesn’t cut it.

Even if George W. Bush was responsible for kitty cats and puppy dogs crying at night, that does not change the fact that Barack Obama needs to deal with these issues now. If all he can do is assess blame, how is he useful?

The answer is, at this moment, he is useless.

Health care? The Pelosiraptor is handling that. Afghanistan and Iraq? Bush was responsible.

I want Barack Obama to matter. I want him to drop his “too cool for school” attitude and actually do the work.

The entire world is watching, and if he continues to abdicate his role as leader of the free world, others will be happy to take his place. Sarkozy and Benjamin Netanyahu are already filling in.

He needs to stop being that coach on the sidelines that stares with his arms folded. He needs to pound his fist on the table, knock over a water cooler, and show people he means business (behind closed doors).

Some point out that he very well could be doing all of this in private. If that were the case, there would be results.

If he manages to successfully deal with third world genocidal lunatics threatening to destroy Western Civilization, then nobody will remember his failing to get the 2016 Olympics. As I keep saying, the deck was not in his favor. His failure was not losing, but for not coming to grips with the fact that he even could lose when most bettors saw the handwriting on the wall as clear as a Rio beach.

Mr. Obama, I don’t even care if you have to get tough with Republicans and ram bills down our throats that I disagree with. I will be disgusted from a political standpoint, but at least your manhood won’t be in question.

Trust me sir, having people dislike you is no big deal. It comes with the job. Right now I, along with many others worldwide, like you personally. You are affable, or as our enemies see it, harmless.

Your likability is just not translating into respect.

Likability is not the ends. It is the means.

The end is winning, which means victories for America.

Barack Obama will most likely never read these words, and even if he does, as with any opinion he disagrees with, he will ignore them.

Yet I can handle him ignoring me. What cannot be accepted is the world ignoring him.

It is not the world’s responsibility to adapt to him. It is he who must “change.”

This must start now. The tinderbox is ready to blow.

eric

Once again, a liberal bully in the entertainment industry who made his living throwing stones at others found out that his own home was made of glass. That glass is now shattered.

David Letterman just admitted that he has had sex with more than one staffer over the years. He admitted this to prevent an extortionist from blackmailing him for two million dollars. I condemn the blackmailer, but Mr. Letterman is not much better.

While Dave has spent years treating conservatives as enemies, I looked the other way because I was a fan. I genuinely found him funny. I wrote him more than one heartfelt open letter trying to get him to be less brutal on people just because of political disagreements.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/04/dear-david-letterman/

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/06/dear-david-letterman-part-ii/

Yet ideological bigotry consumed him.

Apparently so has hypocrisy.

I am not gloating over this. My heart goes out to his wife, who has been his companion for almost a quarter of a century. I feel awful for his son, who does not deserve to see his father publicly humiliated.

Yet make no mistake about it. David Letterman has spent over two decades feasting on the misery of others embroiled in sexual scandals.

He went after Dick Morris for months. He was merciless with Bill Clinton.

(Side note: The reason why the Clinton situation with Monica Lewinsky was so disturbing was not because of sex. It was because the President of the United States cannot ever put himself in a position where he is vulnerable to blackmail.)

It was not just politicians. Letterman ripped into Frank Gifford.

(His bias was clear when he gave a completely free pass to Marv Albert, a frequent guest of the show.)

Yet as much as Eliot Spitzer provided cheap and easy punch lines for him, conservative sex scandals were treated with an unrelenting fury in the name of “comedy.” Sarah Palin had to watch night after night as her lovely daughter Bristol Palin was skewered not for any sexual crime, but for having premarital sex with her own boyfriend and bringing a beautiful new life into this world. I don’t remember anybody on the right going after little Harry Letterman for being conceived in a non-traditional manner.

This is also not just a sex scandal in the same way Bill Clinton’s licentiousness was not a sex scandal. Sex cannot be consensual when the parties are unequal. David Letterman had the power to fire the staffers he slept with. In corporate America, that behavior is actionable. Just ask the former CEO of Boeing.

Sure, Dave can pull the Hillary Clinton card and blame all of this on a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but Newt Gingrich is retired and most conservatives are less concerned with David Letterman’s sex life than we are with his abusive and hurtful nature.

When sex scandals do not provide him fodder, he goes after any politician that leads a traditional life, even if they do practice what they preach. If ever a good and decent man was victimized and stigmatized unfairly, it was Dan Quayle. Ditto for George W. Bush. If they refuse to commit sexual misconduct, Letterman just declares them morons, flahehs that toothy grin, and waits for the next sexual bombshell to erupt.

Well now it has erupted.

He will not face consequences. He makes way too much money for CBS. Plus, he is not in a position of trust like Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were. He tells jokes. The expectations are low, and he occasionally meets them without raising the bar.

This is not a good day. Even by entertainment industry standards, it is a bad day. I always thought of Letterman as a cranky bitter guy that at least was a devoted family man. Now we see that he is just another guy that tears others down while behaving badly himself.

At the risk of insulting him, for a guy that eschews Hollywood, he might now officially be a typical Hollywood celebrity.

24 hours ago he was still skewering Sarah Palin. Now he is in hot water, for reasons unconnected to her.

Yet he still doesn’t get it. His “apology,” was the same non-apology he issued after the Bristol Palin remarks. He was cavalier, and even had the nerve to say that he wanted to protect his family. Perhaps he forgot that in his own monologue only minutes earlier, he again attacked Sarah Palin.

He wants us to respect his family (which I absolutely will) while continuing to be part of the politics of personal destruction of the Palin family and other innocent families.

As for what can be said about David Letterman, there is really only one thing left to say at this point.

It figures.

eric