The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.

Monday, February 10, 2014

CNN Candy Crowley And Guest Amy Stoddard, Said What?

      Impressing Wall Street? 

Candy Crowley and Amy Stoddard may have blown there Sunday interview.


There are few words that can en-capsulize CNN host, Candy Crowley's level of "whacked-out" and self-aggrandizing bliss and obvious affinity for Rand Paul. As I wrote the last sentence my mind took me to a few weeks back when Crowley came to the defense of Chris Christe as she came out against the developing scandals by indicating, "To the victor goes the spoils." I assume Crowley spoke those words to facilitate her interview with Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer. Nevertheless, how crass and underwhelming? 

CNN viewers actually watched and listened as a show host summarily exercised what can only be considered "strategic disavowing of possible ethics and acts of corruption" to appeal to her audience. "Strategic" as a tool to attract and entertain viewers. What if Christe's troubles boil over into resignation or legal entanglements? 

The Christe case has traveled many roads since Crowley made the enticing remark. Again, what happens if the case turns into full-blown corruption charges with associated GOP cover-ups? There was a time when any news host would suffer a credibility hit for such risk laden callousness as that exercised by Crowley. Risk no longer an issue during our cable news "ratings centered" current event shows. 

It seems the model is appealing to conservative viewers no matter how zany the show theme and collective comments.   


Crowley and guest Amy Stoddard again visited the world of "appeal to conservative Sunday morning viewers."  Appeal to viewers without regard for ethics, decency and professionalism. Crowley and Stoddard actually explored the thought (unspoken by the completely nutty Rand Paul), that Hillary Clinton was the blame for Bill Clinton's indiscretions in the Oval Office. I believe I heard the comments accurately.

Let's visit a snippet of the Crowley/Stoddard partnership in pushing reporting of US politics to that of a soap opera and analogous to reality television.  

Excerpt
In one interview, Paul went as far as to accuse the former president of violence against women. And more recently, the Republican presidential hopeful declared that Bill Clinton should “return any contributions that Bill Clinton’s either raising for people or giving to people.” 
“This is smart politics it seems to me,” Crowley told Stoddard on Sunday. “Here’s Rand Paul kind of expanding what his dad had, he’s got the libertarian side of him: He’ll take on drones, he’ll take on privacy, he’ll do that. Then, he’s got the social conservative side of him. I think that’s where this comes in.” 
“He’s actually more in tune with the needs and the demographic liabilities Republican Party than most wannabe 2016 contenders,” Stoddard asserted. “He’s actually speaking right now to the Wall Street managerial wing of the party. It’s very worried that Chris Christie collapsed.” 
“And what it’s saying is, ‘I have the guts to take on the Clintons, I think we need to, I know we don’t have a candidate right now,’” she continued. “So in the middle of this panic, he’s saying, ‘I can do this. And that actually is going to bring him more ears.”
Question.  Do you actually believe that Wall Street 'money-grabbers' will find Paul (and his wife's) strategy an appealing campaign tactic? While the vast majority of Wall Street moguls and executives are conservative, they are also very adept of earning Top 1% income based on their respective organization financial performance. Is it actually possible Crowley and Stoddard really believe that Wall Street corporatist will find someone with the character of Rand Paul (a plagiarizing, libertarian) an appealing choice for the GOP nomination? Wall Street earnings hit peak and historical levels during Clinton Years and have repeated under Obama (almost immediately upon his taking office).  Money talks on Wall Street and after watching the movie "The Inside Job,"  Some high level Wall Street executives cannot afford to 'cast stones' at the indiscretions of Bill Clinton.

I ask that you reread Crowley's statement in paragraph two of the excerpt posted above.  

HIS DAD!  HIS DAD!  

We remind you that Ron Paul has proven to be nothing more than "a noisy irritant" in GOP politics. He has never come close to being a viable candidate for president and he is a seething racist.  There was time when such a racist record would have placed a persona-non-grata label on even mentioning Ron Paul in a news related production. 

A couple of specifics. 

Paul openly espouses legalizing heroin. He spoke of legalizing the highly addictive controlled substance during a time when young suburban WHITE kids in many high schools are experimenting with the substance as a drug of choice. 

Paul was on record with eliminating the EPA, FEMA and other cabinet departments. He spoke such during GOP presidential debates not long before Sandy hit the East Coast. FEMA has its issues, but for thousands, the agency can provide critical services in times of dire need. 

Crowley used Paul "the elder" as an example of how Paul "the Jr." (In all DNA laced cloning) appeals to her perception of GOP "party managers."  While most Fortune 500 CEOs and executive leaders are conservative people, they have a degree of sanity regarding the stability of the US government. I doubt they place devotion level faith in the Libertarian Party. Koch brothers or no Koch brothers, Wall Street Executives are opportunist; a that trait may very well supersede their conservatism. In early 2013 Open Secrets reported a Wall Street lean for Republicans, Open Secrets "industry donations" data from 2012 shows contribution levels were almost negligible. Industry data referenced in the previous sentence was comprehensive data, not broken into specific industries. If there is pandering to the uber wealthy, Paul may have decided on strategy to tap into his fellow Libertarian Koch brothers (reported to be Christe backers).

We suggest Crowley was playing to her audience, and Stoddard was an obvious partner in delivering the CNN Sunday morning "Word." 

Stoddard followed suit and added political scripture to the "Word."
He’s actually more in tune with the needs and the demographic liabilities Republican Party than most wannabe 2016 contenders,” Stoddard asserted.
What? 
Stoddard should weigh her analysis with consideration of Paul's chronic lack of judgment. Do you recall the zany Senator from Kentucky took it upon himself to speak to a Howard University crowd with the weakest oratory imaginable. He actually asked the highly intellectual crowd if they realized it was Lincoln's GOP that freed the slaves and Democratic governors who supported Jim Crow. How patronizing in his ignorance, lacking in judgment and crass in intent? Did he think he was speaking to a primary school audience? An example of mental processes and motive that Wall Street will surely view with hesitancy in following a path laid by Rand Paul.

Read more after the break below


Crowley and Stoddard should receive the "Interview of the Year" award. Despite Bill O'Reilly's declarations of "historic" interview with President Obama prior to 2014 Super Bowl Sunday. 

All said, I am reminded why I have long given-up on the Sunday Morning news shows; especially Crowley's sunday show.

We will leave this screed via a Raw Story piece. Excuse the redundancy. 
__________________

CNN guest: Blaming Hillary for Bill’s affair gives Republicans on Wall Street confidence (via Raw Story )
CNN host Candy Crowley and The Hill Associate Editor A. B. Stoddard on Sunday agreed that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was playing “smart politics” by blaming former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the affair her husband had while he was president…

No comments :

Post a Comment