Quote:
|
Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Which goes straight to my point about how he obviously doesn't understand how a TV interview works. 10 seconds into an answer, you should already be into your point, onto something captivating...outside of having said "Lincoln" and "Liberty" six times apiece. Based on TV interviews, she gave him MORE than enough time to "get his answer out." Sorry to break it to you, Jim, that his Lincoln and Liberty answer was a meandering dead-end from the start. It doesn't take a partisan to see that. He had nothing at all to say that was remotely relevant....confrontational reporter or not. So you can blame the reporter for cutting him off, or you can blame him for being an idiot with nothing to say that could be summed up within five minutes....I'll take her side. You can be upset that she cut him off, but she has a job to do, and that's to get answers....which he was obviously not interested in giving unless she had a good seven minutes to spend with him. Blame him for not having a single answer that was remotely important....not her.
|
Brian this meandering response is beneath you. i know you know better.
that "interview" was a travesty. kinda judgemental of you to claim his reasoning for being there was "unimportant" and not "relevant".