Saturday 2nd December 2000
Yafa the Hamster comments on Wednesday's CNN broadcast
[Editor's Note - Yafa the hamster isn't a staff writer for
the RW and we are deeply appreciative that he's allowed us to transcribe this
text from a speech recently delivered at a businessmen's lunch in the
Mid-West]
Florida (WEDNESDAY) - I think the main problem
with interviewers is that they either ask the interviewee the wrong question or
they don't listen to the answer they're given and neglect to follow it up with a
more pointed one.
And, as everyone knows, politicians are notorious
for evading the truth - ask a leading senator whether they think fifty billion
pounds was a worthwhile investment in a failed space project and you're unlikely
to get a simple yes or no.
I wonder if, when their spouses ask them if
they're going to take a shower they evade the issue as much? Do they say a
simple 'yes' or 'no' or do they go off at a tangent about the quality of water,
the quality of the silver plating on the attachments and the reasons for the
circular shape of the plughole?
I don't think so.
Now, take Wednesday's Larry King Live in which he
interviewed Joe Lieberman. Quite a good interview as they go but, looking back
over the transcripts, I couldn't help but wonder why Mr King didn't follow up a
couple of things that were said. Take these words, for instance. Lieberman
stated that
'...this is not about, you know, fighting on
regardless, but a refusal to concede, if, in fact, we have lost'
I asked myself this - 'If they weren't fighting on
regardless of the outcome and were simply refusing to concede, what did all
these court cases mean?'. They obviously were nothing to do with fighting their
own cause, were they? But, wait, there was an answer later on. Now I
understood. Mr Lieberman said:
'I mean, this is all about the rule of law,
established procedures'
Mmmm...perhaps I was being fooled by the rhetoric but I
still sincerely believe that this is all about winning the Election. I could be
wrong - I'm just a hamster - but wasn't there even a hint of wanting to overturn
the certified ballots? It seemed to me that Al Gore - even if he did eventually
win - would concede defeat to Bush simply because winning wasn't his intention.
He just wanted to make sure that the law was applied correctly. Outstanding
humility, don't you think?
This puzzled me, too. He was speaking about Al
Gore. He said
'When you're treated unfairly by the Government in
the United States of America, what do you do? You go to the courts. And that's
what we're doing'
I mean, this made no sense - or was it just me? Al
Gore was saying that the Government had wronged him? But - hey! - he's the Vice
President. He is the Government!! What on earth was that all
about?
And then there was the expected put down of the
opponents - you have to be ever so subtle to hear it but, like a good
politician, it was there. If you thought about it, of course, you'drealise that
what he was saying wasn't
'And Larry, as I look at this, we have the facts
on our side'
but
'And Larry, as I look at this, Bush have all the
lies in their briefings'
It's a clever ploy amongst politicians and I was
stirred to throw the wood shavings out from my compartment and onto the floor in
protest when I heard it the first time. Just where were the words for peace from
the Democrats? I mean, would you really want such people as this negotiating a
settlement in the Middle East with such language? My! you'd have another war
start!
Such people are underhanded buffoons, they're
waterless...
[Editor - we had to cut the rest of the speech as
it turned out to be libelous]
Yafa the Hamster doesn't
write for the Rodent Weekly.
This article appears courtesy of that
paper.
