“Not off to a good start”
Defeating Cantor is not only a good start, but a great start. What did you expect, a fast talking politician?
Come on. I’ll give Brat a break. He isn’t a Beltway Boy or a GOB.
How the hell do you go on MSNBC expecting them to celebrate your victory with you?
chessplayer, don’t take the liberal bait and be a shill for the MSM.
We didn’t want a typical politician. We’ll see how the next few months unfolds for Brat.
MSNBC question to a Dem: Why are you so awesome?
MSNBC question to a Rep: Why do you hate Black people?
Brat’s being disingenuous. And that’s a good thing. Reagan avoided questions all the time. Not taking the bait is part of message discipline. He is there to use the media to communicate his message, not have them set his agenda.
should not these sort of questions be asked while the candidate is running? And a different sort after election?
Also, MSNBC will give lib and “play along GOP” candidates a list of questions beforehand.
No, today is a good day for the republic....a CITIZEN got elected over a Big Government establishment Big spender.
The framers of the constitution are smiling somewhere.
welcome to the big leagues Dave. Don’t let them pick your battles.
“Not off to a good start.”
********************************************************************
Oh, puhleeezz...ask Cantor if the person who ejected him from the House is off to a good start. Brat is VERY smart to recognize and sidestep the traps the mainstream media attempts to lay for him. There will be a whole series of these and Brat doesn’t have to step on a single landmine-—he’ll be voting correctly in January 2015 and onward, and THAT is what counts.
Ultimately, in the age of Youtube, what is said cannot be unsaid, and if more GOP candidates acted like Brat, they’d be full-time pols instead of has-beens or never-wuzzers.
On the good side, how many MSNBC viewers are there left, and how many would actually vote for him under any circumstances? I’d say not many on both counts. He didn’t lose votes.
MSNBC.com Deceptively Edits Dave Brat to Suggest He Was ‘Dodging’ Questions
By Ken Shepherd | June 11, 2014 | 18:52
Editors at MSNBC.com trimmed down Republican congressional nominee Dave Brat’s June 11 phone interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd in order to paint him as dodging questions from the Daily Rundown host.
But a review of the full interview [listen to the mp3 audio here] shows that Brat had already and seemingly quite gladly answered a few policy questions on such hot issues as the minimum wage, immigration reform, and his stance on Wall Street’s influence on the business wing of the GOP.
“Brat dodges Chuck Todd’s questions,” blared a teaser headline. “Brat: I just wanted to talk about the victory,” reads the headline at the video link. “Virginia primary winner and Tea-Party member Dave Brat joins Chuck Todd to discuss his primary win – and it appears that’s all he wanted to talk about,” was how MSNBC.com summarized the clip.
Readers of the MSNBC.com website who hadn’t the benefit of watching the interview earlier in the morning would have come away with a wildly different perspective than someone who watched the full interview.
Below is the full segment’s transcript. The portion underlined is the portion that MSNBC.com isolated:
He was very smart not to say anything substantive.
Laura Ingraham will get rid of him if he supports Al Qaeda’s air force.
That’s what has been left out by the liberals attacking Ingraham. She has been talking about foreign policy and Boehner and Cantor wanting to start a war.
Why are these RINOs like Condi Rice and Dick Lugar(Democrat darling) so noble in wanting to bomb Syria?
His only mistake was going on MSNBC in the first place.
We call this exercise an “NPG” No Possible Gain.
THIS is what he should recognize. He doesn’t have to be sharp as a tack to realize this. He SHOULD know that “gotcha” will be the name of the game. He MUST acquire some degree of media savvy. MUST. He could also simply keep his mouth shut, that would work fine and it would be a smarter decision.
So I will issue him a small demerit that I don’t hold against him at all for even agreeing to appear on MSNBC in the first place.
He is a smart guy. He will learn this lesson.
So what. I wouldn’t care if all Republicans did this.
Better response than spend the next 6 months trying to convince people that you really didn’t say you were a witch.
Remember for the most part “W” came across as a ‘gee, shucks, sort of ‘hick’ with his twang etc’.
That WAS the same W that acted very professional and adult when it came to handling 9-11.
When you got BO ‘talking’ about you, you have done something right.
Somebody give this boy some street smarts quick, before he goes onto the Bill Maher show, for a ‘five libs vs one conservative’ initiation. Don’t fritter away your good will by acting too gullible. Take it slow for the first year or two. You owe your constituents your time, not these rabblerousers.
“Adding insult to injury, far left amnesty activists stormed Eric Cantor’s election night headquarters after his loss to Dave Brat.
They raided the wrong headquarters.
Cantor lost.
That had to hurt.”
Under the circumstances, ducking questions like whether or not to arm the Syrian rebels was the best possible strategy.
I’d agree it might not be the best followup on his big victory over Cantor. And, given the number of times we’ve been burned by TP candidates (albeit mostly at the Senate level) who weren’t ready for the media onslaught, there is naturally a concern when a guy stumbles out of the gate.
All that said, I don’t think one bad interview on MSNBC is likely to hurt him. He got through it without any major gaffes - i.e. no Todd Akin moment - and has plenty of time to prepare and polish his delivery, etc. In a week or two, this interview will be forgotten. Especially if he comes out strong in his next public interview.