Rothman on Fox News tonight

[phorvick]

Why was my comment on this thread deleted.

[mnglocker]

Why was my comment on this thread deleted.

Post it again phorvic, maybe your browser had a glitch.

[phorvick]

Browser had no glitch; after it was posted I went back and read it. It was on line.

The gist was that I had now had a chance to see the video clip. And, as much as it pains me to say it, in this mass media sound bite era, appearance is everthing, substance is not. Heather slam dunked Andrew. She came across as competent and reasonable. She did not try to talk over Andrew, or act condescending. Andrew, by the shrug of shoulders, raising eybrows and smirk, came across as quite arrogant and dismissive to her "reasonable" arguments.

I happen to have some company over...they were neither pro gun/carry or anti. I watched it first, and then asked them to watch and I asked "who won?" They, without any suggestion or influence, commented that the lady seemed logical and reasoned, but the gun guy was just arrogant and dismissive. We are not going to change anyone's mind by appearing that way.

And, no, I could not do better. I got the sense that Andrew was preaching to the choir and not the congregation. The choir is already on our side. Slam dunk for Heather.

And I too appreciate everything that Andrew does, has done and will do. He is a far more articulate public spokesperson that I could be. He was not on top of his game in this one. Oh, and my visitors also noted that the end story...that Heather apparently says one thing (fearing gun owners) but was willing to debate and bring her 3 year daughter to a roomfull of gunnies was, in their words "...nothing that added to the question of high capacity magazines; in fact, it made the guy look silly."

[45Badger]

Good on ya, Andrew! I watched the clip after a coworker asked me if I knew about it. Some feedback from a middle age, educated couple with a favorable disposition towards guns (hunters who own pistols and rifles, and shotguns, but not real gunnies/gunfreaks). They thought Andrew was less than sharp and was evasive in his responses. I thought it was fine considering Andrew does not make a living as a public spokesman/talking head. This thread is a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking. Could he have done better>? Sure. Was it great that he showed up? You bet.

I was talking to another member about Heather after I heard her on a radio show. She was VERY good, poised, and in command of her facts. The member told me that she did not play well on TV. Thankfully, he was right and she sucked. If we want to win the press battle, we should always look forward to playing with Heather on TV. Just make sure we are poised, in command of our facts, and cheerful. The battle is about winning the middle of the electorate that is populated (in this state) by educated, middle class/affluent soccer moms. They do not respond well to Bubba, mall ninjas, the Confederate battle flag, or being told how the tree of liberty must be watered. Somebody posted that humor and sarcasm work. This is seriously incorrect. It might make you feel smarter than the person you just insulted, but is off-putting to voting adults. To keep Heather and the bliss-ninnies in check, we need the middle to feel safe and not be offended by our rhetoric.

As a practical matter, anybody going in front of a live, TV, or radio audience needs preparation and training (Toastmasters is a great and free way to improve your public speaking). The boob-tube is ALL about how you look and sound. Later.......

[tman]

As a practical matter, anybody going in front of a live, TV, or radio audience needs preparation and training (Toastmasters is a great and free way to improve your public speaking). The boob-tube is ALL about how you look and sound. Later.......

Kennedy kicked Nixon's ass in the '60 Presidential debates for that very reason.

[ttousi]

Why was my comment on this thread deleted.

Mystery to me.........I just checked the moderator logs and see nothing regarding any deletion. ?

[Pinnacle]

Did any of the other mass shootings since the sunset envolve high cap mags?

Ft Hood. The FN five-seven holds 20 rounds.

Of course that's the STANDARD capacity magazine for that pistol.

Standard Beretta 92, many reloads and fast

[phorvick]

It was suggested that the negative posts here are mere Monday morning quarterbacking...and by that comment, it could be assumed that these posts are of no value.

I suppose, in a sense, my post was post event commentary. Fair? Unfair? That is for others to decide. But, and I am 86.34% certain that Andrew wants to know how the interview was received so that in the future, he can improve. That is not after event sniping, I believe it is more like constructive criticism.

In the real world, Andrew is a very competent and articulate person. Confidence is not missing. But, some of those traits do not always translate well under the microscope of public interviews...confidence and knowledge might be confused by those that do not know the parties being interviewed. It was my opinion, and I am a fan of Andrew, that the public perception he wanted to create did not happen. For everyone to say "great job", when it had flaws, is a disservice to Andrew.

As I have noted earlier, I could not do better...I do not want the job. But, Andrew is, in the big scheme of things, a young pup in the gun wars. My hope is that he grows into the wily old accomplished veteran. And, that cannot happen unless a fair review is given.

[xd ED]

As a practical matter, anybody going in front of a live, TV, or radio audience needs preparation and training (Toastmasters is a great and free way to improve your public speaking). The boob-tube is ALL about how you look and sound. Later.......

Kennedy kicked Nixon's ass in the '60 Presidential debates for that very reason.

That was the consensus of those who saw the debate on TV. Those who listened on radio gave the win to Nixon.

[45Badger]

It was suggested that the negative posts here are mere Monday morning quarterbacking...and by that comment, it could be assumed that these posts are of no value.

I suppose, in a sense, my post was post event commentary. Fair? Unfair? That is for others to decide. But, and I am 86.34% certain that Andrew wants to know how the interview was received so that in the future, he can improve. That is not after event sniping, I believe it is more like constructive criticism.

In the real world, Andrew is a very competent and articulate person. Confidence is not missing. But, some of those traits do not always translate well under the microscope of public interviews...confidence and knowledge might be confused by those that do not know the parties being interviewed. It was my opinion, and I am a fan of Andrew, that the public perception he wanted to create did not happen. For everyone to say "great job", when it had flaws, is a disservice to Andrew.

As I have noted earlier, I could not do better...I do not want the job. But, Andrew is, in the big scheme of things, a young pup in the gun wars. My hope is that he grows into the wily old accomplished veteran. And, that cannot happen unless a fair review is given.

My suggestion was it cut both ways. We all like/love/appreciate what Andrew did. We are not an impartial audience. He/we need to do better for a long term win in that arena. Possibly a smoking hot soccer mom with a BA in journalism from Princeton and a daytime job as a corporate trainer, tv weather babe, or director of sales/marketing for Hooters or BC/BS of Minnesota.

That was the consensus of those who saw the debate on TV. Those who listened on radio gave the win to Nixon.

I'm 49 years old (old by many standards) and was not watching TV or listening to radio when that happened (the stone age). Nobody but us right wing kooks listens to radio more than they watch TV or cruise the internet. Video trumps audio all day long. There is always a "yeah but" or "what if". You don't manage anything to (including the gun debate) to the exceptions.

[ttousi]

Browser had no glitch; after it was posted I went back and read it. It was on line.

The gist was that I had now had a chance to see the video clip. And, as much as it pains me to say it, in this mass media sound bite era, appearance is everthing, substance is not. Heather slam dunked Andrew. She came across as competent and reasonable. She did not try to talk over Andrew, or act condescending. Andrew, by the shrug of shoulders, raising eybrows and smirk, came across as quite arrogant and dismissive to her "reasonable" arguments.

I happen to have some company over...they were neither pro gun/carry or anti. I watched it first, and then asked them to watch and I asked "who won?" They, without any suggestion or influence, commented that the lady seemed logical and reasoned, but the gun guy was just arrogant and dismissive. We are not going to change anyone's mind by appearing that way.

And, no, I could not do better. I got the sense that Andrew was preaching to the choir and not the congregation. The choir is already on our side. Slam dunk for Heather.

And I too appreciate everything that Andrew does, has done and will do. He is a far more articulate public spokesperson that I could be. He was not on top of his game in this one. Oh, and my visitors also noted that the end story...that Heather apparently says one thing (fearing gun owners) but was willing to debate and bring her 3 year daughter to a roomfull of gunnies was, in their words "...nothing that added to the question of high capacity magazines; in fact, it made the guy look silly."

I'm with phorvick on the non answer shrug of shoulders at the onset .........that hurt.

Kudos for the appearance and effort but preparation seemed lacking in terms of "why does anyone need...." The subject was hi cap mags, had to figure the question would come out directly.

[Pezhead]

This is a tough one, since I would never be able to articulate well in a debate. This is very tough to do and the "extreme" is looking for anything they can use against us.
I've met Andrew a few times & even sat in one of his classes for a while(I was invited). He has good intentions and has dome a lot for us.
Is it possible we could come up witha list of qualified people to appear in interviews?

[gyrfalcon]

...Is it possible we could come up witha list of qualified people to appear in interviews?

Many organizations have people who are approved to make statements and give interviews. In this case Andrew was it (http://www.gocra-mn.org/)... Whoever is called or invited gets the interview opportunity. In some cases newscasters will purposefully invite people on the show who they know will poorly represent one side or the other. I don't believe that happened at all in this interview though.

[Pinnacle]

Arguing with heather is like arguing with a tree, except the tree has substantially more common sense.

[ttousi]

Where's John Caile.........didn't he used to function as the mouthpiece?