Vine&FigTree
Member
Reflections on a Radio Appearance
Reflections on a Radio Appearance
Now that I've taken a trip to the bank and the pharmacy, I've had a chance to relax.
I'm not a veteran politician, nor a veteran radio personality. I was extremely nervous appearing on BEL. Shaking, rapid breathing, etc.
I've been on the radio a couple of times before. I was interviewed by John Stewart (no, not the one on The Daily Show, but the one mentioned here) on Southern Calif.'s most powerful Christian radion station, KBRT. I took a class from him at what is now Trinity Law School. He was familiar with some litigation I was involved in at the time, and he invited me on the show to tell his audience about my case. Even though he was welcoming and cordial, and basically on my side, I was still very nervous.
So you can imagine how nervous I was being interviewed by a pitbull like Bob Enyart! :shocked:
I'm concluding that Enyart's style is much like that of Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. When he invites someone on his show with whom he does not agree, he does not do so with the same motivation John Stewart had: of allowing the guest to explain his position. Hannity constantly does the "Just answer yes or no!!" when Hannity has already made his point and his guest wants to make a point of his own, a point contrary to Hannity's dogma.
So I'm wondering why it is so many Christians are afraid of letting "the other side" be heard ... why they don't want to hear what the other person has to say. It must be because that would force them to think, and re-think their own position.
I don't think the program I appeared on makes Christians look very good. I probably should have declined the invitation to appear.
Another lesson learned:
Well, actually, I haven't learned what the lesson is.
I've been on "the campaign trail" a few times, in a very limited degree, and I have learned that there will always be an unexpected question. You try to get your "soundbites" down, so that you have a clean 10-second blurb on abortion, free trade, immigration, or whatever you think the questions are going to focus on. But I don't yet have a 10-second soundbite on the 14th Amendment. I'll have to review the MP3 tonight when it's posted, but I think my last words before I was rudely cut off were "I don't support the 14th Amendment." Not a great line to leave in the listeners' ear.
What I meant to say was, I don't support Bob Enyart's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is also the interpretation of the Rov v. Wade court.
But I do believe that the 14th Amendment was a federal war crime perpetrated on the states. Nothing good has come of it, and Bob Enyart is taking the Amendment to new depths.
I should have learned from Ron Paul's appearance on "Meet the Press." Ron Paul gained notoriety with his position against the war in Iraq, and Tim Russert interrogated him on The Civil War 150 years ago! The purpose was not to inform voters, but to make Ron Paul look "kooky."
Bob's purpose was not to pursue the truth, but to slander Ron Paul and anyone foolish enough to defend him on BEL.
I always say, "Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all." I think I still believe that.
Reflections on a Radio Appearance
Now that I've taken a trip to the bank and the pharmacy, I've had a chance to relax.
I'm not a veteran politician, nor a veteran radio personality. I was extremely nervous appearing on BEL. Shaking, rapid breathing, etc.
I've been on the radio a couple of times before. I was interviewed by John Stewart (no, not the one on The Daily Show, but the one mentioned here) on Southern Calif.'s most powerful Christian radion station, KBRT. I took a class from him at what is now Trinity Law School. He was familiar with some litigation I was involved in at the time, and he invited me on the show to tell his audience about my case. Even though he was welcoming and cordial, and basically on my side, I was still very nervous.
So you can imagine how nervous I was being interviewed by a pitbull like Bob Enyart! :shocked:
I'm concluding that Enyart's style is much like that of Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. When he invites someone on his show with whom he does not agree, he does not do so with the same motivation John Stewart had: of allowing the guest to explain his position. Hannity constantly does the "Just answer yes or no!!" when Hannity has already made his point and his guest wants to make a point of his own, a point contrary to Hannity's dogma.
So I'm wondering why it is so many Christians are afraid of letting "the other side" be heard ... why they don't want to hear what the other person has to say. It must be because that would force them to think, and re-think their own position.
I don't think the program I appeared on makes Christians look very good. I probably should have declined the invitation to appear.
Another lesson learned:
Well, actually, I haven't learned what the lesson is.
I've been on "the campaign trail" a few times, in a very limited degree, and I have learned that there will always be an unexpected question. You try to get your "soundbites" down, so that you have a clean 10-second blurb on abortion, free trade, immigration, or whatever you think the questions are going to focus on. But I don't yet have a 10-second soundbite on the 14th Amendment. I'll have to review the MP3 tonight when it's posted, but I think my last words before I was rudely cut off were "I don't support the 14th Amendment." Not a great line to leave in the listeners' ear.
What I meant to say was, I don't support Bob Enyart's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is also the interpretation of the Rov v. Wade court.
But I do believe that the 14th Amendment was a federal war crime perpetrated on the states. Nothing good has come of it, and Bob Enyart is taking the Amendment to new depths.
I should have learned from Ron Paul's appearance on "Meet the Press." Ron Paul gained notoriety with his position against the war in Iraq, and Tim Russert interrogated him on The Civil War 150 years ago! The purpose was not to inform voters, but to make Ron Paul look "kooky."
Bob's purpose was not to pursue the truth, but to slander Ron Paul and anyone foolish enough to defend him on BEL.
I always say, "Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all." I think I still believe that.