Kellyanne Conway is gish galloping Anderson Cooper and

[applegrove]

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2017, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)

he's having none of it. LOL!

[HipChick]

1. I am listening

to them in the background..

I can imagine Anderson pulling that face he pulls, when he thinks someone is lying..

[blm]

2. That's the REIGNING Miss Gish Gallop

respect her well-earned title.

; )

[Alice11111]

3. It is awful and it's gone on 23 minutes.

Repubs are making it so no one can stand to hear this confusing stuff. I can't stand it, and I'm a lawyer with a graduate degree in politics .

Just stop!

[elfin]

4. Wonder if the journos gather for drinks and share Kellyanne strategies

For shutting her down. Seth wasn't bad.

[Alice11111]

12. Good idea.I bet JonStewart could have handled her.Humor

He handled Bill O'Reilly's ego. AC is a really good journalist. I have respect for him. He did not expect her to be totally obstructionist, nonsensical. He kept trying to REASON WITH her. No. For normal people, not DU types, they were wiped out in a few minutes, much less half an hour, plus CNN'S later replays. Shut her down, fast, and treat her like what she is, not someone to be taken seriously.
The journalists SHOULD get together for drinks and invite Stewart to tutor them.

[cilla4progress]

5. nah

she got the best of him

why didn't he tell her it was unbecoming to complain about press coverage and not something a respectable politician does

[applegrove]

6. Nope. He proved her to be conflating and lying. And it was a hard thing to do to

Last edited Thu Jan 12, 2017, 12:25 AM - Edit history (3)

combat each and everyone of her verbal barrage when she had lots of time to think it all up beforehand, and he had to counter her that very instant with the truth, at the same time as listening to her next attack as she didn't allow any space between her arrows. Then he immediately had to truth check her next point and the cycle repeated. He won. The truth came through. He wound her down and summed it all up. The only thing he didn't do was sum it all up with poetry. But journalists are nor supposed to be poetic. The poetry was left to Karl Bernstein on the panel a few minutes later.

[cilla4progress]

7. I'm glad you see it that way

As always she was so smug, like her boss. I felt Anderson was getting red faced, though he parried well.

When she was whining about trump's poor treatment by the press, vs Obama's, he should have said you give us so much material to work with to criticize and distrust you.

[applegrove]

8. Well yes. He is more human. That stuff hurts because it is an attack. She sure

is a machine. It is not fun to be attacked by a machine. Especially when it is something you value that is being destroyed, like reality and your country's relationship to it.

[cilla4progress]

17. Happy today to see that

most journalists and commenters agree with your assessment! I wanted him to go further...

[applegrove]

18. It happened to me on another website. Only I had as much time to respond

as I wanted without interruption. Not fun. What Anderson did was really hard. And he did well. The alt right sure we're not happy with Cooper.

[Lucinda]

10. +1

[milestogo]

9. The Russian Hooker gish galloped through the province of Urolagnia and all the way to the Ritz

[roamer65]

11. That woman is really starting to get on my nerves.

Thank God I don't watch TV.

[KamaAina]

13. What in the Sam Hill is "gish galloping"?

Riding a horse down a busy street in north San Jose?!

[applegrove]

14. You can find it on Wikipedia. I can't link as I am on my cell phone.

[lamp_shade]

15. Rationalwiki has a great description. Here...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[JHB]

16. A barrage of questions and "facts", more than can be addressed...

...in a time-limited venue such as a timed debate or television interview.

The name comes from a description of the debate tactics used by Duane Gish, a creationist who gained fame among evangelicals by debating scientists about evolution, and usually "won" the debates because his mission was to sew doubt about scientists rather than actual inquiry about the topic at hand.