teapartysamurai
Gold Member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 20,056
- 2,562
- 290
Who is Criswell, you might ask? Before many of our times. Even mine. I only know him from the Beginning of Plan 9 from OuterSpace. But apparently, "back in the day" he came on Johnny Carson every New Years Eve to make wild predictions that never came true. Here's a sample of him.
But Criswell is not dead, although he's long been in the ground. No the Criswells are alive and well and occupy the liberal media.
A Criswellian view of 2016
As it always turned out, of course, the joke was on us. The only amazing thing about Criswell was the amazing inaccuracy of his predictions. In fact, his prognosticative failure rate was so mystifyingly high, the field of statistical analysis began referring to “pre- and post-Criswellian” understandings of probability.
Even so, he was undeterred — year after year wearing that stain of ineptitude like a badge of honor — daring anyone to best him at being the worst.
And then, in the summer of 2016, it finally happened.
Every leftist news anchor and analyst, from Carol Costello to Lawrence O’Donnell, jettisoned their last vestige of journalistic integrity and began working tirelessly to fold, spindle and mutilate the Trump campaign, and to protect and promote Hillary Clinton.
In the process, their confirmation biases created a cascade of Criswellian predictions that culminated in the most satisfying conservative catharsis in memory: witnessing the liberal news media’s epic meltdown on election night — hearing them wail in agony as they slowly bubbled away under Rachel Maddow’s big black conical hat.
It was astonishing to see the left’s best and brightest be so confidently wrong on such a massive scale.
Now, reduced to rhetorical rubble, the once-proud “Fourth Estate” is homeless, rummaging daily through the communications crumbs that fall from the transition tables at Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago — scavenging through the impromptu lobby pressers and press releases for any morsel of mendacity or malaprop to snipe at during their progressive pep rallies on CNN and MSNBC.
And the faithful follow religiously, desperate to believe, even though their Hillary hopes have all been dashed.
After failed recounts, and an attempt to sabotage the Electoral College vote that only succeeded in increasing Donald Trump’s margin of victory, they’re so humiliated and hungry for vindication, they’ve eagerly devoured their disgraced oracles’ most Criswellian prediction of all: that Barack Obama will be seen by future historians as a truly great president.
Wherever Criswell may be, he must be overcome with tearful admiration for a prediction that’s as aspirational as Mr. Obama’s Nobel Prize, and as delusional as his refugee policy.
To be fair, however, it isn’t just Syria, Lybia, ISIS, the Iran Deal, the Russian Reset, the trade deficit, the corporate exodus, the shrinking labor force, the doubling of the national debt, the anemic GDP, Obamacare premiums, race-baiting, transgender bathrooms, sanctuary cities and “workplace violence” that will define his legacy, it’s also the fact that Mr. Obama’s strident liberal orthodoxy led to the greatest loss of national political power for Democrats in nearly a century.
And the “Yes we can!” man didn’t stop there.
In addition to helping Democrats lose the presidency and the Supreme Court, as well as 63 House seats and 11 Senate seats, Mr. Obama’s greatness also helped the Democrats lose 13 governorships, 949 state legislative seats, and control of 29 legislative chambers, leaving only six states where Democrats have the “trifecta” power of the governor and both houses of the legislature.
Chris Matthews loves to accuse Republicans of insinuating that Barack Obama is “some kind of Manchurian candidate,” a double agent for the forces of Islamic infiltration, or globalization or economic collectivism.
I have to say, given his legacy, Mr. Obama might have indeed been a Manchurian candidate.
For the Republicans, that is.
Any other explanation seems as crazy as Criswell’s prediction that the end of the world would occur on Wednesday, Aug. 18, 1999.
Of course, Criswell had no way of knowing — evidently any more than Nate Silver did — that, for Democrats at least, it would be Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/2/a-criswellian-view-of-2016/
The 2016 election. The Burn that keeps on giving. Criswell would have been proud.
But Criswell is not dead, although he's long been in the ground. No the Criswells are alive and well and occupy the liberal media.
A Criswellian view of 2016
As it always turned out, of course, the joke was on us. The only amazing thing about Criswell was the amazing inaccuracy of his predictions. In fact, his prognosticative failure rate was so mystifyingly high, the field of statistical analysis began referring to “pre- and post-Criswellian” understandings of probability.
Even so, he was undeterred — year after year wearing that stain of ineptitude like a badge of honor — daring anyone to best him at being the worst.
And then, in the summer of 2016, it finally happened.
Every leftist news anchor and analyst, from Carol Costello to Lawrence O’Donnell, jettisoned their last vestige of journalistic integrity and began working tirelessly to fold, spindle and mutilate the Trump campaign, and to protect and promote Hillary Clinton.
In the process, their confirmation biases created a cascade of Criswellian predictions that culminated in the most satisfying conservative catharsis in memory: witnessing the liberal news media’s epic meltdown on election night — hearing them wail in agony as they slowly bubbled away under Rachel Maddow’s big black conical hat.
It was astonishing to see the left’s best and brightest be so confidently wrong on such a massive scale.
Now, reduced to rhetorical rubble, the once-proud “Fourth Estate” is homeless, rummaging daily through the communications crumbs that fall from the transition tables at Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago — scavenging through the impromptu lobby pressers and press releases for any morsel of mendacity or malaprop to snipe at during their progressive pep rallies on CNN and MSNBC.
And the faithful follow religiously, desperate to believe, even though their Hillary hopes have all been dashed.
After failed recounts, and an attempt to sabotage the Electoral College vote that only succeeded in increasing Donald Trump’s margin of victory, they’re so humiliated and hungry for vindication, they’ve eagerly devoured their disgraced oracles’ most Criswellian prediction of all: that Barack Obama will be seen by future historians as a truly great president.
Wherever Criswell may be, he must be overcome with tearful admiration for a prediction that’s as aspirational as Mr. Obama’s Nobel Prize, and as delusional as his refugee policy.
To be fair, however, it isn’t just Syria, Lybia, ISIS, the Iran Deal, the Russian Reset, the trade deficit, the corporate exodus, the shrinking labor force, the doubling of the national debt, the anemic GDP, Obamacare premiums, race-baiting, transgender bathrooms, sanctuary cities and “workplace violence” that will define his legacy, it’s also the fact that Mr. Obama’s strident liberal orthodoxy led to the greatest loss of national political power for Democrats in nearly a century.
And the “Yes we can!” man didn’t stop there.
In addition to helping Democrats lose the presidency and the Supreme Court, as well as 63 House seats and 11 Senate seats, Mr. Obama’s greatness also helped the Democrats lose 13 governorships, 949 state legislative seats, and control of 29 legislative chambers, leaving only six states where Democrats have the “trifecta” power of the governor and both houses of the legislature.
Chris Matthews loves to accuse Republicans of insinuating that Barack Obama is “some kind of Manchurian candidate,” a double agent for the forces of Islamic infiltration, or globalization or economic collectivism.
I have to say, given his legacy, Mr. Obama might have indeed been a Manchurian candidate.
For the Republicans, that is.
Any other explanation seems as crazy as Criswell’s prediction that the end of the world would occur on Wednesday, Aug. 18, 1999.
Of course, Criswell had no way of knowing — evidently any more than Nate Silver did — that, for Democrats at least, it would be Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/2/a-criswellian-view-of-2016/
The 2016 election. The Burn that keeps on giving. Criswell would have been proud.
