Group dynamics at the debate: uniting against the common enemy
It turns out that instead of a snoozefest, the third debate was fascinating. And it was all thanks to the incredibly clear anti-GOP bias of CNBC.
What am I talking about? Group dynamics, that’s what.
I’ve studied groups and I’ve run groups. Groups don’t just happen because you get a bunch of people together in a room, even if they’re sitting in a circle, holding hands and singing “Kumbaya.” There comes a time in the life of a collection of people when they become a group, even if only temporarily—even a group of people that’s pitted against each other in competition, like the candidates tonight. If you give them a common enemy against which to unite, they sometimes become a group, and that’s what happened this evening.
It took a little time. Even though the candidates knew they were in enemy territory with these moderators, I think even they were surprised at the extent of the bias and the sharpness of the “gotcha” questions. So it took a while to know how to react.
Cruz was most definitely the leader, the first to go on the offensive against the moderators. And what an attack it was! Take a look:
That was the turning point. After that, the rest of the candidates caught on, one by one—except for Kasich, Paul, and Bush—and let the moderators and the MSM have it. They also refused, after a while, to bash each other, and explicitly called the moderators out on that goal, too. Rubio was particularly strong tonight, but several of the others were impressive as well, once the “unite against the common enemy” idea took hold.
“You changed the entire trajectory of the debate” Sean Hannity rightly said to Cruz, whose leadership was, to me, one of the most striking things about his performance. And Trump noted the group bonding thing: “There was a certain camaraderie up there tonight” he told Hannity.
It may not last. But he’s correct—it was there. And it was probably the last thing the CNBC hosts intended.
[ADDENDUM: Interesting comment at Ace’s:
I have committed liberals on my Facebook saying the debate moderation tonight was biased and unfair. To the Republicans!
The national reverberations out of this could be interesting.
Indeed.]
John Harwood is a smug liberal hack. All the candidates should simply refuse to deal with him.
Very disappointed with the crosstalk.
Becky and Carl are usually way better. Carl was horrible.
Ted is a genius.
Thanks for blogging the debate, Neo. Good baseball game tonight, too.
Ted Cruz is THE man.
The immoderators couldn’t handle him.
BTW, I didn’t recognize any of them.
I don’t follow Pravda, either.
I used to be a big viewer of CNBC – back in the days when I was still trading stocks. The moderators were all familiar to me. They have all been on CNBC for quite some time. The only conservatives on CNBC back in the day were Larry Kudlow, Charley Gasparino, Jim Cramer, and Rick Santelli. Kudlow is semi-retired and Gasparino is on Fox Business now. Santelli and Cramer were brought in for “balance.” Did anyone notice how different their questions were?
Like I said in the previous thread, “The GOP candidates done broke the code.” And Cruz gave them the key. I hope they will all take this onward to future debates. It will serve them well.
*** IT’S ABOUT FRIGGIN’ TIME!! ***
(The guys/gal finally caught a clue and did something right.)
M J R:
And I credit Cruz for it. His initial attack showed the way, and it was so strong and powerful, and the crowd reacted so positively, that it gave the others the courage and demonstrated the template. Cruz showed leadership.
What was and has always remained for me the greatest annoyance with conservatives, Republicans, GOP/Cons, when they had the spotlight, was the utter — it seemed to me – incapacity, to make an issue of the MSM as being adjunct to liberalism generally and the Democratic Party in particular. I would wait, anticipate, look forward to the day when just one of them would not hesitate to make an issue of not just Obama, or Clinton (or whomever) without linking them inextricably with the MSM. And waiting for just one of them to say unequivocally that he was running against the other Party’s candidate and the MSM. And waiting to hear just one of them say that whatever the disagreement there was on an issue between candidates, the MSM would be held to account for their positions and their matter of course bias. The wait is over.
If the GOP/Cons will not take a clue, will not take advantage, will not make of the moment a campaign theme, then they have no call to expect anyone to vote for them for anything ever again.
neo-neocon, 12:48 am —
Yes.
Newt Gingrich tried to do it in 2012, but he was not nearly as sharp as Cruz was tonight, and unfortunately, Gingrich himself is too flawed a person to successfully pull it off.
And I think it was probably premature: not for me (I was cheering him on in 2012 when he took on some moderator early in one of the debates) and not for thee, but it was probably premature for many who hadn’t yet attained my [and your? — I may well be projecting here] level of disgust.
All in all, then, a reasonably satisfying night.
If only we good guys can find a way to prevail now . . .
Clearly NBC/MSNBC exposed themselves as the charlatans we have always known they were.
Cruz will get deserved points for leading the charge.
I think another loser was Ben Carson, who just did not come across as strong, or even in command of his positions. I am afraid Trump will benefit, despite his rambling defense of bankruptcy. (Somehow he never speaks of the little folks who get hurt by the games that he and his ilk play.) He also continually speaks in grandiose generalities. If I may be candid, I think he is a mean spirited jerk and blowhard who was born with a silver spoon.
Christie is sneaking up on me. He now sounds pretty reasonable and in command of his attitude, as well as strong.
Bush cannot grasp this format. I would still vote for him in the general, with no qualms; but, don’t think that choice will be available.
Kasich was almost embarrassing in his attempt to break out of the crowd. He is so smart, and so capable, but just cannot connect in this format.
Huckabee is a fine man; and another one who might thrive in a different format.
Carly Fiorina continues to win my heart and mind. She is head and shoulders above the other outsiders; and many of the professional pols, in her ability to express herself clearly and succinctly. And I do not doubt her toughness one bit. Doesn’t look too good right now, but I hope that she will at least be competitive for VP.
Same with Rubio and Cruz. Very bright young men. Maybe later; maybe as VP. I am simply sour on first term Senators in the Oval Office.
Rand Paul says a lot that makes sense mixed in with some of the off-the-wall stuff.
I watched or listened to the whole thing as painful as it was at times.
Some credit is due Trump. He was the first to put the media in their place. Cruz did it better, but he had seen that the silent majority loved it when Trump first started shooting back.
I would have had to stay up all night to watch. I chose to go to bed. From what I’m reading this morning, there seems to be a consensus about the good and the bad.
Watching the Cruz clip, I was impressed by how he dealt with the other candidates. Although he is very smart, I have been questioning his ability to pull together a team if he wins. He managed to make it about us tonight, not just about him. All of the candidates have something to contribute to our next government: Carson has class and basic values; Bush has some sound policy recommendations, as does Kaisich; Rubio is able to express the reasons for his foreign policy points; Carly finally shows that a woman can be elected on items beside PP and she has a proven ability to streamline; I could go on. There is too much talent in our group to waste it on intramural fights, although a certain amount is understandable at this point. Ultimately though, I want someone who can listen to others, understand where they are coming from, and put together a coherent policy administered by a competent team. I want someone who can inspire people to solve more of our problems at local levels, and I want someone whose success will ultimately take the oxygen from the BLM, microagression, blame America first crowd. I am just sick of all the nuts who get airtime today.
Cruz did it better, but he had seen that the silent majority loved it when Trump first started shooting back.
‘Shooting back’ is the key idea here. These people – the leftist media – need to be thought of, handled and treated as the enemy. They are the enemy of reason, of honesty, of integrity, of thoughtful and rational debate, of the rule of law, of Western Civilization, and in many ways of the American people. They are a vile concoction of Marxists, self-concerned opportunists, jackasses and idiots. And they believe themselves to be The Gatekeepers.
Tonight, Ted Cruz took away the key to the gate. And once inside, he opened fire on the enemy. And I hope he doesn’t give the key back.
And we need a whole new debate format. This debating at the behest of our enemies is not a wise path. We can do better.
Very glad that Cruz did note how the public doesn’t trust the Democratic media.
And Reps should be calling it the Dem Media, and acting like they are the enemy, ones forced by money/ job into contact.
The media goals a) bias denialability — hiding their anti-GOP conclusions, while being biased, b) hurting the GOP people who seem to be in the lead, c) promoting those GOP folk willing to criticize … other GOP folk.
They should be constantly mocked, and their own personal dishonesty called out as “just another lying Democrat asking a biased question”.
Of course, the RNC has enabled the Dem media; those leaders of the “stupid party” — too stupid to get real conservatives instead of big business neo-RINOs who fear media scrutiny.
This was one of the oddest debates ever because it exposed and so perfectly mirrored the biggest internal conflict in American politics. That conflict is not between the two parties, but between populists and the mainstream media.
It is worth noting who called out the aggressors in this skirmish first, who among the candidates had the good sense to follow that lead, and who withered and even tried to appease the immoderators.
Several acquitted themselves well in this trial, but only one passed with flying colors. Unsurprisingly, that person had extensive debate team experience in college, and later clerked for the US Supreme Court.
It’s about goddamned time!
Neo, you’re so right about the emergence of group dynamics. Reminded me of Instapundit’s pithy observation when groups form and act in concert: “A pack not a herd”. Long live this pack; I hope the candidates will act together like this again and again in future debates. This tactic will win the hearts and minds of independents.
When you are in a bubble, its hard to see it. Much harder to see it than when you are on the outside.
Most MSM people think they are unbiased, or at least they think their biases are so reasonable that no one will notice.
In “Bias” by Bernard Goldberg, he notes that Dan Rather used to publish editorials in the NYT, but then would chastise Goldberg for writing for the WSJ. When Goldberg asked Rather about the apparent contradiction, Rather said that “The NYT editorial page is middle of the road, while the WSJ is right wing”.
If the press is fully seen by the candidates, and then by the public as fully biased, and a their bias a topic of conversation in the ongoing political debate, the press will not know how to react. They can’t see their own bias and won’t know how to handle it. Their own belief in their own “referee status” will be gone and they will have nothing to fall back on.
At the end of Cruz’s wonderful take-down, I actually jumped out of my chair and screamed “YES! Finally!”. The GOP won last night; well, except for Bush, Kasich, and Paul. As others have said, let’s hope their new found backbone doesn’t turn to mush. Let the battle be joined: first the MSM, then the Hildebeast.
After that performance, I would say that Cruz has moved to my #1 spot (Carly was a bit disappointing). But still, I’ll vote for either of them. Rubio was quite good. Trump didn’t get nearly as much airtime, and Jeb was a stick in the mud. Christie was surprisingly good (though I’ll never trust him). Forget about Kasich.
About midway through Cruz’s attack on the moderators I was out of my chair shouting and cheering like I was at a championship ballgame. It was a splendid show, and he handled it masterfully.
I have always liked him and not understood why so many Republicans put him down. I understand, he is frequently sidelined because he is considered to be too conservative, or Tea Party. But he is smart, see the big picture, and would, I think, make a good president.
But I have to agree with what others have said: of the people on that stage last night I could easily support five or six. What an embarrassment of riches! And compared to the Democrat lineup the contrast is striking.
Thanks to Cruz for showing how it should be done with the MSM.
A final question, though: where, in Boulder CO, that hotbed of liberal politics (especially on the campus of the university) did that audience come from? I expected them to sit on their hands when Cruz finished his takedown. Quite the opposite. Interesting. I know CO is still a purple state, but Boulder? Hmmm.
Carson came across weak in that setting. I hope he gets his act together and starts showing some leadership. Was this the breakout moment for Cruz? Fiorina has done almost as well in head to head confrontations with the MSM and it hasn’t helped her much.
My husband – who once lived in Boulder, says it is about 50/50 Liberal/Conservative. Isn’t that interesting? And apparently – the board of trustees at the Univeristy has 7 conservatives on the panel!
As a CU graduate way back when…don’t ask! The school and Boulder have always been very left; the Berkeley of the Rockies. However, it is surrounded by much more conservative farm/ranch areas. And the Board is elected I believe by the voters so conservatives, have a decent chance of getting on the Board.
An obvious difference between the Leftist alliance with their doctrinaire religious dogma, death cult discipline, and organized/unified chain of command vs everybody else.
But as Neo noticed, if people are loud enough, eventually the Know Nothings at the top (the higher you go, the less you know), figure out that there’s some kind of synergy and group cohesion going on.
Generally because alliances are formed due to mutual interest and also mutual enemies.
We don’t have an alliance, we’re a bunch of “rebels” that are “crazy” or right wingers, or whatever people consider the Norm these days.
I have always liked him and not understood why so many Republicans put him down. I understand, he is frequently sidelined because he is considered to be too conservative, or Tea Party. But he is smart, see the big picture, and would, I think, make a good president.
Compared to people like Bush II, Cruz is far more cunning and thus to the Republican status quo powers that be, far more underhanded. But he wouldn’t have been able to win the Tea Party support if he had been a normal establishment Republican or cuckservative.
I say *call them out* at all opportunities
It tarnishes the MSM brand, it causes those formerly in their *sway* to question.
(like neo did back in her *changing* mindset)
Sticks and stones…
It’s about time that Republicans discovered their dignity and stood their ground.
As several have already pointed out — Cruz showed leadership when it counted.
Had Mitt Romney showed leadership when it counted (third debate, 2012), he might well be President today.
Group dynamics, yes… but all too often, a leader is needed to show the way. Cruz provided that. Need I emphasize that what we are trying to do here is to elect a leader?
It will be interesting to see how Cruz fares going forward… and, if he makes it that far, how he copes with a hard-left moderator in a debate against Hillary.
1) I’m surprised people on here are calling Carson weak. As I was watching his answers, I thought he did the best out of any of his debate performances. He was able to describe his positions with clarity, did difficult math calculation under pressure, and gave the BEST answer I’ve ever heard about gays and conservatives. He completely nailed it. 100%.
2) I also thought Cruz, Rubio and Christie did great. Rubio might win some voters as he tried to explain his views about H1B visas and immigration. Whether or not you believe him is the question. But he outshone Bush by a mile. Very competent and well-spoken. Natural gift for politics. Wish he were more conservative, but I could vote for him if I had to.
3) Fiorina is fading. She answered the same stuff in the same way. I still don’t know much about her policies. She missed an opportunity to talk more about her tax plan and other economic stuff in detail…for example, more on how she will cut the size of government.
4) Kasich was irritating. Bush looked scared and out of place (again). Paul was interesting and did a service for conservative views, but we know he won’t be the nominee. Huckabee also did well, but we know he won’t be the nominee either.
5) Trump was Trump. He did just fine. I have no problems with his bankruptcy answer b/c he is right…his was not the only casino to declare bankruptcy. It was not a fault of his and his alone…so I think that is not a problem. Most people with any knowledge about business understand what bankruptcy is for…to encourage risk and hope for reward. Without it, we would have a lot less business out there. Oh and LOVED his take-down of Kasich followed by a huge wink to Carson!!!!!! LOL.
>>A final question, though: where, in Boulder CO, that hotbed of liberal politics (especially on the campus of the university) did that audience come from?
Though it wasn’t an issue with this debate, for the Democrat debate there was a big brouhaha over them only making 100 tickets available to outsiders. So, I assume the remaining attendees for both debates were are campaign insiders – staff, family, people who work for the party, etc. I bet that’s why the audience was with the candidates.
I grew up in Boulder and it was not all hippies and crystal-worshipping swingers by a long shot. However, things may have changed since then as it’s gotten more expensive to live there (and Google is building a huge campus there) – so more moneyed Lefties.
A nice example of group dynamics:
NATO foreign ministers sing ‘We Are The World’ at dinner
It can’t happen here!
Nope!
his was not the only casino to declare bankruptcy.
Government bail outs are a bankruptcy? Interesting definition.
This worked out so well for the Republicans I wondered if it were planned by the RNC. For the next two weeks whenever the MSM reports anything on the Republican or Democrat candidates the public will assume its propaganda.
Pity the candidates did not walk off the stage as a sign of contempt.
Bully for Ted Cruz! In the past I have noted on this thread my admiration of Newt Gingrich for doing the same thing (his personal baggage aside), and it’s not because I want to see the leftists receive some kind of comeuppance (although I do), but because, as Walter Hudson writes:
The link:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/10/28/what-ted-cruz-just-did-is-so-much-more-than-an-applause-line/
Furthermore, ” [Cruz] was so strong and powerful, and the crowd reacted so positively, that it gave the others the courage . . . .” [Neoneocon @12:48 am].
Note what this says about Cruz’s ability to lead as Neo points out, and the remainder of the pack’s inability to muster the same courage to do so (including the outspoken Donald Trump). Cruz must give courage to them, yet they, too, would audition for the leadership role which requires being able to set the standard of courage for others.
WRT K-E’s comments on Trump: “) Trump was Trump. He did just fine. I have no problems with his bankruptcy answer b/c he is right…his was not the only casino to declare bankruptcy. It was not a fault of his and his alone…so I think that is not a problem. Most people with any knowledge about business understand what bankruptcy is for…to encourage risk and hope for reward. Without it, we would have a lot less business out there. Oh and LOVED his take-down of Kasich followed by a huge wink to Carson!!!!!! ”
Four bankruptcies? As a former part of the airline industry, I have seen up close how the bankruptcy game is played. Trump has praised Icahn as a savvy investor, like himself of course. Many consider Icahn a ruthless predator. Moves into an industry that is a cash cow; and destroys companies after draining the cash, then moves on. Trump would probably admire Frank Lorenzo and Stephen Wolf as well. Little people, who also are taking risks are left hurting when the big boys play their games. Once, ok. Twice, bad luck. Four times? Give me a break.
Kasich basically called Trump a liar wrt to his accusation about being a “managing general partner” at Lehman Bros. Trump had already done his little wink act, but did not respond to that.
As I was sharpening my pitch fork and pikes while listening to the debate ….
Noticed Trump’s attack on moderators followed almost immediately by the Cruz charge …
Then there is the matter of Trump’s shout down of Kasich followed by some kind of obvious wink to … Carson?
Methinks the three of them are a team …
At that level nothing happens without a reason.
There is some sort of group dynamics going on …
More pikes to sharpen….
T:
That’s exactly what caught my attention. Yes, I was happy to hear the substance of what Cruz said about the MSM. But of greater importance than that (IMHO) was his leadership role. That was unexpected (for me, anyway). Although I know he’s a brilliant guy with strong opinions, he’s been the maverick for so long that it was somewhat of a surprise to see him lead the charge and have the others follow. Very good leadership instincts, and the others sensed it and responded.
How many businesses/companies/buildings has Trump owned? I have no idea. But it is at least dozens. I am not sure how you categorize real estate development. Is each individual enterprise its own business? I don’t know.
But to claim 4 bankruptcies over his entire career in a risky business like real estate is a big deal, is ridiculous.
Anyway, as I said, most people do not have a problem with this b/c they see Trump as a successful business man and tv star. Not sure what this has to do with his political motivations or competency to be president. He’s too risky? He’s too wealthy? He’s too connected? He knows too much about business and law?
None of that bothers me.
Neo,
As you know leadership sometimes requires shoveling against the tide, sometimes riding with it; the best leadership makes that decision accurately much of the time. There is no discounting the fact that Cruz is an intelligent person.
IMO Trump’s candidacy has provided the opportunity to read the handwriting on the wall. Cruz seems to be the candidate doing so.
Gingrich and Coulter have always been fun to watch because they are experts, supreme, at spotting and calling out the planted axiom in a question. Nice to see Cruz is right up there.
Now that the candidates have experienced being a pack, not a herd, for a short while – let’s hope they like it well enough to take the organization of the debates away from the RNC and moderators.
The idea would be: If we can compete rather than fight, then we can form a working group to collaboratively decide on the debate topics, take turns leading into new topics during the debate, and reduce the moderators to mostly just time-keepers. Maybe actually have a chance to show the voters why our ideas are good, & why each of us thinks they have policy prescriptions better than our competitors’.
Bob From Virginia, 12:22 pm — “For the next two weeks whenever the MSM reports anything on the Republican or Democrat candidates the public will assume its propaganda.”
Based on a reasonable [I get to define “reasonable” (smile)] sample of reader comments on a Washington Post article I just read about last night’s “debate”, I respond . . .
*no*. Disagree. The true believers will continue to believe.
Hand me another glass o’ kool aid, will ya’?
Don’t underestimate the fervor of the True Believer.
Most people are moderates sitting on the fence, they would never understand. Then again, Humanity never learns.
Great points about group dynamics and leadership. I thought the little interchange that Ted Cruz had with Chris Christie after Christie’s “rude” comment was especially interesting. I thought it was a good example of leadership by Cruz.
How many businesses/companies/buildings has Trump owned?
How many businesses did the government bail him out on?
This word switch routine is closer to deception than business.
F Says:
October 29th, 2015 at 9:38 am
A final question, though: where, in Boulder CO, that hotbed of liberal politics (especially on the campus of the university) did that audience come from? I expected them to sit on their hands when Cruz finished his takedown. Quite the opposite. Interesting. I know CO is still a purple state, but Boulder? Hmmm.
* * *
I had wondered that as well, so looked it up.
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_28839941/no-debating-it-gop-event-at-cu-boulder
Only 1000 tickets were available.
“Though CU is hosting the event, the school will only squeak in a few dozen of its own.
“We’ll have a small representation of students and administrators and faculty,” campus spokesman Bronson Hilliard….
Even Bruce Benson, the university’s president, wasn’t able to score more than a ticket for himself and a plus-one….
Local Republicans won’t get preference, either. The GOP headquarters in both Broomfield and Boulder counties have been guaranteed zero seats.
“I think they’re already sold out to RNC donors, and local people won’t get any,” said Ellyn Hilliard, chair of the Boulder County Republicans. “I don’t even get any. It’s an extremely limited, culled crowd. They culled it down to the people they wanted.”
…
Aside from the small CU contingency at Coors, the crowd will have a heavy presence of representatives from the RNC and from CNBC, which is televising the debate. Plus, each candidate – there are 15 at the moment, but that number may shrink by Oct. 28 – is expected to bring an entourage of 20-40 people, Spicer said.
Of course, the crowd will be nearly matched in size by the roughly 1,000-piece expected media gaggle.”
Bob From Virginia Says:
October 29th, 2015 at 12:22 pm
This worked out so well for the Republicans I wondered if it were planned by the RNC. For the next two weeks whenever the MSM reports anything on the Republican or Democrat candidates the public will assume its propaganda.
Pity the candidates did not walk off the stage as a sign of contempt.
* * *
If Carson & the others get a plan going but aren’t able to run the debates themselves, they may agree to do that.
I would love it.
At the very least, any moderator talking over the candidate should be pulled off the floor by one of those old-time vaudeville hooks.
T Says:
October 29th, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Bully for Ted Cruz! In the past I have noted on this thread my admiration of Newt Gingrich for doing the same thing (his personal baggage aside), and it’s not because I want to see the leftists receive some kind of comeuppance (although I do), but because, as Walter Hudson writes:
By accepting questions as asked, candidates concede the premises upon which those questions are based. In this way, the media is able to make statements in the guise of questions, and thus offer a biased political narrative in the guise of an interview. Such rhetorical subterfuge is unacceptable and needs to be called out and countered, as Cruz did Wednesday night.
The link:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/10/28/what-ted-cruz-just-did-is-so-much-more-than-an-applause-line/
Furthermore, ” [Cruz] was so strong and powerful, and the crowd reacted so positively, that it gave the others the courage . . . .” [Neoneocon @12:48 am].
* * *
Hudson is totally correct.
Thanks for the link.
J.J. Says:
October 29th, 2015 at 12:18 am Santelli and Cramer were brought in for “balance.” Did anyone notice how different their questions were?
* * *
Yes — here.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/29/cnbcs-sshow-epic-proportions-full-moderator-breakdown/
“Rick Santelli was the only titularly conservative person on the panel — and his questions were just fine.”
Tom G Says:
October 29th, 2015 at 6:17 am
Very glad that Cruz did note how the public doesn’t trust the Democratic media.
And Reps should be calling it the Dem Media, and acting like they are the enemy, ones forced by money/ job into contact.
* * *
I have been using the spelling DeMedia on most comment boards.
MJR at 2:31:
So WaPost readers continue to be true believers? I’m not surprised. But the race is tipped one way or the other by the undecided voters, and very few WaPost readers are undecided. The hard core Ds will not be changing their vote even, as Neo has said before, if Hillary strangles puppies on live TV on the Capitol steps. And the hard core Rs are similarly committed. It is the 15-20% swing voters who will take one candidate or the other over 50%+1.
I doubt that the Cruz campaign cares what is in the WaPost half a much as they care what’s in the Des Moines Register.
Propaganda and mind control isn’t about convincing the true believers to switch, it’s mostly about bolstering the sheer weight of fanaticism and critical mass, to the point where all the “moderates” and people who have no strong views, gravitate and Obey this column of fanaticism and red eyed zealotry.
The behavior of crowds, basically. People tend to go along with the flow that is the Mass in masses, because they outweigh you by about 50,000 to 1. It takes a lot of guts, spirit, and power of belief for 1 to match 50k.
It used to be that people didn’t have contact with the slim minority of fanatics and true believers. Until the internet came along.
Interesting that the video clip attached to the story won’t play because it has been blocked by NBC News, who apparently own the content.
Sour grapes here?