Posted on 09/07/2004 11:19:48 PM PDT by Bonaparte
In Sunday's Observer, Robert McCrum observed: "Today, by some margin, George W Bush is the most despised figure in America." Really? The paper sent McCrum to America to interview nine novelists about the election. That's the first mistake right there: shipping a guy 3,000 miles to take the pulse of the nation by interviewing a bunch of guys who already agree with him. One of the reasons why the Bush-despisers will be waking up stunned on the morning of November 3 is because they spend way too much time talking to each other and sustaining each other's delusions.
"These guys are out of touch with reality," twitters Wallace Shawn, referring to Bush and Dick Cheney rather than himself and McCrum. "They could - and probably will - do anything. This is the scariest I've known it."
If the graduates of the creative writing schools are beginning to sound drearily predictable, the humdrum gentlemen of the press are writing ever more creatively. Just over a month ago, John Kerry gave his "I'm reporting for duty" convention speech. I thought it was typical Kerry - "verbose, shapeless, platitudinous, complacent, ill-disciplined, arrogant, and humourless," as I wrote in the Telegraph back then. But what do I know? The American media hailed it as a triumph.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Excellent Article. He talks about how the press praised Kerry's convention speech, and people hated it. And how they blasted Bush's, and people loved it.
I remember Al Gore debating Bush back in 2000. The one where he advenced on Bush - I couldn't believe he would be so foolish. And after the media panels all pronounced Al Gore won the debate! In actuality, he lost the presidency right there.
Kerry's "reporting for duty" speech was the most dishonest, empty, and stupid piece of theater I've seen in a long time. It was terrible. And if Kerry loses, that's where he lost it.
Be prepared during the debates to hear the media rave over Kerry's brilliant performance, no matter how he does.
Wallace Shawn, as in My Dinner with Andre? ha ha ha. I used to think that was a good movie until I realized it wasn't.
Maybe he could write My Dinner with Kerry when Goliath loses.
Self-infatuated nuts like Shawn should stick to having dinner with his pal Andre and all the other effete Manhattan libs. The really scary thing is that the candidate that most reflects their screwball leftist view of life can yet win the election...although, thank God, his prospects are looking dimmer day by day. I hope this causes weeping and gnashing of teeth for likes of Shawn and other far-left imbeciles.
I was astounded at Gore's lack of judgment. My jaw actually dropped and my eyeballs almost popped out of my head and rolled across the floor. I was that stunned. What made it even more surreal was the make-up on that boy. He looked for all the world like a closet queen without the closet.
I got talked into going to that movie. I made the mistake of eating just before. It was so oppressively boring that I actually started to get nauseated and had to leave. I've heard there was a spoof of it called "My Donut With Annie." I wonder if that was any good.
And then afterwards the panel actually had a debate who won! It was amazing to see their lack of judgement.
A couple of nights ago Brit Hume, whom I adore, mentioned Kerry's speech and called it "very good", and couldn't understand why he didn't get a bounce. I couldn't believe my ears.
Think about it - could you imagine Colin Powell running for president, coming in and saying, "reporting for duty"? It's so juvenile.
And whether you believe the SBVT or not, Kerry's record is that he was antiwar. It was an empty speech. Dick Morris called it a "bagel" speech - empty in the middle.
It was just plain stupid.
Well, let's give old Brit a chance here and take a look at that speech...
He makes a lame joke about being born in the west wing of a hospital (west wing. get it?). He then talks about how impressed he was by the fear of those east Berliners who had to live under communism (but how impressed could he have been when he subsequently did everything possible to make sure the Vietnamese would live under communism?). He then claims we enjoyed 50 years of peace following WWII (what about the Korean War and the War in Vietnam? Did he forget about them?) Then he says it's important to tell the truth to the American people and restore trust and credibility to the White House (would that be like telling them he spent Christmas of '68 on a secret mission in Cambodia or that American GIs routinely committed atrocities in Vietnam that he just never happened to see, not even one?). He follows this up with another lie, namely, that he worked to find out what became of our VN POWs (he couldn't have cared less) and then follows that by saying he helped to finally make peace with Vietnam (when actually he set up a sweet nepotistic trade and business deal with them).
The rest of this incredibly dull speech continues in the same vein, with literally dozens of lies. I'd sure like to know what Brit thought was so great about this speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.