Skip to comments.
Norman Mailer, down for the count
The Washington Times ^
| By Suzanne Fields
Posted on 05/17/2003 7:08:55 AM PDT by YankeeReb
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:03:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
When George H.W. Bush chose Dan Quayle as his running mate in 1988, one of the persuasive considerations of the Republican strategists was that the senator's good looks would appeal to the ladies. Dan Quayle was cute.
The vice president himself noted later, that the praise was not only faint but dumb and condescending. Dan Quayle's "good looks" were out of sync with the times and he became the administration's dumb blonde. The boyish, milk-fed frat guy from the Middle West lacked the masculine gravitas that baby boomers, both men and women, craved.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: normanmailer; suzannefields
1
posted on
05/17/2003 7:08:55 AM PDT
by
YankeeReb
To: YankeeReb
For Mailer, manliness these days sees to be to get liquored up and use some gal-pal as a punching bag.
2
posted on
05/17/2003 7:16:26 AM PDT
by
JAWs
To: YankeeReb
I was thinking that one of the reasons, if not the main reason, liberals hate Bush so much is that he typifies everything about the American middle class the left hates:
1) He believes in free markets, individualism, and limited government.
2) He believes in the greatness of America and our responsibility to defend her.
3) He believes there is such a thing as right and wrong.
To: Thane_Banquo
I'll give you #2 and #3. But I think I could make a pretty good case that his belief is #1 is rather shaky.
To: Joe Bonforte
I think he believes in #1, probably. But he also needs to stay in office and win votes for the Republicans, if he wants to accomplish anything else.
If you cast your mind back to Ronald Reagan's first year, you'll remember that he promised to cut government spending. He tried to do so for his first several months in office. He failed. He gave up, and let the Democrat congress spend as much as they liked. He cut taxes, but not spending, and the result was $2 trillion added to the deficit.
You can say he was handicapped by a Democrat congress. But if he had continued to fight them on spending, the probable result would have been an even larger Dem majority. He did the numbers, and gave up on that aspect of his program.
I don't blame Reagan for this; he did what he could. I'm just saying that presidents have to choose their battles; they can't do everything; and cutting spending is maybe the hardest thing of all.
5
posted on
05/17/2003 7:48:12 AM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: YankeeReb
The so called champions of the little person are beyond condescending.
6
posted on
05/17/2003 7:48:49 AM PDT
by
tkathy
To: Joe Bonforte
I'll give you #2 and #3. But I think I could make a pretty good case that his belief is #1 is rather shaky. Possibly.
But not if you accept that politics is the art of the "possible".
Unyielding principle is admirable but always on the outside looking in.
Unless a good leader is in power, principle is simply academics and often sophistry.
7
posted on
05/17/2003 8:03:33 AM PDT
by
Publius6961
(Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
To: Joe Bonforte
that his belief is #1 is rather shakyAt first glance what you say rings true (re- tariffs, miniscule tax cuts, increased regulation), but W's actual record is more complex than that. He succeeded in cutting taxes not once but every year --a far cry from just promising 'no new taxes'.
And above all, W's record has to be weighed not against some imaginary ideal, but against the probable record of W's rival.
To: YankeeReb
What Mr. Mailer and the Democrats with cataracts can't come to terms with is that George W. Bush is not an intellectual lightweight and simply calling him one doesn't make him one. His critics can't understand how a man who can't talk a good game can play one so well. They measure the man by what James Q. Wilson calls "the college definition of intelligence," rather than the real thing.
I've said this many times before though not so eloquently. Quite often, the strongest leadership does not need glib words or mere academic skills.
Talk is cheap. W. acts.
To: Thane_Banquo
Well, two out of three isn't bad.
10
posted on
05/17/2003 10:09:08 AM PDT
by
gcruse
(Vice is nice, but virtue can hurt you. --Bill Bennett)
To: YankeeReb
This article was written by a woman, but you would not know that except for her name. [If I missed something, let me know.] I think that this written work is masculine in the best sense. That is quite an achievement, given its topic. Bravo Zulu
11
posted on
05/17/2003 11:35:42 AM PDT
by
ontos-on
To: YankeeReb; Dr. Eckleburg
Ancient Evenings and Jack Abbott screwed up his whole writing legacy
12
posted on
05/17/2003 6:25:26 PM PDT
by
JesseShurun
(The Hazzardous Duke)
To: JAWs
Norman Mailer IS (AN) A-HOLE.
13
posted on
05/17/2003 8:39:41 PM PDT
by
jaz.357
(The END of the BEGINNING... is the BEGINNING of the END!)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson