Some real-time reaction from the debates, swiped from my full-time gig as Wonkette. Let’s start with the “Squabble in the Gables,” now thoroughly masticated by the mainstream press. Gee, that was incredibly predictable. Except for that part when Bush called Kerry a “good dad.” As you know, Kerry eats babies. Kerry managed to not contradict himself within the space of… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (10)Page 1 of 1 pagesAna Marie Cox:
Praise from a slow witted, retired, old, truck driver may not mean much, but i thoroughly enjoyed your article. I am surprised that none of the bright, articulate contributors failed to comment; could this be because the weekend approaches?
twain
Posted by twain on Oct 15, 2004 at 5:47 PM Thanks Ann.
Humorous observation coupled with the exposure of facts can be quite powerful as we have become accustom to with shows like “The Daily Show”If it were not such a serious and immensely deep and wide crevasse between these candidates I would
probaly spend more time on the prasies and effectivness of humor.Having observed all the debates and the Tempe Arizona debate when Kerry mentioned Cheney’s daughter being a lesbian - the statement had no initial impact on me whatsoever. The Cheney reaction after the debate brought more focus on it and I believe was calculated to draw attention away from the more substantive differences between the two men.
I personally did not find the comment improper and don’t understand why we are once again wasting more time on another distraction.
The media could have contrasted this contrived controversy with the Arkansas and West Virginia mailers from the RNC denouncing liberals, gay unions/marriages, and suggesting that liberals wanted to the ban the Bible too! But there has been little or no mention of it in the mainstream media.
More American soldiers were killed in Iraq, the CIA and the administration are openly having differences and the media spends more time on this non issue!
The health care differences, the assault weapon’s ban issue, the prescription drug/Canada issue, the immigration/border issue, terrorism and more. All these issues the president was incapable of providing an answer so, they jump on a hot button and non issue; then besides trying to portray Kerry as a “liberal” now they want to call him a “bad man” too! Just ridiculous.
And frankly they didn’t say what was so alarming about what Kerry said and why they were behaving so irate! Why? Pundits like Buchanon said Kerry crossed the line! How? None of it makes any sense and the media is once again being played like a trash can , to toss whatever Rove want to toss in.
Posted by BAM on Oct 16, 2004 at 10:25 AM Watching the debates has made me hope all the more fervently that enough people come to see that Bush isn’t a good president and vote for Kerry.
virgin mobile sponsored a contest encouraging young people to create PSAs on why it’s important to vote in november--please go to www.psaupload.com and vote (just vote, nothing else involved) for one of the five finalists (the winner will receive a computer, so they can go on to create even better PSAs....)
sms81
Posted by sms81 on Oct 16, 2004 at 3:58 PM Very fine spotchecking of the debates, thank you, and a creative approach as well. I do not, myself, have the disadvantage of television, so am completely dependent on the written word. It only emphasizes the difference between these two coandidates. The NYTimes Opinion today, Sunday, sums up best the reasons why Bush should be thrown out on his ear in November. And the support he is receiving from the Cathoilic bishops, more than the pedophile scandals only confirms my decision to step out of the Church, indeed, to steer clear of any religious organization. Look at all those poor fundamentalists who got shafted by Pat Robertson, Swaggart, the Bakkers, even Falwell. But I digress, thanks again for some pointed journalism.
Posted by Marton on Oct 17, 2004 at 4:39 AM Ann:
I certainly admire your courage and fortitude. I’m afraid that I was unable to watch more than about eleven minutes of the three debates combined.
Don’t know how you managed . . . but thanks.
Posted by ddjango on Oct 21, 2004 at 10:28 AM ddjango:
Only watched a total of 11 minutes of 270 minutes of the debates forces me to ask: what did you learn from that exposure?
Are you a voter?
Not much interested?
Makes no difference to you one way or another?
I’d just be interested in what someone that at least suggests they wern’t interested is thinking.
Posted by abs on Oct 21, 2004 at 10:53 AM First, my apology also for “Ann” instead of “Ana”. I found it unbearable to watch the debates because they’re the male version of the Miss America pageant, but with less substance and certainly less entertainment.
Although I will vote for Kerry, and hope that a majority of the Electoral College does, too, the presidential electoral process is Circus without Bread. Although there may be somewhat different patterns painted on the surface, Kerry and Bush are cut from the same whole cloth, which makes the term “debate” a farce.
One of the many problems I have with these TV shows is that there’s too much disingenuous “Kerry will do this” and “Bush will do that.” The fact is that Bush has been as “successful” as he’s been because he’s co-opted 9-11, had a lock-step Republican majority on the Hill (not to mention a lot of cowardly sycophants from the “other” party), a corrupt Supreme Court, and control of the media which is nearly(?) criminal. A lot of that is still gonna be around after 11-2, no matter who wins.
The “Anybody But Bush” crowd got just what they asked for. So why watch the debates? It only encourages them. I, for one, wish we could write in Howard Dean.
Posted by ddjango on Oct 21, 2004 at 12:09 PM ddjango:
Although your analysis of the political process is by and large accurate your view that they are “cut from the same cloth” is not. Watching the debates perhaps could have changed your mind about that.
In the early going, during the primaries I was enamored with Governor Dean also, but he showed that he didn’t have the broad enough appeal required to win in November.
Dean will probably have an important role to play in a Kerry administration and so will Joe Biden - another intelligent and articulate guy, and I can even (yes) imagine Ralph Nader in there.
Kerry will follow the lead of Bill Clinton and will have qualified prominent women appointed to cabinet posts and probably even a Republican or two.
The “uniter not a divider” president will have to go, and perhaps we can truly have someone interested in uniting the country rather than appealing to the extreme elements of his party..
Posted by abs on Oct 21, 2004 at 1:43 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Ana Marie Cox
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
