Writing by treason on Thursday, 21 of December , 2006 at 8:14 pm
“I owe nothing to Women’s Lib.”
– Margaret Thatcher
Much has been made of Hillary Rodham’s appearance on The View this week. She’s letting her hair grow out, soft layers and a bit of a flip in back. The Senator chose black slacks - always slimming - and a petal pink blazer. Hillary has made a habit of going into the closet and pulling out pink when she wants to remind the electorate that she has ovaries.
I don’t watch The View or Oprah or any of those “women’s” programs that are supposed to appeal to me, so I had to rely on clips from the news shows. Hillary was warm and chatty, of course, so all the show needed really was a Sara Lee cheesecake, a bar of dark chocolate, and an exchange of favorite recipes. Gee, where were the kiddie photos and crayon drawings? Funny, not so long ago Hillary made a crack about wanting more than just staying home and baking cookies. On The View she waxed poetic about homemade Christmas ornaments. My, how she’s evolved, hinting that it’s time for a mom in the Oval Office.
Better than a fat girl in a thong, I agree. The problem is that her appearance signaled her campaign strategy. It was Momism on parade. It appears the Democratic strategy is to abandon Iraq, declare that war is over, and proclaim it’s time to concentrate on domestic policies: “The children” - it takes a village to raise the little bastards, dontcha know - education, and health care. It’s time for healing, for nurturing. America needs its Mommy.
“If you want to cut your own throat, don’t come to me for a bandage.”
That’s a Thatcher quote. Maggie, I’d vote for; Hillary, no. Yet there will be plenty of women who will vote for her, and why not? They voted for her husband. And they’re preparing to again. A mom in the Oval Office? I could live with that. Bill in the Oval Office again? No, thank you.
“I don’t know what I would do without Whitelaw. Everyone should have a Willy.”
Nope, that’s not a quote from Hillary - that’s Margaret Thatcher.
“On my way here I passed a local cinema and it turned out you were expecting me after all, for the billboards read: The Mummy Returns.”
Thatcher again. Maggie’s a mum herself, but it’s not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of her.
“Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country.”
Someone on Hillary’s staff must have read this Thatcher line and been inspired. Next we’ll see photos of Hillary down at the local farmers market, sniffing melons.
“We were told our campaign wasn’t sufficiently slick. We regard that as a compliment.”
Thatcher, again, but Hillary’s campaign will be slick - after all, she’s got her Willy.
The question to ask, I guess, is: Are you a man or a mom? If the master plan to end the war before 2008 fails, Hillary will have to ditch the pink if she wants to be Commander-in-Chief. Wartime presidents don’t wear pink. And if she tries to be both soft and hard, she’ll seem schizo.
“To wear your heart on your sleeve isn’t a very good plan; you should wear it inside, where it functions best.”
Thatcher again.
“Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”
Again, Thatcher.
“This lady is not for turning.”
Never wobbly. Maggie again.
One more question. If Hillary becomes leader of the free world, does that mean Bill leads the tour of the White House Christmas decorations?
tags:
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by treason on Wednesday, 20 of December , 2006 at 9:40 am
“It is what Bill Clinton learned from his childhood that is significant. President Clinton is a man who wallows in self-pity. There is nothing wrong with turning defeats into victories — all great politicians do that, and Clinton is no exception. But Clinton enjoys being the victim, he seems to savor it. His body language and rhetoric are always tinged with a profoundly manipulative ‘poor me’ attitude. While Ronald Reagan rarely spoke about his alcoholic father, Bill Clinton bragged about his. Franklin Roosevelt strove to conceal his polio, allowing only two pictures of him in a wheelchair to survive. JFK hid his poor health and constant back pain. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton made a bigger deal about his sprained knee than John McCain did about the fact he couldn’t lift his arms above his shoulders because they were broken so many times by the Viet Cong. And how did Bill Clinton hurt his knee? We’re still not sure, but it seems that after years of practice, Bill still hasn’t learned how to navigate a flight of stairs with his pants around his ankles.
There is something distinctly baby-boomer in everything he does, but most of all in his eagerness to be a victim. Baby-boomers — as a generalization — have an overweening sense of entitlement. Maybe it was the fluoride in the water, or maybe it was the lessons of Dr. Spock, but liberal baby boomers seem utterly convinced that they are extremely special. Anytime they do something they do not enjoy they seem to expect a merit badge. Bill Clinton is the poster boy of such self-indulgence.”
– Jonah Goldberg, April 13, 2000
“There is no single accepted cut-off date for baby boomers, but one way to think about it would be whether you had hit high school by the time the 1960s ended. But it’s nearly as hard to pin down the end of the 1960s. Because it is the cultural and political legacy of the sixties that defines the baby boom, that is where we should set our dates. And ‘the Sixties’ as embodied in the cultural and political emblems we remember today didn’t really begin until around 1963. The best place to mark their end might be with the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974.
So where do our current presidential contenders fall? What follows is the year each of the presidential candidates was born, ranked from oldest to youngest, along with the age each will be on inauguration day in 2009:
Republicans:
John McCain: 1936 (72)
Tommy Thompson: 1941 (67)
Newt Gingrich: 1943 (65)
Rudy Giuliani: 1944 (64)
George Pataki: 1945 (63)
Chuck Hagel: 1946 (62)
Mitt Romney: 1947 (61)
Duncan Hunter: 1948 (60)
Mike Huckabee: 1955 (53)
Sam Brownback: 1956 (52)
Democrats:
Joseph Biden: 1942 (66)
Wesley Clark: 1944 (64)
Christopher Dodd: 1944 (64)
Hillary Clinton: 1947 (61)
Bill Richardson: 1947 (61)
Tom Vilsack: 1950 (58)
John Edwards: 1953 (55)
Evan Bayh: 1955 (53)
Barack Obama: 1961 (47)
…There’s no doubt that Barack Obama is hoping that voters, particularly those in the Democratic primary, will be looking for a respite from the 40-year war that began when his opponents were young adults and he was in elementary school. ‘Although his instincts were right on target,’ Obama recently told The New York Times , speaking about Bill Clinton and the bitter disputes of the ’60s, ‘and I think, intellectually and pragmatically, he understood that America wanted to move beyond those categories, in some ways he was trapped by his biography.’ In other words, the fact that Clinton was a baby boomer meant he had no way of transcending the culture war—Obama is attempting to make the case that he can.”
– Paul Waldman, December 13, 2006
“And the, the point he makes, and I think it’s a good point, it goes right to his age, which is his weakness. He (Obama) says, ‘You know, these boomers have been running the country and, you know, maybe in 1968 a lot of baby boomers started hating each other and they never stopped. But I’m not of that generation. I’m not of the culture war ’60s generation. I am willing to respect the other side.’”
– David Brooks, December 17, 2006
You know how homosexuals say they knew they were somehow “different,” and that they never quite fit where they were supposed to? I know precisely what they’re talking about. All these years I’ve found fault with the Baby Boomers and have been frustrated that I am one. I didn’t feel like one, but according to all the generational data, that’s where I show up.
But I never felt like I fit neatly into that category. I know almost no one who is my age. Most of the people I associate with are either older or younger. I never believed this was an issue until I found myself in corporate training. I’d sit in seminars and listen to Boomers - people who were supposedly my generation - complain bitterly about Gen X employees. They were obsessed, I tell you.
This was always a bit awkward because T — twelve years my junior — is an Xer, and many of the people we know and have worked with are, too. I know I’m not of that generation, but I don’t feel that I’m a true Boomer, either. But it’s become one of those things I’ve just learned to accept - like being short-waisted.
But thanks to Barack Obama, I have discovered that my suspicions all these years might not have been unfounded. If Obama, who was born in 1961, claims he isn’t a Boomer, then what does that make me?
I went online and looked at the definitions of the different generations and noticed that the information has changed significantly since I last saw it. Allow me to put it in perspective.
My father was born in April, 1906. Theodore Roosevelt was president. According to the generational chart, Dad was part of the one known as the “G.I. Generation.” This doesn’t seem to fit him. As far as I know, my father did not participate in World War II; however, my stepfather - born in March, 1920 - did. He served in the Air Force and was almost shot down over Japan. The “younger” of this group is often referred to as the “Greatest.” I’ve also been hearing much about something called the “Builders.” The range is 1900 to 1924. That would include my mother, who was born in December, 1923, when Calvin Coolidge was president.
It always struck me as odd that the next generation would be the Boomers; interestingly, a subgroup has emerged to separate the two. The “Silent Generation” includes those born between 1925 and 1942. An odd assortment that includes Gore Vidal, Bill Buckley, Allen Ginsburg, Andy Warhol, Noam Chomsky, Little Richard, Liz Taylor, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, Abbie Hoffman, Dick Cheney, John Lennon, and Jimi Hendrix. And my half-sister, who was born in March, 1940, when FDR was president.
Again, she was an oddball who seemed somewhat removed from the rest of my siblings who were grouped in age much closer together: A sister, born in June 1947; a brother in May, 1951; and another sister in April 1953. That’s two under Truman, and Baby Boomers all — the age range being 1946 to 1964. And that’s where it has always seemed odd. I have friends who were born in 1964 and it’s difficult for me to consider them Boomers. Yet they don’t seem like Xers, either.
So if Obama, who was born in August 1961, isn’t a Boomer, what is he? See, I was born in October 1959 - during Dwight Eisenhower’s second term. If you were paying attention, my mother was consistent in her production: a baby born in March, one in April, then May, then June. Then she decided she actually wanted one. That was in 1959 - several years after my sister, Linda, was born (1953, Eisenhower’s first term). Mother was getting rather long in the tooth - and Dad was even older - so I came along and always suspected that I’d upset the apple cart. My siblings were all close and I was much younger - and a burden. Something to babysit. It didn’t help matters that my parents separated soon after that.
My earliest memories were of my family watching What’s My Line?, Sing Along With Mitch, and Thriller with Boris Karloff. My mother would curl up with a bag of Brach’s Circus Peanuts. (Jeez, no wonder she’s diabetic.)
I knew even then I wasn’t really fitting in with my siblings. They were older, in school, and had their own lives. By 1968, two sisters had long been married and out of the house; my sister, Linda, was boosting me up with my feet in her clasped hands so I could rip Humphrey posters off telephone poles; and my brother was defying my mother and sneaking out during the Convention. (We were so glad when he joined the Air Force and went away.)
I was in elementary school, but paid close attention to the election that year because my sister adored Richard Nixon. (As I’ve mentioned before, she was devastated when he died on her birthday.) And that was the year I was introduced to Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. The rest is history.
So, looking at this chart, I see that people born between 1954 and 1962 are considered “Generation Jones” or “Late Boomers.” Another label - and one I actually prefer - is the “Pre-Lunar Space-Agers,” the generation born between the launch of Sputnik in October 1957 and the Apollo 11 moon landing in July 1969. An “ah-ha” moment. I drank Tang and ate Space Food Sticks. Yes, I am a Pre-Lunar Space-Ager! And probably the only one; after all, who wants to be in that group?
There is another option, and this one, too, makes sense. Like I said, I came late - after the big boom. Birth rates were steadily declining, my mother was having miscarriage after miscarriage, and then I was born - thanks to something called DES. But that’s a whole other story.
It appears that I can call myself a “Baby Buster.” (The alternate name, “The Sunshine Generation,” doesn’t quite cut it.) This group ranges from 1958 through 1968. Not Boomers, but not Xers, either.
However, there are sources that claim Generation X includes those born from 1963 to 1978. I don’t care, because I know I’m not an Xer. But the media seems to think that Barack Obama is. Excuse me, but I don’t think that’s accurate. He’s black, he’s white! He’s a Christian, he’s a Muslim! He’s a Boomer, he’s an Xer! We have to draw the line somewhere and that’s where I’m drawing it. Obama’s no Xer.
But now there are indications that Gen X includes anyone born from 1961 to 1981; I don’t buy that. But I know what Obama means when he distances himself from the Boomers. He’s 45, Bill Clinton is 60. There is a difference.
And that difference means that I am a Buster. I share that “honor” with Madonna, “Weird Al” Yankovic, Bono, Ari Fleischer, David Koresh, and Jeffrey Dahmer.
Maybe I was better off when I was a Boomer.
But it is interesting to consider an Obama presidency. The two Boomer presidents - Clinton and Bush - “hogged” the presidency and now other Boomers will be squeezed out for younger candidates. If Obama is actually considered an Xer, and he occupies the White House, the Boomers will have their oldness pushed into their faces at long last. And that will be fun to watch. From my rocker.
tags:
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by treason on Tuesday, 19 of December , 2006 at 1:07 pm
Right after I’d posted
The message below,
The skies opened up
And it started to snow.
Drove to the Post Office -
The best time to go!
Don’t care what you say,
Miss USA’s still a ‘ho.’
tags:
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by treason on Tuesday, 19 of December , 2006 at 9:30 am
The wind started blowing last night and every weather report foretold a winter storm. We expected to wake up to snow. A pure, clean, white layer of snow. I was up early, looked out the window, then sighed.
Later T looked out the window: “I’m so disappointed.”
I know the feeling. The wind was blowing all week around Miss USA and today would be the day that The Donald would make his final decision. She has “personal demons,” therefore she gets to keep her crown. Frankly, I don’t care if she’s been raped by every member of her family and kids made fun of her big ears - if even half the allegations are true, she should step down.
So it appears the only snow in our story is the white powder that allegedly went up Miss USA’s nose. My advice to the 2008 presidential candidates: Alert your PR teams. Personal demons are hot this year.
tags:
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by treason on Monday, 18 of December , 2006 at 8:26 pm
I sat and watched Dennis Kucinich’s speech - the one delivered last week in which he formally announced his ‘08 candidacy - and all I could think was this: How many hours would it take a President Kucinich to deliver the State of the Union Address?
WRAP IT UP.
In stark contrast, tonight I caught a rebroadcast on C-SPAN of a speech from September 2005 at the National Press Club. The speaker was Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. There’s been talk that he could be a contender in ‘08. Frankly, I’m waiting to see what he does. Not a lot of buzz about this ‘bee, but that’s because, like most bees, Huckabee’s been busy. Too busy to stop in front of every camera in his path, like some people.
Anyway, what would make Huckabee an interesting candidate, running against Hillary, is that Huckabee really does seem to be the anti-Clinton. He and Bill are both from Hope, but it’s clear they took somewhat different paths. Huckabee is the embodiment of character.
There’s a lot of buzz about Hillary and Obama and their books. Well, Huckabee has been a prolific writer and has even more titles to his name. Like Condi Rice, Huckabee was a quick study - he earned his degree in 2 ˝ years. His wife’s maiden name is McCain. Like Newt, he’s engaging, creative, and has good ideas - but none of the baggage.
The baggage he did have, he lost. Over a hundred pounds of it - and he’s kept it off. When he talks about health care in America, he knows what he’s talking about. After being diagnosed with diabetes, he turned his life around with diet and exercise. Tonight he acknowledged other governors who were proactive in their states’ health care - and he mentioned, generously, several Democrats. He even told a story about his “running buddy,” Tom Vilsack, and how they ran a marathon together. “I couldn’t get any Republicans to run a marathon, but Tom was there.”
The crowd was riveted. He was personable, likeable, spontaneous. He has a sense of humor, is quick-witted, decent and kind. There’s a warmth there. He’s genuine, natural. One can detect a sincerity and honesty that’s rare. He doesn’t come across as a typical politician. And he can communicate. If American voters are looking to Obama for something different, something fresh, they might consider Mike Huckabee.
It sounds like the parties are writing off the South. Democrats feel that it’s gone red, and they can count on Southern blacks to vote for them and then pick up most of the electoral votes in key states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, and all of New England. The only Southern state that holds any interest for them is Florida. Unless Mark Warner changes his mind, John Edwards is the only Southern Democrat who’s got a chance at the nomination.
So the South is overlooked - even ignored. Where’s the Southern Republican in the race? Frist and Allen are out, and Newt doesn’t really count as a Southerner. Not a lot of governors in the race, either, so someone with Huckabee’s record of achievement might just be attractive.
On domestic issues, he’s got the right stuff, focusing on education and health care. He’s relatively young, too. His story about writing letters to people he witnessed littering on the roads of Arkansas was priceless. It gives one a good sense of who he is. So does the governor’s website. I, of course, appreciate the photo of him with his wife and two dogs. He seems normal, accessible. Safe.
Boring? Not at all. He’s the bassist for the band Capitol Offense. As for religion, he attended a seminary after college and was a Baptist preacher before running for office. But there’s a lot of business experience, too, on his resume. He can manage.
On foreign policy…well, that will be an issue, but it will be one Obama will face as well. With so many candidates running, what makes Huckabee interesting is that he has the same positive qualities of many of the other contenders but has so few negatives.
The only question now is: Is he running?
tags:
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by treason on Sunday, 17 of December , 2006 at 4:26 pm
No big changes since the last time I posted the R & D Lists, except that Bob Barr, one of the few who isn’t running in 2008, has switched parties (a living, breathing Libertarian now!); Dennis Kucinich, who was already on my D-List, has officially made it official; and Evan Bayh, proving that he’s sharper than many of those who are running, isn’t.
Locally, many believe precisely what I said here long ago: Governor Bill will be thrown a bone. Not that Secretary of State is scraps. But I’m still not ready to write him off yet — our Bill’s got pluck. And, hey, with Valerie and Joe on his team…
Also, I stumbled across a blog - The Templar Pundit - that evaluates most of the 2008 contenders and includes facts and photos. It has since changed names (it’s now anthonysurace.com), but I include it here because it’s kinda fun. Do check it out.
The D-List:
Running:
1. Tom Vilsack
In the exploratory phase…officially:
2. Joe Biden
3. Barack Obama
Hasn’t stopped running:
4. John Edwards
Being coy, but everyone knows they’re running:
5. Hillary and Bill
6. Bill Richardson
In the pinko:
7. Dennis Kucinich
Starting to make noise:
8. Wesley Clark
9. Chris Dodd
Waiting to hear something:
10. Algore
Possible add-ons:
11. Howard Dean
12. Nancy Pelosi
They call the windsurfer ‘Pariah’:
13. John F. Kerry
Jumpers:
1. Mark Warner
2. Russ Feingold
3. Tom Daschle
4. Evan Bayh
Just when most pundits had written off Jeb and Condi, and I’d moved them to their own category, there’s now some noise indicating that it’s a little too soon to count them out. So I’ve modified, slightly, the name of their category. No other changes, but I am wondering where Tommy Thompson’s been.
The R-List:
Official:
1. Duncan Hunter
Exploratory phase:
2. John McCain
3. Rudy Giuliani
4. Tommy Thompson
5. Mitt Romney
6. Sam Brownback
7. Newt Gingrich
Running whether we like it or not:
8. George Pataki
There’s been talk, but which party?:
9. Michael Bloomberg
And speculation:
10. Chuck Hagel
11. Mike Huckabee
12. Tom Tancredo
Please…not now and not another so soon:
13. George Allen
In the same boat, but not necessarily the Titanic:
14. Jeb Bush
15. Condi Rice
Won’t run if nominated, won’t serve if elected:
1. Richard B. Cheney
Jumpers:
2. Bill Frist
tags:
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by treason on Saturday, 16 of December , 2006 at 3:30 pm
Lopez: Besides giving your family a last chance to talk you out of running for president, what are you doing for Christmas?
Gov. Romney: I’ll be doing what I enjoy most in life which is playing with my ten grandchildren, catching up on a lot of reading I want to do, and talking with my wife, Ann, as well as to my sons and daughters-in-law about some interesting possibilities for the new year.
Lopez: Will an expose on Mormon Christmas celebrations hurt you in the primaries?
Gov. Romney: This may sound strange to some, but my grandchildren will be eagerly awaiting presents to be delivered to their homes by a bearded man in a red suit led by a pack of flying reindeer. The lead reindeer, by the way, has a red light bulb for a nose — certainly a YouTube scandal waiting to happen.
– An NRO Q&A with Mitt Romney, December 2006
Because I was raised by “older” parents (Dad was born in 1906, for Christ’s sake) and all my siblings were “mature” by the time I came along, there wasn’t a lot of mixing and mingling with my windowlicking peers. Conversation at home was advanced - my father never talked to us as if we were children. To him, we were just short adults. My mother exposed us to books and films - and language - that other parents would have kept from their kids. Nothing was censured.
I watched the news (Fahey Flynn, Floyd Kalber, Joel Daly, Huntley-Brinkley) and we had The Chicago Tribune delivered. I recall conversations (some not particularly flattering) about Mayor Daley and how he ran our city. I remember the day I watched JFK’s funeral with my mother and I’d imitate LBJ after every one of his speeches. I think of names like Adam Clayton Powell, Otto Kerner, George Romney, Charles Percy, Everett Dirksen, Reagan, and Goldwater.
I probably have a soft spot in my heart for George Romney because I’ve always been fond of American Motors. I haven’t seen a Metropolitan in years, but an occasional Rambler perks me up quite a bit. I still remember how exciting it was when my stepfather traded in his old station wagon and bought a 1973 (maybe ‘74?) “daisy yellow” Ambassador Brougham Wagon with pseudo wood inside and out, and black interior. The thing had power windows and drove like a yacht. I think it was expensive, too, and probably more than what he wanted to pay for it. Sticker price of over $5000, if you can imagine that.
“We back them better because we build them better.”
It was George Romney who saved American Motors and made this memory possible. What’s interesting is that Mitt really looks a lot like his dad - check out the TIME cover from April, 1959 that I posted here yesterday. The family certainly has an interesting history; no doubt much of it will be exhumed if Mitt chooses to run.
But I think I’ve figured out what it is I like so much about him. He reminds me of the types of politicians I watched when I was a kid and not the riffraff we have now. I watch C-SPAN and am still amazed at the number of clods who have been elected to office. Whether you’re Republican or Democrat, I think most of us can agree that our tax dollars fund the salaries of some real human debris.
This is why I feel Romney stands out from the rabble. Yes, he’s been criticized for “changing his mind” and switching positions, but that was also true of his dad. Still, his explanations are convincing; the man isn’t frivolous. He’s criticized for being “well-scripted.” True, he’s articulate and can speak without tripping over his own tongue. But he can think on his feet and answer spontaneously - so where’s this script?
It’s interesting that so much attention is paid to a probable Clinton or Obama presidency. America, we are told, is “ready” for a woman president. America is also “ready” for a black president. Mention Condi Rice, and America is suddenly not ready for a black woman. Sure, one can argue that she’s unpopular on the Left because of the war. Fine. They say that about Hillary, too.
So what I’m trying to figure out here is how America can be so open-minded about gender and race, but be so opposed to the idea of a Mormon president. We’ve elected Presbyterians, Unitarians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Quakers, Baptists, Dutch Reformed, Congregationalists, Deists, a Roman Catholic, and quite a few who were coy and wouldn’t say one way or the other.
Hell’s bells, Eisenhower was a Jehovah’s Witness before he became a Presbyterian. I say America had better be ready for a Mormon. A decision, I’m sure, Harry Reid could defend.
tags:
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by treason on Friday, 15 of December , 2006 at 6:27 pm
tags:
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by treason on Thursday, 14 of December , 2006 at 7:49 pm
Just when I thought things in D.C. couldn’t get any worse, news of Tim Johnson’s “stroke” (no, it wasn’t…yes, it was…no, it wasn’t) hit and all the ghouls came out at once. Jeez, people - it’s not Halloween, it’s Christmas.
To avoid the Johnson news coverage this morning, I tuned in C-SPAN only to hear caller after caller blame George Bush for everything that’s ever gone wrong in their lives. Is it my imagination or has the Left gotten even meaner since the election?
I finally had to turn off the news and listen to Rush just to hear something positive. And that’s when I heard the story about Barack and Maureen.
OBAMA: You talked about my ears, and I just want to put you on notice: I’m very sensitive about — What I told them was, ”I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.’”
DOWD: We’re trying to toughen you up.
I have to admit that I never noticed his ears. My concern has been what’s between them. But now that Maureen has brought them to my attention, I’ll be looking at them all the time.
“My, what BIG ears you have!”
Excuse me, but do you know what kinds of things were said about Richard Nixon? What things are still said about him? About Spiro Agnew and Gerald Ford? Do you remember what they said about Reagan? About Bush? About Quayle? Clarence Thomas? Do you know what they say about Cheney? Rumsfeld? Bush 43?
It’s vile. To accuse George Bush of bringing down the World Trade Center? Staging the attack on the Pentagon? Shooting United 93 out of the sky?
And here’s Barack Obama - sensitive about his ears. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are crucified daily and they don’t even flinch. Yet Obama doesn’t want the press talking about his ears.
And that wants to be the leader of the free world? Commander-in-Chief. Wartime president. Shhhhhhhhh. Can’t talk about his ears. He’s sensitive.
This is a joke, right?
tags:
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by treason on Wednesday, 13 of December , 2006 at 10:03 am
I was channel-surfing the other night and came across a conversation between Chris Matthews and Donny Deutsch. The topic was Bill Clinton and they were squirming in their chairs like teenage girls.
“You ever notice the way he is around women, the way he looks at them? You know what he’s thinking - they know it, too: I want a burger, then I want you!”
They’re infatuated. And it’s quite clear they like Bill for all the reasons I dislike him. It was disturbing, I tell you. This reminded me of a conversation I had with someone once about Jude Law. I don’t remember how Law’s name came up but we were suddenly discussing Wilde.
“There’s that scene…it’s when the audience sees Bosie for the first time…then there’s a gasp, because he’s just so beautiful - so perfect.”
“Really? I see Jude Law and I think Road To Perdition.”
“Ewww. I’d forgotten about that.”
Kinda like Harry Connick Jr. in Copycat. His character was so repulsive I can’t bear to look at Harry now. Maybe it’s me. Perhaps I have some weird Dorian Gray complex. But I don’t see Gray - I see his picture, instead.
I think people see what they want to see. The only person who looks better to me than he actually looks is Peter O’Toole. It’s like Jude Law for my gay friend. I think Peter O’Toole and I see the version from Lawrence of Arabia. I prefer The Lion In Winter O’Toole, but my mind sees the T.S. Lawrence one traipsing through the desert. The image has been burned into my brain for some reason. I’m trying to think of someone else who keeps an old photo in my head and the name that comes to mind is Bill Buckley. I pick up an issue of National Review and I see a young Buckley nibbling on a ballpoint pen.
This could be a problem that’s more serious than we know. Are people not really seeing the politician who’s running for office? Was a candidate’s appearance an issue before Kennedy and Nixon? I suspect it was, but not to the degree it is today.
I admit it. I find myself guilty of studying presidential candidates and asking: “What does this guy see when he looks in the mirror?” I believe that voters still want a president to “look presidential” (think Dukakis in the tank), but the definition of presidential has changed.
You know, I never found the Kennedy men attractive. Never found Bill Clinton appealing. Don’t like his looks, don’t like the man, don’t like those icky, girlie hands of his. Matthews and Deutsch essentially said that he looks at women as if they were pieces of meat. What does that say about these two clowns?
And now the buzz is about Obama. Much too thin. But any candidate who stands next to him will look short, fat, old, and pale. Hillary will seem much broader in the beam. Kucinich already has that strange elfin quality - he’ll look like a Hobbit next to Obama. Picture side by side comparisons at the debates. Wesley Clark and Obama. Vilsack and Obama. Dodd and Obama. I don’t care who Edwards is standing next to - Edwards always looks stupid. Now Evan Bayh…hmmm.
Bill Richardson’s been working on a makeover for years, and it’s clear he’s never going to be GQ material. But it’s undeniable - Bill has a certain charm. He’s got that Bush thing: he’s likeable. There’s a person there. Yes, you could sit down with Bill and share a 12-pack and a bag of Doritos and feel completely at ease. I’ll give him that.
And that’s an important quality when you’re making that dash to the White House. Kerry liked to think he “looked” presidential and plenty of comparisons were made to Lincoln. True, one could draw comparisons. Lincoln is dead, Kerry’s eyes are, too. He just lacks that spark. Some might call it a pulse. But it really doesn’t matter. The man is toast.
Gore has a similar problem, but it appears that it only happens when he’s playing a politician in front of a camera. I have no doubt Algore is not the automaton we saw during the debates. I know he’s a funny guy. Bob Dole was a scream, too, but no one knew that, either.
So, unfortunately, a candidate needs to be telegenic. Something has to click with the voters. In this youth obsessed culture, are we looking for a youngster? Already there’s been talk about McCain’s age. People might forget that back in the eighties, ol’ John was quite the looker. And remember that photo of him in his uniform? Yowza.
But like Redford and Gibson, McCain has not aged well. He has that weatherbeaten quality and his cancer surgery has altered his looks. That sounds cold, I know, but the American voter can be shallow.
Is Giuliani attractive? Again, back in the eighties, he was cute as a button. But, unlike McCain, the older Giuliani has a specific charm and familiarity. He might remind some voters of their parish priest (both a positive and a negative, I’d imagine) or maybe their wise Italian grandfather. Maybe their godfather. Either way, he has the advantage of a strong personality. He’s spontaneous, animated, dynamic, witty. All the things I like, but could easily get him into big trouble. Darn.
It’s not a youth thing, either. I thought Paul Newman looked like a slack-jawed idiot when he was young. It’s when he got older that his charm became clear. Same with Sean Connery. I prefer the older version. Like Cheney and Rumsfeld. I suspect there’s a component here that some may overlook: The Voice.
People used to gather around the radio and listen to their leaders. For me, looks aren’t an issue — I’m still drawn to voices. Funny, I might not be able to look at Harry Connick anymore, but I can still listen to him sing. And when Paul Newman’s voice turned low and gravelly, he suddenly became more appealing. He was…adult.
People remember FDR’s voice. I still listen to Churchill. Now, Reagan had a voice. Carter did not. LBJ? Nah, not really. Ford? Nope. Bush 41? Um…no, not really. I’m looking for a voice.
Now a lot of people are saying that about Obama. And this is where Hillary’s going to run into some problems. Her voice can be an irritant. She talks too damned slow, first of all. Like Kerry and Gore, she gets stuck playing the politician on TV. If she can get past that stiffness and be herself…uh, well maybe that won’t help, either.
It’s like the C-SPAN caller the other day. The topic was Obama and his convention speech.
“I’m just a white guy sitting on my green couch here, and I see Obama’s speech and I start cryin.’ I cried, like, three or four times - I can’t even explain it.”
This is interesting. People claim they cried when they heard Jack and Bobby Kennedy. Funny, I feel that way when I hear Ted. I’m trying to think of a candidate or a president whose voice could stir in me that kind of emotion. I think, again, of Reagan. I still weep when I listen to the Challenger speech. Sure, it helped that Peggy Noonan penned it, but would it have been as memorable if a Carter had delivered it?
“…There’s a coincidence today. On this day 390 years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and a historian later said, ‘He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it.’ Well, today we can say of the Challenger crew: Their dedication was, like Drake’s, complete.
The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved good-bye and ’slipped the surly bonds of earth’ to ‘touch the face of God.’”
Whew. George Bush had a similar moment with that bullhorn. People say they’re looking for that voice. There’s no doubt Obama can speak and sounds good. But again, words have meaning. Are we listening to what he’s saying? Has he actually said anything? What are we judging here?
It’s star quality. People just want to touch him. Um, isn’t that what got Bill into trouble? Actually, I wouldn’t mind seeing Obama - or Hillary - standing, and speaking, next to Mitt Romney.
tags:
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized
