The entrance fee at New York's Museum of Modern Art just went from $12 to $20. My Stupid Dog is annoyed with Terry Teachout's knee-jerk condemnation:
"To call New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg plain-spoken is a bit of an understatement. When queried about MoMa's price hikes, Bloomberg stated with characteristic bluntness, ''Some things people can afford, some things people can't. ... MoMA is a private institution. It's not a city institution. And they have a right to set their own pricing policies.' Bloomberg added that 'If you can't afford [admissions] at any one, you can go to another one.' Journalists have had a field day with Bloomberg's statement, noting that the mayor is one of America's wealthiest men -- of course he won't be affected by a mere eight-dollar increase, with his multi-billion dollar personal fortune.
"Online arts critic Terry Teachout, who usually combines informed connoisseurship with common sense, claims that Bloomberg 'just earned himself a swift kick in the crotch for his personal contribution to the ongoing debate. (Not in the head--that wouldn't hurt him one bit.)' Yet Bloomberg's reasoning is absolutely correct: Private institutions should set their own admissions policies, without interference from government. He neither condemned nor condoned the new admission rates, but he did state that the price of MoMA admissions was not his concern as a government official.
"In the meantime, I wonder what has happened to Teachout's own head. When he accepted a prestigious position with the National Endowment for the Arts, I feared that the moribund institution might alter him more than he would alter it. Once you start to work with government-sponsored arts projects on behalf of 'the masses' -- who presumably are too ignorant to make an informed judgment in matters of taste -- the idea that artists and government institutions should work together to bring art to the people becomes embedded in your brain like a virus. The consequent government-funded art, complete with Uncle Sam's seal of approval, runs the gamut from redundant (NEA's ongoing "Shakespeare in the Suburbs" tour!) to banal ("Piss Christ," anyone?).
"I think the NEA tends to forget that art is not only accessible, it is everywhere. From television commericals to art-house cinema, from down-and-dirty blues music to fun-house postmodern architecture, even the poorest of Americans are sated, even glutted, with products of human imagination and creativity. That may explain why most Americans don't go to art museums: They've had enough truth and beauty for one day, thanks, and staring at colored squares isn't going to do anything for them. When interior designers on cable television can paint household cabinets in the style of Piet Mondrian, it's time for all government-subsized priests of high culture to declare "Mission Accomplished" and call it a day."
Monday, October 04, 2004
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Mark Steyn Still Says Bush Will Win
From The Chicago Sun-Times:
"Those of us who've been sweet on George W. Bush a long time have gotten used to these moments. Four years ago, he stacks up more money and a bigger runaway lead than any other candidate in history, but he can't be bothered campaigning in New Hampshire, so he loses the primary to John McCain. He struggles to catch up, wins the nomination, but then takes the summer off to build his ranch house in Crawford, Texas. Al Gore's ahead on Labor Day, but Bush claws his way back to a small lead, then they drop the last-minute DWI scandal and, instead of rebutting it, he takes the weekend off, and lands us in a month of Florida chad-divining.
"So Thursday was one of those moments. Bush wasn't wrong, but he was in the same state he was in in early 2003, before launching the Iraq war, when he was tired and punchy and stumbling round the country not making a case against Saddam but just droning the same phrases over and over: ''He's a dictator.'' Smirk. ''He gassed his own people.'' In Thursday's debate, his own people seemed to have gassed him. Bush droned, repeatedly, that Kerry was sending ''mixed messages,'' but his own message could have done with being a little less robotically unmixed. He said, ''It's tough. ... It's hard work. ...'' again and again..."
"Those of us who've been sweet on George W. Bush a long time have gotten used to these moments. Four years ago, he stacks up more money and a bigger runaway lead than any other candidate in history, but he can't be bothered campaigning in New Hampshire, so he loses the primary to John McCain. He struggles to catch up, wins the nomination, but then takes the summer off to build his ranch house in Crawford, Texas. Al Gore's ahead on Labor Day, but Bush claws his way back to a small lead, then they drop the last-minute DWI scandal and, instead of rebutting it, he takes the weekend off, and lands us in a month of Florida chad-divining.
"So Thursday was one of those moments. Bush wasn't wrong, but he was in the same state he was in in early 2003, before launching the Iraq war, when he was tired and punchy and stumbling round the country not making a case against Saddam but just droning the same phrases over and over: ''He's a dictator.'' Smirk. ''He gassed his own people.'' In Thursday's debate, his own people seemed to have gassed him. Bush droned, repeatedly, that Kerry was sending ''mixed messages,'' but his own message could have done with being a little less robotically unmixed. He said, ''It's tough. ... It's hard work. ...'' again and again..."
Network Anchors Rally Behind Dan Rather's Forgeries
According to The Washington Post network anchors are supporting Dan Rather in the scandal over his forged documents:
"NEW YORK, Oct. 2 -- Dan Rather, vowing to resist any 'smear' campaign against him by the Bush administration or other critics, said Saturday he would not 'give up the fight' and intends to remain in the CBS anchor chair. Rather, who has apologized for reporting on National Guard documents about President Bush that the network now says it cannot authenticate, twice declined to comment on the controversy at a forum hosted by the New Yorker. He made clear he had been muzzled by management, saying CBS News President Andrew Heyward had asked him to stay quiet while an outside panel investigates the matter. The other network anchors at the forum stood by their longtime rival. NBC's Tom Brokaw accused Internet critics of 'a kind of political jihad against Dan Rather and CBS News that is quite outrageous.' Although he called Rather's '60 Minutes' story 'a big mistake,' Brokaw said it had led to an attempt to 'demonize' Rather and CBS through 'demagoguery.'"
"NEW YORK, Oct. 2 -- Dan Rather, vowing to resist any 'smear' campaign against him by the Bush administration or other critics, said Saturday he would not 'give up the fight' and intends to remain in the CBS anchor chair. Rather, who has apologized for reporting on National Guard documents about President Bush that the network now says it cannot authenticate, twice declined to comment on the controversy at a forum hosted by the New Yorker. He made clear he had been muzzled by management, saying CBS News President Andrew Heyward had asked him to stay quiet while an outside panel investigates the matter. The other network anchors at the forum stood by their longtime rival. NBC's Tom Brokaw accused Internet critics of 'a kind of political jihad against Dan Rather and CBS News that is quite outrageous.' Although he called Rather's '60 Minutes' story 'a big mistake,' Brokaw said it had led to an attempt to 'demonize' Rather and CBS through 'demagoguery.'"
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Al-Zawahri Calls for US Attacks
From Aljazeera.Net:
"'In Palestine, we are not only facing the Jews but also the anti-Islam international alliance headed by the US crusaders.So, fighting Jews and leaving America without being attacked will not make the Americans or the crusaders lessen their aggression against us.'"
"'In Palestine, we are not only facing the Jews but also the anti-Islam international alliance headed by the US crusaders.So, fighting Jews and leaving America without being attacked will not make the Americans or the crusaders lessen their aggression against us.'"
The Botox Factor
President Bush's facial expressions have come under attack from the Democratic National Committee, which posted selected clips from the Bush-Kerry debate on their website. But the Texan's more mobile face might simply be a sign that he hasn't used quite as much Botox, while the impassive rigidity of Kerry's lower-jaw might give credence to the notion that the Boston Brahmin has indeed been cosmetically enhanced, his skin paralyzed by the Botulism toxin.
That's what reports on the AwfulPlasticSurgery.com website seem to indicate, at least...
That's what reports on the AwfulPlasticSurgery.com website seem to indicate, at least...
Don't Call Me a "Blogger"!
From Wizbang:
"I've always hated the word... Blogger. Even without referencing its auditory resemblance to gelatinous masses ejected from nasal cavities, I still don't like it. Blogger. Say it aloud. It sounds as if you are talking with a mouth full of food you are trying to prevent from escaping. Or perhaps it sounds like some did escape. Either way, what does it mean? One who has a weblog? Look that up in a hip glossary and it does not cover what I do. This is no 'on-line diary.' People outside the blogospehre don't like the word either. After all, bloggers (as we all know) don't have the systems of checks and balances like they have in a traditional newsroom. It was my adventure debunking Professor Hailey that lead me to an epiphany. I no longer what to be called a blogger and neither should you. We are not bloggers, We are independent, peer reviewed journalists.
"It was the phone call to the head of Professor Hailey's department that made me see the light. He said something to the effect of, 'Certainly Dr. Hailey's work needs to stand up to peer review.' But who exactly is Dr. Hailey's peer? Apparently some guy sitting in his pajamas who has a blog. The simple act of 'getting things right' is important to society. Politicians must get things right so have have voters keep an eye on them. Lawyers must get things right so we have juries. So to must scholars get things right, so a system of 'peer review' was born. I can think of no other entity than the traditional media whose only review system is internal. Multiple people have tried to make the case that the blogosphere is more accurate than the mainstream media. Heck, search this blog and you'll find I've done it several times. What we have lacked is a way to explain our system of checks and balances to people outside the blogosphere. The phrase 'Peer Reviewed Journalism' does that."
"I've always hated the word... Blogger. Even without referencing its auditory resemblance to gelatinous masses ejected from nasal cavities, I still don't like it. Blogger. Say it aloud. It sounds as if you are talking with a mouth full of food you are trying to prevent from escaping. Or perhaps it sounds like some did escape. Either way, what does it mean? One who has a weblog? Look that up in a hip glossary and it does not cover what I do. This is no 'on-line diary.' People outside the blogospehre don't like the word either. After all, bloggers (as we all know) don't have the systems of checks and balances like they have in a traditional newsroom. It was my adventure debunking Professor Hailey that lead me to an epiphany. I no longer what to be called a blogger and neither should you. We are not bloggers, We are independent, peer reviewed journalists.
"It was the phone call to the head of Professor Hailey's department that made me see the light. He said something to the effect of, 'Certainly Dr. Hailey's work needs to stand up to peer review.' But who exactly is Dr. Hailey's peer? Apparently some guy sitting in his pajamas who has a blog. The simple act of 'getting things right' is important to society. Politicians must get things right so have have voters keep an eye on them. Lawyers must get things right so we have juries. So to must scholars get things right, so a system of 'peer review' was born. I can think of no other entity than the traditional media whose only review system is internal. Multiple people have tried to make the case that the blogosphere is more accurate than the mainstream media. Heck, search this blog and you'll find I've done it several times. What we have lacked is a way to explain our system of checks and balances to people outside the blogosphere. The phrase 'Peer Reviewed Journalism' does that."
Charlie Cook on the Debate
From The Cook Report:
"While I personally thought that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's performance in last night's debate was awful and that he has been badly damaged by the flip-flop argument, I am clearly in the minority. Data (polling, focus groups and dial tests) from both parties and the media show that Kerry won debate, though it remains unclear as to whether the ballot test moved much. Personally, I thought that Kerry sounded like Thurston Howell III, the snooty and condescending millionaire from 'Gilligan's Island,' but more people were comfortable with that than they were with the President's stammering and halting delivery and repetition of same phrases and arguments... "
"While I personally thought that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's performance in last night's debate was awful and that he has been badly damaged by the flip-flop argument, I am clearly in the minority. Data (polling, focus groups and dial tests) from both parties and the media show that Kerry won debate, though it remains unclear as to whether the ballot test moved much. Personally, I thought that Kerry sounded like Thurston Howell III, the snooty and condescending millionaire from 'Gilligan's Island,' but more people were comfortable with that than they were with the President's stammering and halting delivery and repetition of same phrases and arguments... "
Why Kerry Will Lose
From Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers:
"So Kerry flip and flops like a fish out of water, suggesting that his heart is with Howard Dean while his mind concurs with George Bush -- and thus his schizophrenia is on the verge of leading his party to a landslide defeat in the electoral college, and the loss of all branches of government with it. Americans simply have never voted for leaders who insult their allies on the battlefield, claim that their soldiers are losing, and shrug that the war is about lost. And they surely won't this time either."
"So Kerry flip and flops like a fish out of water, suggesting that his heart is with Howard Dean while his mind concurs with George Bush -- and thus his schizophrenia is on the verge of leading his party to a landslide defeat in the electoral college, and the loss of all branches of government with it. Americans simply have never voted for leaders who insult their allies on the battlefield, claim that their soldiers are losing, and shrug that the war is about lost. And they surely won't this time either."
Friday, October 01, 2004
Mark Steyn on Golda's Balcony
From The New Criterion:
"If you can't be a Zionist on Broadway, where can you be? That surely is one lesson to be drawn from Golda's Balcony, which has been playing at the Helen Hayes for almost a year now. That's a remarkable run for a solo show on a serious subject not exactly in tune with prevailing fashion, so I felt I ought to see it before it turned into Cats or The Mousetrap. The play is a new work by William Gibson, one of the old lions of the Anne Frank era: he made his name in the Fifties with Two for the Seesaw and The Miracle Worker. In his later career, he's found himself circling back to earlier hits: The Miracle Worker (1959) was about Helen Keller's young life, Monday after the Miracle (1982) was about her later life. Golda (1977) was a big-budget biodrama starring Anne Bancroft as the Israeli Prime Minister supported by a cast of dozens. Under the constraints of Broadway economics a quarter-century on, Golda's Balcony covers much of the same terrain but as a one-woman monologue for Tovah Feldshuh. Miss Feldshuh, as made up by John Caglione, Jr., with a prosthetic nose and thickened legs to suggest phlebitis, is a persuasive Golda Meir, especially in profile.
"In Gibson's monologue, Golda has, in fact, two balconies--one at her apartment in Tel Aviv overlooking the Mediterranean, the other an observation deck above the Israeli nuclear-weapons facility at Dimona. It's October 1973 and a seventy-five-year-old woman is pondering whether to unleash a nuclear holocaust. The events of Gibson's play are, within the bounds of dramatic license, historically accurate: it was the Yom Kippur War and the Prime Minister faced a tough decision on how far Israel was prepared to go in order to survive. As Gibson tells it, the bombs were loaded and the planes were ready to fly, awaiting the order to take off and nuke Cairo and Damascus. At the last minute, the Nixon Administration provided sufficient assistance to enable Israel to defeat its enemies with conventional weapons.
"Still, it’s riveting material for a dramatist. 'What happens when idealism becomes power?' Golda wonders. 'To save a world you create, how many worlds are you entitled to destroy?' What amazes in such situations is that the Prime Minister or President has only a few hours to make the right call. He or she needs to be able to concentrate, to see through every angle of the question, knowing there’s only one chance to answer it correctly."
"If you can't be a Zionist on Broadway, where can you be? That surely is one lesson to be drawn from Golda's Balcony, which has been playing at the Helen Hayes for almost a year now. That's a remarkable run for a solo show on a serious subject not exactly in tune with prevailing fashion, so I felt I ought to see it before it turned into Cats or The Mousetrap. The play is a new work by William Gibson, one of the old lions of the Anne Frank era: he made his name in the Fifties with Two for the Seesaw and The Miracle Worker. In his later career, he's found himself circling back to earlier hits: The Miracle Worker (1959) was about Helen Keller's young life, Monday after the Miracle (1982) was about her later life. Golda (1977) was a big-budget biodrama starring Anne Bancroft as the Israeli Prime Minister supported by a cast of dozens. Under the constraints of Broadway economics a quarter-century on, Golda's Balcony covers much of the same terrain but as a one-woman monologue for Tovah Feldshuh. Miss Feldshuh, as made up by John Caglione, Jr., with a prosthetic nose and thickened legs to suggest phlebitis, is a persuasive Golda Meir, especially in profile.
"In Gibson's monologue, Golda has, in fact, two balconies--one at her apartment in Tel Aviv overlooking the Mediterranean, the other an observation deck above the Israeli nuclear-weapons facility at Dimona. It's October 1973 and a seventy-five-year-old woman is pondering whether to unleash a nuclear holocaust. The events of Gibson's play are, within the bounds of dramatic license, historically accurate: it was the Yom Kippur War and the Prime Minister faced a tough decision on how far Israel was prepared to go in order to survive. As Gibson tells it, the bombs were loaded and the planes were ready to fly, awaiting the order to take off and nuke Cairo and Damascus. At the last minute, the Nixon Administration provided sufficient assistance to enable Israel to defeat its enemies with conventional weapons.
"Still, it’s riveting material for a dramatist. 'What happens when idealism becomes power?' Golda wonders. 'To save a world you create, how many worlds are you entitled to destroy?' What amazes in such situations is that the Prime Minister or President has only a few hours to make the right call. He or she needs to be able to concentrate, to see through every angle of the question, knowing there’s only one chance to answer it correctly."
John LeBoutillier on the Debate
From Boot's Blasts:
"Overall prediction: the race is now going to tighten a bit. How much? A bit. Kerry has reversed his downward momentum. Whether he can generate upward momentum is the next question. But this race is not over."
"Overall prediction: the race is now going to tighten a bit. How much? A bit. Kerry has reversed his downward momentum. Whether he can generate upward momentum is the next question. But this race is not over."
CNN: No Clear Victor in Debate
From CNN.com:
"Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll. After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry.
The story was almost the same on who would be a better commander in chief -- 55 percent said Bush would be better before the debate, 54 percent said so after the debate. Although Kerry made a better impression on some basic measures and may have been successful at re-introducing himself to voters, the poll showed he might not have changed many minds on Iraq and military matters.
"Because the poll talked just to debate watchers, only subsequent surveys will be able to determine whether Kerry gained any votes. Four years ago, a plurality of debate watchers thought Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had done a better job than Bush in the first debate. But when the dust settled Bush was the one who picked up a few points in the horse race. Gallup has asked the question about who did a better job in the debate in five previous elections, and in four of them the candidate who 'won' the first debate did not win the election in November."
"Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll. After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry.
The story was almost the same on who would be a better commander in chief -- 55 percent said Bush would be better before the debate, 54 percent said so after the debate. Although Kerry made a better impression on some basic measures and may have been successful at re-introducing himself to voters, the poll showed he might not have changed many minds on Iraq and military matters.
"Because the poll talked just to debate watchers, only subsequent surveys will be able to determine whether Kerry gained any votes. Four years ago, a plurality of debate watchers thought Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had done a better job than Bush in the first debate. But when the dust settled Bush was the one who picked up a few points in the horse race. Gallup has asked the question about who did a better job in the debate in five previous elections, and in four of them the candidate who 'won' the first debate did not win the election in November."
An Australian on the Debate
From The Command Post:
"Kerry won the debate, hands-down. Now that's not to say he's particularly wonderful at debating. He's not, at least, not from this performance. Any of the top 6 teams in the GPS (Greater Public School) Debating competition in Sydney, Australia would have him as, at best, a second reserve. But in terms of a debate, he did all the right things, made all the right moves, moves which are as stylised and formalised as anything in Olympic diving or gymnastics. So many points for eye contact, so many points for gestures at the right time, so many points for inflection and expression. Not a perfect 10, or even a solid 8, but a pedestrian 7.5. Kerry's performance was quite reasonable for a High School or College debate, though even I in my hayday could have made mincemeat of him - as could many people.
"Bush's, on the other hand, wasn't. He didn't behave like he was at a debate at all. He was comparatively inarticulate, halting at times, and confined his argument to only one main point : that whatever qualities he may have had, Kerry had shown himself to be incompetent to be a Commander-in-Chief. I got the impression he wasn't trying to engage in the highly formalised verbal combat that is debate at all - though repetition of a main them can be very effective in the right hands. When Bush did it, by the fourth or fifth time it was starting to grate on my nerves. Still, my impression was that Bush wasn't particularly interested in Kerry, nor Lehrer, nor even the studio audience. He was using this so-called 'debate' as a tool to communicate with the American people, confident in the belief that if they heard what he had to say, and got to know him as a man, a President, and a leader, that he'd garner more votes than with mere bardinage and verbal fencing. Arrogance or merely the courage of his convictions? If that was his aim, I think he succeeded. He came across as honest, plain-dealing, and straightforward. As the old saying goes : “The most important quality in Honesty : if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Well, he’s really good at that, because after listening to him, I’m not sure he’s faking."
"Kerry won the debate, hands-down. Now that's not to say he's particularly wonderful at debating. He's not, at least, not from this performance. Any of the top 6 teams in the GPS (Greater Public School) Debating competition in Sydney, Australia would have him as, at best, a second reserve. But in terms of a debate, he did all the right things, made all the right moves, moves which are as stylised and formalised as anything in Olympic diving or gymnastics. So many points for eye contact, so many points for gestures at the right time, so many points for inflection and expression. Not a perfect 10, or even a solid 8, but a pedestrian 7.5. Kerry's performance was quite reasonable for a High School or College debate, though even I in my hayday could have made mincemeat of him - as could many people.
"Bush's, on the other hand, wasn't. He didn't behave like he was at a debate at all. He was comparatively inarticulate, halting at times, and confined his argument to only one main point : that whatever qualities he may have had, Kerry had shown himself to be incompetent to be a Commander-in-Chief. I got the impression he wasn't trying to engage in the highly formalised verbal combat that is debate at all - though repetition of a main them can be very effective in the right hands. When Bush did it, by the fourth or fifth time it was starting to grate on my nerves. Still, my impression was that Bush wasn't particularly interested in Kerry, nor Lehrer, nor even the studio audience. He was using this so-called 'debate' as a tool to communicate with the American people, confident in the belief that if they heard what he had to say, and got to know him as a man, a President, and a leader, that he'd garner more votes than with mere bardinage and verbal fencing. Arrogance or merely the courage of his convictions? If that was his aim, I think he succeeded. He came across as honest, plain-dealing, and straightforward. As the old saying goes : “The most important quality in Honesty : if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Well, he’s really good at that, because after listening to him, I’m not sure he’s faking."
Jay Nordlinger on the Debate
From National Review :
"I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly -- much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy --not Joe Political Junkie-- I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate. And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less. Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything -- were a political naif, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time -- I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate."
"I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly -- much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy --not Joe Political Junkie-- I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate. And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less. Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything -- were a political naif, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time -- I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate."
Guardian: TV Networks Broke Rules to Make Bush Look Bad
From The Guardian :
"Instant-response polls by three major television networks all showed that a large majority of their viewers thought the challenger had won the 90-minute verbal contest at the University of Miami - the first of three debates in the last month of the campaign. Perhaps even more seriously for President Bush, the networks ignored broadcasting guidelines agreed beforehand and showed both candidates at the same time. On several occasions, Mr Bush could be seen sour-faced and nervous in reaction to some of Mr Kerry's remarks. Similar 'cut-away' shots of Al Gore in the first presidential debate four years ago sapped his campaign and helped put Mr Bush into office. After last night's debate, senior Democrats made it clear that they would make maximum use of the pictures of a disgruntled President Bush."
"Instant-response polls by three major television networks all showed that a large majority of their viewers thought the challenger had won the 90-minute verbal contest at the University of Miami - the first of three debates in the last month of the campaign. Perhaps even more seriously for President Bush, the networks ignored broadcasting guidelines agreed beforehand and showed both candidates at the same time. On several occasions, Mr Bush could be seen sour-faced and nervous in reaction to some of Mr Kerry's remarks. Similar 'cut-away' shots of Al Gore in the first presidential debate four years ago sapped his campaign and helped put Mr Bush into office. After last night's debate, senior Democrats made it clear that they would make maximum use of the pictures of a disgruntled President Bush."
Hugh Hewitt on the Debate
From HughHewitt.com:
"From spooked Bush-supporters: 'Most of the MSM talking heads are saying Kerry won on points!' True, and some of them are even Bush supporters. Which is why I watch the debates alone, which leads to a very different conclusion than my days of debate watching in television studios with their pressure of the collective voice pushes you towards 'don't be wrong.' So you overanalyze and over-react. MSM talking points thought that Kerry might pull a Gore, which would have finished him off. He didn't. He executed an excellent retreat to the left side of his party, and secured 45% in the general election. Ho-hum. The same folks that declared his Boston salute a brilliant bit of theater are now saying he's back in the race. Wrong in July, and wrong in September. Why?
"Because as group three notes: 'America will never elect a man who believes in (1)'global tests,' or (2)that we can't be trusted with 'bunker-busters.'' Kerry trotted out vintage nuclear freeze thinking tonight, arguing that the United States' development of a new generation of nukes is a bad thing. No, it is not, because we are a good and responsible country. End of debate, because Kerry's distrust of our weaponry is really a distrust of our national purpose. As the president kept saying, it is about the core of the candidates, and at Bush's core is a certainty about America's purpose in the world and its essential goodness. At Kerry's core, despite many protestations to the contrary, is a deep suspicion of America with its nukes, its weapons, its preemption and its resolve to go it alone if necessary."
"From spooked Bush-supporters: 'Most of the MSM talking heads are saying Kerry won on points!' True, and some of them are even Bush supporters. Which is why I watch the debates alone, which leads to a very different conclusion than my days of debate watching in television studios with their pressure of the collective voice pushes you towards 'don't be wrong.' So you overanalyze and over-react. MSM talking points thought that Kerry might pull a Gore, which would have finished him off. He didn't. He executed an excellent retreat to the left side of his party, and secured 45% in the general election. Ho-hum. The same folks that declared his Boston salute a brilliant bit of theater are now saying he's back in the race. Wrong in July, and wrong in September. Why?
"Because as group three notes: 'America will never elect a man who believes in (1)'global tests,' or (2)that we can't be trusted with 'bunker-busters.'' Kerry trotted out vintage nuclear freeze thinking tonight, arguing that the United States' development of a new generation of nukes is a bad thing. No, it is not, because we are a good and responsible country. End of debate, because Kerry's distrust of our weaponry is really a distrust of our national purpose. As the president kept saying, it is about the core of the candidates, and at Bush's core is a certainty about America's purpose in the world and its essential goodness. At Kerry's core, despite many protestations to the contrary, is a deep suspicion of America with its nukes, its weapons, its preemption and its resolve to go it alone if necessary."
Diplomad on the Debate
From The Diplomad:
"As we see it from the Far Abroad, Kerry was better on his style than he has been, but not too much better on substance; Bush was the reverse, not good on style (e.g., humming, slouching, smirking) but much better on the substance than his opponent and showed a good mastery of both detail and overall policy. Kerry needed a knock-out; he didn't get it. Bush needed a tie, he certainly got that and probably even got a win on points.
UPDATE (3:30 PM; Oct. 01 2004): On reading the transcript of the debate, we picked up a Kerry line we missed while watching on our puny TV set with the crappy reception here. He is opposed to the US having 'bunker buster bombs' and would immediately cancel their development? That joined up with Kerry's remark about a 'global test' in order to defend America, should give the Bush campaign lots of ammo over the next few weeks. Once again, Kerry is opposed to America having modern weapon systems; once again, Kerry wants the rest of the world to have a veto on the US ability to defend itself. We must now revise our initial view of the debate; if the Bush campaign exploits these Kerryisms, then we agree with Hugh Hewitt that the debate could prove a disaster for Kerry."
"As we see it from the Far Abroad, Kerry was better on his style than he has been, but not too much better on substance; Bush was the reverse, not good on style (e.g., humming, slouching, smirking) but much better on the substance than his opponent and showed a good mastery of both detail and overall policy. Kerry needed a knock-out; he didn't get it. Bush needed a tie, he certainly got that and probably even got a win on points.
UPDATE (3:30 PM; Oct. 01 2004): On reading the transcript of the debate, we picked up a Kerry line we missed while watching on our puny TV set with the crappy reception here. He is opposed to the US having 'bunker buster bombs' and would immediately cancel their development? That joined up with Kerry's remark about a 'global test' in order to defend America, should give the Bush campaign lots of ammo over the next few weeks. Once again, Kerry is opposed to America having modern weapon systems; once again, Kerry wants the rest of the world to have a veto on the US ability to defend itself. We must now revise our initial view of the debate; if the Bush campaign exploits these Kerryisms, then we agree with Hugh Hewitt that the debate could prove a disaster for Kerry."
Tim Blair on the Debate
From Tim Blair:
"Are you watching the debate? If you eat enough psychotropic drugs -- at least a kilo or so -- you can almost pretend that John Kerry is winning!
'That's not a grand coalition.' -- Kerry's line on Australia, the US, and Great Britain (he managed to forget Poland, although Bush had reminded him of Poland's participation only seconds earlier). Not a grand coalition? Way to suck, Senator.
UPDATE. A martini-fuelled Stephen Green is covering this minutely. Why the hell does Kerry keep going on about global alliances and passing global tests? It just feeds directly into a Bush response about acting in America's best interests. Because, you know, he's the American president.
UPDATE II. Bush is beginning to pick apart some factual errors in Kerry's claims. Sometimes you get a hint of the temper Bush is noted for in private meetings, but which rarely surfaces publicly.
UPDATE III. We've just moved into the friendly phase of the debate: 'Your daughters are great', 'I respect the First Lady', 'that bridge Teresa lives under is really cool', etc.
UPDATE IV. When Bush refers to Putin as 'Vladimir', does it remind you of the scenes in Dr. Strangelove when Sellers, as the president, is talking to his pal Dmitri?
UPDATE V. Bush's closer was strong. Kerry recycled his convention speech.
UPDATE VI. 'Nice lipstick, Senator!'"
"Are you watching the debate? If you eat enough psychotropic drugs -- at least a kilo or so -- you can almost pretend that John Kerry is winning!
'That's not a grand coalition.' -- Kerry's line on Australia, the US, and Great Britain (he managed to forget Poland, although Bush had reminded him of Poland's participation only seconds earlier). Not a grand coalition? Way to suck, Senator.
UPDATE. A martini-fuelled Stephen Green is covering this minutely. Why the hell does Kerry keep going on about global alliances and passing global tests? It just feeds directly into a Bush response about acting in America's best interests. Because, you know, he's the American president.
UPDATE II. Bush is beginning to pick apart some factual errors in Kerry's claims. Sometimes you get a hint of the temper Bush is noted for in private meetings, but which rarely surfaces publicly.
UPDATE III. We've just moved into the friendly phase of the debate: 'Your daughters are great', 'I respect the First Lady', 'that bridge Teresa lives under is really cool', etc.
UPDATE IV. When Bush refers to Putin as 'Vladimir', does it remind you of the scenes in Dr. Strangelove when Sellers, as the president, is talking to his pal Dmitri?
UPDATE V. Bush's closer was strong. Kerry recycled his convention speech.
UPDATE VI. 'Nice lipstick, Senator!'"
Kerry Wins French Poll
From Reuters.com:
"PARIS (Reuters) - Nearly nine out of ten French people would back John Kerry if they could vote in the U.S. election, according to an opinion poll on Friday which showed deep distrust of President Bush since the Iraq war. The poll, published after Kerry and Bush battled over Iraq in a television debate, came as no surprise in the country which led opposition to the U.S.-led war and whose people were dubbed 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' by American Republicans. "
"PARIS (Reuters) - Nearly nine out of ten French people would back John Kerry if they could vote in the U.S. election, according to an opinion poll on Friday which showed deep distrust of President Bush since the Iraq war. The poll, published after Kerry and Bush battled over Iraq in a television debate, came as no surprise in the country which led opposition to the U.S.-led war and whose people were dubbed 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' by American Republicans. "
Jonathan Last on the Debate
From The Weekly Standard:
"I've got this fight scored dead-even: It's a draw, 9 rounds for Kerry to 9 rounds for Bush. Of course there are intangibles to consider. On the whole, Kerry was more relaxed and polished--and certainly calmer. He also managed to sneak in a fifth Vietnam reference during his closing remarks ('I defended this country as a young man in war.') Kerry was a grounded presence and his performance should give Democrats hope. Bush was, as someone once put it, more tart than sweet. At times the president faltered and you could see the wheels spinning as he flipped through his mental Rolodex, looking for the right card. Peevish is the word which kept coming to mind. He was, however, ruthlessly on-message. If Kerry really is being damaged by the sense that he's a flip-flopper who doesn't know his own mind--and the higher-ups on Team Bush insist that this is the key to beating him--then the president did exactly what he wanted to do. But if the central issue of this election is the September 10 party versus the September 12 party, then Bush may have let slip a fair opportunity."
"I've got this fight scored dead-even: It's a draw, 9 rounds for Kerry to 9 rounds for Bush. Of course there are intangibles to consider. On the whole, Kerry was more relaxed and polished--and certainly calmer. He also managed to sneak in a fifth Vietnam reference during his closing remarks ('I defended this country as a young man in war.') Kerry was a grounded presence and his performance should give Democrats hope. Bush was, as someone once put it, more tart than sweet. At times the president faltered and you could see the wheels spinning as he flipped through his mental Rolodex, looking for the right card. Peevish is the word which kept coming to mind. He was, however, ruthlessly on-message. If Kerry really is being damaged by the sense that he's a flip-flopper who doesn't know his own mind--and the higher-ups on Team Bush insist that this is the key to beating him--then the president did exactly what he wanted to do. But if the central issue of this election is the September 10 party versus the September 12 party, then Bush may have let slip a fair opportunity."
Andrew Sullivan on the Debate
Andrew Sullivan says Kerry seemed "bigger"--a Presidential Height Index effect? The quote:
"KERRY'S MANNER: It was, as I hoped, an enlightening debate. No, it didn't include any real logical breakthrough and on the issues, I found myself agreeing more with Bush than Kerry. But from the very beginning, Kerry achieved something important. In tone and bearing, he seemed calm, authoritative, and, yes, presidential. I watched the C-SPAN version on a split screen, and in that context, it was particularly striking. In stark contrast to the Bush-Gore debates, it was Bush who was grimacing, furrowing his brow, almost rolling his eyes and at the very beginning, looking snippy and peevish. He seemed defensive throughout and because his record was front and center - and Kerry's long record in the Senate almost unmentioned - he was actually on the defense. He seemed physically smaller and more mobile than Kerry - and more emotionally alive. Their voices were contrasts too. I can see now for the first time why Kerry has a good reputation as a debater. It wasn't, I think, because he debated well. In fact, he debated poorly. He failed time and again to go in for obvious kills, failed to do what he really should have done, which is skewer Bush's conduct of the war, not his decision to launch it in the first place. But his tone was strong, clear, unwavering. And in some ways, this was critical to undermining Bush's constant assertion that Kerry is weak, vague and inconstant. In fact, Kerry didn't have to prove logically that this was the case (which would be hard to do); he undermined it merely by his tone and manner. For many people, who have only heard of Kerry from Bush ads or sound-bites or from droning campaign speeches, it will be the first time that Kerry seems strong. In the simple, symbolic man-versus-man contrast, Kerry often seemed bigger. That strikes me as a big deal. "
"KERRY'S MANNER: It was, as I hoped, an enlightening debate. No, it didn't include any real logical breakthrough and on the issues, I found myself agreeing more with Bush than Kerry. But from the very beginning, Kerry achieved something important. In tone and bearing, he seemed calm, authoritative, and, yes, presidential. I watched the C-SPAN version on a split screen, and in that context, it was particularly striking. In stark contrast to the Bush-Gore debates, it was Bush who was grimacing, furrowing his brow, almost rolling his eyes and at the very beginning, looking snippy and peevish. He seemed defensive throughout and because his record was front and center - and Kerry's long record in the Senate almost unmentioned - he was actually on the defense. He seemed physically smaller and more mobile than Kerry - and more emotionally alive. Their voices were contrasts too. I can see now for the first time why Kerry has a good reputation as a debater. It wasn't, I think, because he debated well. In fact, he debated poorly. He failed time and again to go in for obvious kills, failed to do what he really should have done, which is skewer Bush's conduct of the war, not his decision to launch it in the first place. But his tone was strong, clear, unwavering. And in some ways, this was critical to undermining Bush's constant assertion that Kerry is weak, vague and inconstant. In fact, Kerry didn't have to prove logically that this was the case (which would be hard to do); he undermined it merely by his tone and manner. For many people, who have only heard of Kerry from Bush ads or sound-bites or from droning campaign speeches, it will be the first time that Kerry seems strong. In the simple, symbolic man-versus-man contrast, Kerry often seemed bigger. That strikes me as a big deal. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)