gwendolyngrace (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
gwendolyngrace) wrote2005-07-13 08:50 am
gwendolyngrace) wrote2005-07-13 08:50 am
Entry tags:
Good editorial
Sarah Vowell's OpEd in the NY Times today really hit the nail on the head:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/opinion/13vowell.html?th&emc=th
(registration required, but free).
Highlights: A couple of weeks ago, on this very page of this here newspaper, Senator John Kerry wrote an Op-Ed article imagining "The Speech the President Should Give," about that night's televised presidential address on the war in Iraq. Of course, Kerry had about as much chance of George W. Bush's following his advice as the producers of "MTV Cribs" have of getting the president's mother to show them around Kennebunkport.
Still, Kerry stunned me, not because his ideas were sane, but because he was actually able to fantasize that President Bush would give a speech offering just and concrete solutions for that black hole. Because I don't even remember being able to dream that big.
The only possible presidential speech fantasy in my wildest of daydreams, my oratorical castle in the air, is that one day, for just one measly speech, the president - the man of "mission accomplished," the man who was once asked at a press conference to discuss one of his mistakes and couldn't think of any, the man who is surely the sunniest looker-on-the-bright-side east of Drew Barrymore - would sit behind his Oval Office desk, stare into a TV camera and say: "My fellow Americans, good evening. As if that's possible."
....
The speech goes on for hours, pre-empting Conan. There are long tangents about mercury levels, under-armored military vehicles and war profiteering. Finally, losing his voice, he hoarsely ends his diatribe in the middle of the night, whispering "sweet dreams" while putting air quotes around the word "sweet."
Then I realized I was picturing George W. Bush giving this presidential bummer speech while wearing a cardigan sweater. Which is when it hit me. I was fantasizing about Jimmy Carter. I can stop whiling away the hours writing forlorn presidential speeches in my head and look up Carter's forlorn presidential speeches instead.
....
These days, there's just something refreshing about reading through Carter's clear-eyed political suicide. Daydreamer though I am, I have never expected a president to solve our chaos. It's just nice to know that once, one of them acknowledged it.
Brilliant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/opinion/13vowell.html?th&emc=th
(registration required, but free).
Highlights: A couple of weeks ago, on this very page of this here newspaper, Senator John Kerry wrote an Op-Ed article imagining "The Speech the President Should Give," about that night's televised presidential address on the war in Iraq. Of course, Kerry had about as much chance of George W. Bush's following his advice as the producers of "MTV Cribs" have of getting the president's mother to show them around Kennebunkport.
Still, Kerry stunned me, not because his ideas were sane, but because he was actually able to fantasize that President Bush would give a speech offering just and concrete solutions for that black hole. Because I don't even remember being able to dream that big.
The only possible presidential speech fantasy in my wildest of daydreams, my oratorical castle in the air, is that one day, for just one measly speech, the president - the man of "mission accomplished," the man who was once asked at a press conference to discuss one of his mistakes and couldn't think of any, the man who is surely the sunniest looker-on-the-bright-side east of Drew Barrymore - would sit behind his Oval Office desk, stare into a TV camera and say: "My fellow Americans, good evening. As if that's possible."
....
The speech goes on for hours, pre-empting Conan. There are long tangents about mercury levels, under-armored military vehicles and war profiteering. Finally, losing his voice, he hoarsely ends his diatribe in the middle of the night, whispering "sweet dreams" while putting air quotes around the word "sweet."
Then I realized I was picturing George W. Bush giving this presidential bummer speech while wearing a cardigan sweater. Which is when it hit me. I was fantasizing about Jimmy Carter. I can stop whiling away the hours writing forlorn presidential speeches in my head and look up Carter's forlorn presidential speeches instead.
....
These days, there's just something refreshing about reading through Carter's clear-eyed political suicide. Daydreamer though I am, I have never expected a president to solve our chaos. It's just nice to know that once, one of them acknowledged it.
Brilliant.
no subject
Can't really blame Bush completely for his chipper commentary in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The American public 'can't handle the truth'. :) We think we want it, but everytime a politician actually gives it to us, (re: Mondale saying he was going to raise taxes, Reagan saying he wouldn't then doing it after he won re-election in a landslide) we turn on them.
You have to examine the whole man: His alcoholism, his being a born again Christian, his roots and his living in Texas for so many years. Alot of people think GWB is a strong Conservative with strong values and a decisive leader. I see him more as pragmatic, as a political animal, and a man that uses hot button issues to divide the Country for political gain. Not the first to do this, but that we believe him is what is embarassing...
Who knew that we could put someone in the White House that would be more devisive than Clinton...who's next? Rush Limbaugh? Michael Moore? Bring it on!!! :)
no subject
As for Americans handling the truth, you're making too broad a statement. It's true that America is the mob, and mob mentality is, well, stupid. But in the case of Reagan, look at how he was eulogized. They may have grumbled at the time, but they liked him enough to elect his Vice President (and see what that legacy has wrought!). The trouble with Reagan is that they *didn't* turn on him, not nearly enough.
The real problem is that America is full of a bunch of drama queens who want their leaders to be as charasmatic as their superstars. And considering what we have for up-and-coming superstars these days, that's possibly an even more frightening thought than whether there would ever be a politician ballsy enough to simply tell the truth.
no subject
Yes, but I don't understand something (or alot of somethings). There is a Union that wants its members to think beyond the Democrats to all politicians that support their priorities. What about the Christian Right? Do they really think they'll eventually turn back the clock to the 1950's? What has the GOP done for them? They promise an awful lot, but every election they put another moron up there claiming they will get rid of this or put this back into the schools and they get...nada... Maybe the media-driven idea that the Christian Right is such a formidable force is just that... It's driven by both sides to collect campaign cash. "You should be afraid of them. They want God out of your life. Send us cash." "No, you should be afraid of them. They want to turn schools into Christian training grounds for the Crusades of the 21st Century! Send us cash...now!"
And I take offense at that. I am not a Drama Queen...I'm a Drama Princess thank you. ;)
no subject