[lit-ideas] forward from a friend
- From: Eric Yost <NYCEric@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Lit-Ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:05:52 -0400
Carol's not the only on complaining. -EY
Re: Three hundred million people in this great Republic and we get these
two to vote for.
From: Steven Sargent <sbsargent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: Mike Matsumoto <matsumot@xxxxxxxxx>, stan@xxxxxxxxx,
goldberg@xxxxxxxxx, jey@xxxxxxxxx, cahaverl@xxxxxxxxx, lance@xxxxxxxxx,
khogan@xxxxxxxxx, amcdonal@xxxxxxxxx, scribe1865@xxxxxxx,
CC: pdh@xxxxxxxxxxx, emk@xxxxxxxx, rogers@xxxxxxxxxxx, phil@xxxxxxxxxxx,
mindyl@xxxxxxxxx, mxc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, aricr@xxxxxxxxxxx, eric@xxxxxxxxxxx,
The psychoanalysis of Mr Kerry herein seems overwrought
(you could explain the same facts with the simpler theory
"He ain't as smart as he thinks he is"), but the headline
thesis remains salient: how is it that the greatest nation
in the history of the world (or so I've heard) can only
come up with these two?
For me the W case is simple: if he were a CEO of a bidness,
to use a metaphor the Bush team was fond of early on, the
board would fire him. Between ineptitude and malfeasance,
he has squandered blood, treasure, and opportunity, and he's
done it with a song in his heart. Given his own bidness record,
the board (that's us) should fire him and maybe start a little
investigation into how badly he's screwed the investors with
insider trading.
John Kerry is more complicated. For all his JFK posturing,
the Democrat he reminds me most of is Jimmy Carter, and not
in a good way. He'd probably spend way too much time on
unimportant stuff, and way too much time on important stuff,
and still be unable to explain his thinking to himself or
others. He's also really bad at jiu-jitsu: never mind that
the Rove machine is impressively good, it's got a Dukakis-class
opponent. I'm still waiting for the Kerry commercial that
shows Bush filling his pants in a Florida schoolhouse
(FAHRENHEIT 9/11 footage, no doubt available for a modest fee)
and asks, This is your leadership? What else ya got?
For people who still need an affirmative reason to vote for
John Kerry: you may not get one. Maybe not before the election,
maybe not ever. But here's the deal. We're driving the
country off a cliff. We need to grab the wheel and turn it.
Turn the wheel. Vote W out. We can always impeach Kerry
later -- I'm sure the Republicans will be ready.
Three hundred million people in this great Republic and we get these two
to vote for. by Michael M. Thomas <mailto:mthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Three hundred million people in this great Republic and we get these two
to vote for.
<http://www.observer.com/pages/story_lookup.asp?story=The%20Midas%20Watch>
It is what the late political analyst James Durante would have called
"a revoltin' development!" What makes it doubly revolting-and
puzzling-is the Kerry campaign. Hardly a day goes by without some word
or pose by the Massachusetts Senator that causes people like me to ask,
"I don't like Bush, but can I really make myself vote for this assh--?"
I say this as someone who holds no brief whatsoever for the present
administration. The purpose of any war is to secure the victory, and
that has been achieved neither in Iraq nor, it now seems, in
Afghanistan-and in both theaters of pacification, albeit at different
rates, the situation may be approaching the point at which the effort
can no longer justify its cost in blood and treasure. On the domestic
front, it seems clear that a Kleptocratic regime is firmly in place
(that's with a capital K, as in K Street) determined to suck the trough
dry and deploy the Public Capital-including the power to tax, or not,
and the power to borrow and print money-almost exclusively to its own uses.
No wonder Lord Black saw no problem about making free with the assets
and revenue streams of his companies; if the White House can do it, why
not he? You might say His Lordship was in this respect delusional, but
then on-the-make Canadians tend to be: for additional proof, viz.
Graydon Carter's new book. That said, one wonders whether the thief one
knows mightn't be a better choice for the clear-eyed voter than the
idiot one doesn't. And "idiot" may not be too strong a word.
Notwithstanding the encomia heaped on Senator Kerry's Boston performance
by the likes of "Senior Analyst" Jeff Greenfield and little Howard
Fineman, that "reporting for duty" shtick was every bit as
cringe-inducing as Dukakis in the tank helmet, and the speech that
followed perfectly appalling.
And things have gone from clumsily bad to oafishly worse. Why? That is
the question-and in pondering it, I have come up with a theory that may
just be on the money and-if so-has very disturbing implications. My
theory is this: It may just be that, somewhere in his subconscious,
hidden possibly even from himself, John Kerry doesn't want to be
elected. That is why he has run the campaign he has, in the style he's
chosen: following solecism with what can only be called "photo
disopportunities," seeming to encourage staff disorganization, hiding
his No. 2, wasting his time and energy on marginal issues.
The key in all is ambition. Senator Kerry is ambitious to a fault. To a
fault, mind you, and therein may lie the rub. It could well be that,
like a rider on a runaway horse, hanging on for dear life and wishing
only for the nightmare to end, and knowing that somewhere up ahead
there's a river or an ocean or a cliff that will bring the rogue steed
to a halt, John Kerry has been carried by his ambition to a point that
he knows to be beyond his abilities and his character-and he fears to go
further. For a perhaps more effective metaphor, imagine a mountaineer
who is scaling a lofty and dangerous peak and who pauses, just before
the final run-up to the summit, looks back, is made suddenly aware of
the dangers he's surmounted, and imagines that only worse dangers still
lie ahead. He cannot make himself push on, but off to one side, he sees
an approaching cloud cover that will make further advance impossible and
provide the excuse-which he now desperately wants-to abandon the attempt
and blame it on the weather. All he need do is stay where he is, and
wait, and Nature will provide. And then don't forget this: John Kerry
grew up among the remnants of, and has openly craved to be a part of,
the old WASP value system in which losing gracefully-especially to a
rhetorically and culturally coarse or barbaric opponent-is considered to
be almost as good as winning. Indeed, depending on the rewards and
responsibilities forced on one by victory, losing may be preferable,
certainly to fighting dirty.
Certainly, something seems to be holding the man back. That something
may be lodged in the candidate's subconscious. If so, he will not be the
first egotistical, ambitious man to back off, to in effect choose
failure in preference to taking on the heavy responsibilities he has
suddenly glimpsed lurking behind the bright glitter that has bedazzled
him all these years. Certainly, all the excuses are in place. Indeed,
the Kerry campaign has to date been a more productive exercise in
excuse-positioning than a calculated, gloves-off fight for the highest
office in the land-and all that goes with that office. This may be what
the polls are telling us. Say what you want about this country, but the
American people's instincts are what they are, and one thing we don't
like is being played for a fool. We may be ruled by a posse of thugs and
thieves and grifters, but at least we know what they're up to. Can we
say the same-can we vote for-a man who, deep, deep down, possibly at a
level he himself does not grasp, may not really want-is scared of-the
office he is asking us to give him? I just don't know.
You may reach Michael M. Thomas via email at: mthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage6.asp#top> back to
<http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage6.asp#top> top
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
- Follow-Ups:
- [lit-ideas] Re: forward from a friend
- From: Ursula Stange
- [lit-ideas] Re: forward from a friend (2)
- From: Ursula Stange
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] forward from a friend
- » [lit-ideas] Re: forward from a friend
- » [lit-ideas] Re: forward from a friend
- » [lit-ideas] Re: forward from a friend
- » [lit-ideas] Re: forward from a friend
- » [lit-ideas] Re: forward from a friend
- [lit-ideas] Re: forward from a friend
- From: Ursula Stange
- [lit-ideas] Re: forward from a friend (2)
- From: Ursula Stange