Skip to main content

The Day After





Such an election night. Felt more like a presidential race. I truly loved the notion that all the media outlets had to do their work the old-fashioned way. That is, analysis had to wait until they got actual vote counts, rather than exit polls. One hopes that last night will set an example for elections to come, but somehow I doubt it. Especially seeing those collapsed, sad, sorry faces on CNN, shocked (shocked, I say) at the notion that Republicans had succeeded so well.



No doubt that includes Jonathan Alter at msnbc.com, who wrote on October 30, 2002:



Even (or perhaps especially) with Republican mourners in attendance, the political message was clear: President Bush may be popular. He may have run out the clock with Iraq talk. The economy might not be cutting for Democrats as much as they hoped. But Democrats are going to bottle that Wellstone passion on Election Day. The strange thing is, it just might work for them -- and not just in Minnesota, where Walter Mondale will likely waltz into the Senate.
Well, oops for him.



And oops again, in this Tuesday blog entry:



Long story short: Just what everybody says. Republicans surge, but it doesn’t matter so much in the close races. Democrats retain the Senate by two, Republicans, the House. Dems clinch the governorships, and a bunch of conservative Southern Democrats go down, which may be a good thing, in terms of repealing that lunatic tax cut, since Daschle and company can stop worrying about those turncoats everytime someone in the party has a decent idea.
He also mentions with horror that Rush Limbaugh was going to be an analyst for NBC last night...



And congrats to the folks at CNBC for the balance, perspicacity and intellectual openness to invite the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal to be their regular political analysts. I guess the problem here is that Generalissimo Francisco Franco really is dead, and CNBC wanted the Next Best Thing.
Guess he missed ABC having Cokie Roberts and George Stephanopoulos as their only commentators, obviously their rendition of "fair and balanced."



And then there's this fair and balanced fellow:



It's like I said, I feel bad for my party, I feel bad for my friends, but if I'd been running one of these campaigns, if I'd invested a year of my life in running one of these campaigns, I'd be near suicidal right now. Instead, I'm just vaguely depressed.
"Vaguely depressed" my ass. He looked knocked out last night on TV. Poor fellow.



And more whining. Paul Begala, "Democratic analyst," says:



Take what happened in Georgia as an example. Max Cleland is an incumbent senator, I think he did do a good job in a tough state, and he ran a good campaign, and Saxby Chambliss, a Republican congressman, came in and beat him. Why? I think Max went along with Bush on the tax cut, he went along with Bush on the war with Iraq, and Bush came in here and beat his ass.



There should be a lesson there: If you vote with Bush and you're a Democrat, he's going to come into your state and beat your ass anyway.
They've been saying the same thing about Carnahan. Too bad for them. What, so Bush was supposed to come in and campaign for the Democrats? Are these people insane?



Well, yes, but that's another issue.



But the excuses just keep on coming, with Gebby whining:



"What you've got to look at is the incredible amount of special interest money that was on their side," said Mr. Gephardt, the House minority leader. "There were races where we were outspent 4 to 1, 5 to 1, the pharmaceutical companies probably spent $60 million across the country."
Lovely dodge word, "probably." Of course, Gray Davis spent more than that just fighting off the re-election challenge of an idiot. Isn't that called, "Buying the election"? Oh, sorry, that's only if it's a Republican....



It's all too funny. I would laugh except that I'm stuck with Grayout Davis as governor for another four years. I remain optimistic, however, that one day his "campaigning" will catch up with him and those happy young men and women with handcuffs will come a-knockin' at his office door. One can but hope....

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more