As if you didn't know what I was going to post about this morning. As if.
I'm watching the CNN re-run of the Republican Debates. Please, can we have more old white conservative tight-asses in dark suits? Please? Oh, please? Gah, I don't think I've got enough Pepto-Bismol in the house.
A couple of observations:
1) I'm sure the whole "let's have Joe Average ask the candidates questions via teh Utoobs" sounded like a good idea to the CNN producers, at the time. Here's the problem, Joe Average is a baboon-assed moron. Joe Average is doesn't care about the NeoCon agenda, he just wants to get his You-Tube clip on TV. Is it just me? Or did this format remind anybody else of Let's Make A Deal? Instead of Anderson Cooper, they should have got Monty Hall to be the moderator - then it at least would have been entertaining.
2) I'm sure the whole "let's have good Conservative Christian Americans from the Heartland ask us Good Christian (and Mormon) Candidates questions via that technology intertooby thing the kids are using" sounded like a good idea to the old white conservative tight-asses in dark suits, at the time. You can almost see the planning meeting:
McCain: "Hey, that liberal alarmist, gay loving, spawn of Satan Al Gore might have invented the Internet while I was off fighting the WAR, but by Gawd he doesn't own it! Let's do it!"
Romney: "First I was for it, but now I'm against it! Wait, no, now I'm for it!"
Giuliani: "What's this UBoob thing they're talking about? If there's going to be boobs, I'm in!"
Huckabee: "Jerry Falwell Jr. said God is on our side! And God likes boobs, I like boobs too, just saying."
Thompson: "Can we bring our guns? Reagan would have brought a gun. And I like boobs too. Guns and boobs, I'm in."
Hunter: "Boobs, they got those on computers now?"
Paul: "I think..."
Everybody: "Shut UP, Ron, you boob, nobody gives a crap what you think!"
3) Could they have invoked the shambling zombie of Ronald Reagan any more? Look I liked Reagan, sort of. I worked for him, sort of. I shook his hand once. As president, he was damned good to those of us in the military. He made us proud of ourselves again. He was a hell of a personable guy, even his mortal enemies liked him as a person. His final years were tragic, I wouldn't wish Alzheimer's on anybody (OK, maybe Anne Coulter, but that's where I draw the line). So, I liked Reagan, even if I didn't, and don't, agree with all of his views. But for the love of all that is holy, can we just bury the guy now? What we need here is the equivalent of Godwin's Law - Let's call it the Stonekettle Rule of Reagan Comparisons: As the course of a Republican debate grows longer, the probability of a Reagan comparison approaches 100%. And while we're at it, I hereby declare Wright's Law of Reagan Comparisons: If, during the course of a debate, any candidate invokes the name of Ronald Reagan, they automatically lose the debate. Immediately. Ideally, at this point, the candidate should be escorted from the stage and dumped in the alley behind the building. This also applies if any candidate uses the term Legacy with the obvious implication that it's Reagan's legacy they are referring to. Enough already.
4) The candidates:
- Thompson: Could you tell he used to be a professional actor? It was like watching Don Rickles do his Ronald Reagan impression, entertaining yes, but more than a little creepy. If the others invoked the name of Reagan, Fred was channeling Reagan. If this guy gets elected, you can expect another four years of the President holding his palsied withered claw to his ear as reporters shout questions, then a big smile and wave as he boards Marine One and flies away without answering. You can probably expect jelly beans too.
- McCain: Oh look, John's against waterboarding - this week. McCain really missed his calling - he should have been a professional dancer, then he could have gotten paid for tap dancing.
- Ron Paul: If Thompson was channeling the ghost of Ronald Reagan, Paul has the bony hand of Ross Perot jammed to the elbow up his ass. He even has Perot's angry whine down pat.
- Huckabee: As nearly as I can understand his position, Huckleberry Finn here wants to keep the kids of illegal immigrants and throw away their parents. Hmmm, yeah, OK. And Jesus jokes? Come on, Huck, you don't joke about what Jesus would do, not in that crowd.
- Romney and Giuliani: Well at least their little spat over who gave sanctuary to more illegal aliens was entertaining - for about five seconds. Next time they should mud wrestle. Of course Romney would never go for that - it might muss up his perfect hair. And Rudy, well, he'd do it, if he could make it a 911 Memorial Mud Wrestling match - for the children you understand.
5) and finally, General Kerr: The guy is mad as a hatter, but you've got to admire anybody who would stand up and make a pitch for gays and lesbians in that forum. The guy doesn't lack for guts, I'll say that - but, seriously, did you see the horrified faces of the crowd behind him? Aghast, I believe is the correct word. As in Uh Uh Uh! Who let a FAGGOT in here! It's General Queer! And he's a member of (gasp!) Hillary 'the anti-Christ' Clinton's group. Ah! Ah! He's getting teh gayness all over us! Help us, Jesus, why have you forsaken us! I nearly pissed myself laughing.
Seriously though, if you thought all the nuts were on YouTube or at the debate last night, you ain't seen nothing yet. If you really want to see raving batshit unhinged lunacy go read some of these posts. See how much you can take. Knowing you guys, I'll bet it isn't much.
Anyway, I've got some writing to do. Expect a post here about the direction Deep Thunder will be taking, and some Deep Thunder posts later today. Probably this evening. I've got to spend time out in the shop this morning - I have two commissioned pieces I have to complete this week, so I need to put steel to wood and get them done.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Comments on this blog are moderated. Each will be reviewed before being allowed to post. This may take a while. I don't allow personal attacks, trolling, or obnoxious stupidity. If you post anonymously and hide behind an IP blocker, I'm a lot more likely to consider you a troll. Be sure to read the commenting rules before you start typing. Really.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Okay, I lasted less than 5 minutes perusing those "posts" you linked. Then I had to go and wash my brain out with lye.ReplyDelete
Good thing I have I have an Andrew Bird NPR Podcast to distract me from politics, because the alternative is becoming a crazed hermit who lives on conspiracy theories. Hmph.
Heh! Heh! Better start buy lye in the gallon jug, Janiece.ReplyDelete
See, those posts are exactly why I hate those "The Internet for the COMPLETE Idiot" books - there's far, far too many raving idiots on the internet already.
urgle. I love the idea that invoking Reagan makes one automatically lose. It's like when an earlier group of Dems kept invoking Kennedy. Blech.ReplyDelete
Tania, I was saving Wright's Law of Kennedy Comparisons for the next democratic debate.ReplyDelete
Where've you been lately?
Wah, Wah, Wah. Jim's upset over the GOP candidates. Well, you've only got yourself to blame for watching them. You should follow my example. While you were wasting your time watching the debate, I was on the intertoobs...looking at guns and boobs.ReplyDelete
Much more satisfying.
Nathan, try to keep up. The republican debate had more boobs than the best porn site (or is that the worst porn site?)ReplyDelete
There one advantage to watching the debate on CNN though, Linda Stouffer. Just saying.
As the course of a Republican debate grows longer, the probability of a Reagan comparison approaches zero.ReplyDelete
*cough* one *cough*
I saw the first set of Dem Youtube debates and my comment to that probably applies just as equally now... I find televised political "debates" to be meaningless exchanges of talking points. How am I supposed to have any understanding of any given candidate's real positions when they can only talk for 30 seconds to a minute?
But wait, now we have Youtube! This means that real people can make videos of themselves asking the questions that most matter to them - and the candidates can make videos in reply that last for as long as it takes to explain everything in detail.
Some of them already are. There are candidates who have Youtube accounts, and they go around making replies to people's questions, and it's a real dialogue. But CNN hasn't caught on to the real potential of Youtube yet. They still screen the questions for the ones they want to have asked, and (at least during the one Dem debate I looked through) they limit the response time of the candidates, and also choose which candidates respond to which questions.
I suspect that CNN isn't going to catch on, because to have true dialogue in these debates, we would just eliminate the middleman entirely. But they're still useful where they are at the moment, because they introduce the basic concept to people who aren't tech-savvy, through their TVs.
It'll be interesting to see how the nature of political discussion changes with new mediums in the next decade. Meanwhile, I like the hour-long interviews that GoogleTalks has been doing with their Candidates@Google series.
*cough* one *cough*ReplyDelete
Don't start with me, MWT Damn scientists. It's my law, I can make the numbers be anything I want.
Seriously, I agree with your observations regarding politics and the changing media environment. I suspect that once a more tech savvy generation of candidates comes along - say 2012 or the one after that - people will wonder how anybody from our stone-aged time elected a president that wasn't one of their myspace friends.