Wilson, from what we’ve heard, may be mad at something one of Obama’s lawyers said about him or his case re Scooter. And this may be a motive for the malice. Obama probably has no idea about any of that – he has no time for this and he’d probably be pretty puzzled by the ingratitude because he references “Libby justice” in his stump speech.
Whatever – pretty pathetic that Wilson didn’t even get his facts correct. His use of that false rpg/bong statement is a big tip off. He also misused some words – trying to use big words – LOL
Joe Wilson, what can one really say? The narcissism, the self-referentialitus, the *neediness* of the whole thing? Simply appalling.
Although he does bring up inadvertently one good point — there will be alot of New America Foundation types newly energized with audacious hope. Whatever will the coffee shops of Dupont Circle do with their Diaspora should 08 be theirs? The world wonders.
“The telephone companies that were *alleged* to have helped their country after 9/11 *did* so because they are patriotic and they *certainly* helped us and they helped us save lives.”
~Dana Perino
On the irony of telco patriotism
“The telephone companies that were alleged to have helped their country after 9/11 did so because they are patriotic and they certainly helped us and they helped us save lives.”
~Dana Perino, 2-12-08
(irony unintended)
Someone just asked us why we comment about that schmuck and that is a fair question. It’s all a lot of hot air, no? But it was annoying because Wilson was always a stumbling block for people who wanted to honor his wife’s service and lament what was done.
Wilson should know that Barack speculating that he might have voted for authorization was an attempt to give ‘pro-war’ Democrats rhetorical cover last election. He was very clear that he was against the war based on all public evidence – He just allowed the theoretical possibility that he may have changed his mind if he was made aware of secret intelligence. He was being polite and giving pro war Dems a face-saving way out.
It’s perfectly expected for Bill and Hill to forget this history because they have their game face on and they are all too human. Like Conrad saying of Henry K, we are not surprised.
But Wilson has no excuse – He will not be Hillary’s Sec of State or anything. If he does serve Hillary, his enemies will treat him like Webb Hubell or the guy who put stuff in his socks.
If he is gonna attack Obama, he should stick to the facts instead of cribbing Freepers likes some sad sack self hating liberal
Just one more point – Wilson invokes TR. TR would probably support McCain, not Hillary. TR’s bellicosity was his animating force. His progressivism would put him closer to Obama.
It’s just fascinating that Wilson was allowed to put that out and all those HuffPo types just nod along and disagree with him without refuting all the garbage he passes along.
It’s sad what happened to his wife – We supported her, but Wilson reveals a weak mind the more he speaks.
Republicans could probably have a field day if they stopped lying about him and just examined his past looking for shoddy work
One bad sign for Obama is that no one corrected Wilson on the facts – Dems of a certain type (like Wilson) have a bad habit of embracing GOP ratf***** smears or repeating them or failing to deal with them. There is just so much weirdnes and wrongness in this one graph
—–
“But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being “disingenuous,” to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, “The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you.” Then McCain said, “Obama wouldn’t know the difference between an RPG and a bong.”
—–
1. Fight? Down boy.
2. It was not an exchange of letters
3. It was not face to face
4. It was not about ethics reform (it was about Iraq and flak jackets)
5. It was not McCain – At best, it was a McCain staffer speaking to Martin at Politico , who wasn then misquoted by Free Republic and then cited even more wrongly by Wilson/
6. Obama did not say that to McCain
7. Politico has problems in this area.
Tweety: I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.
Ok – just did a quick search on that Wilson-bong-quote (interesting that bong comments caught Joe Wilson’s otherwise slatten mind, eh?) Apparently is was something a McCain staffer said. A huge difference – clearly not a face to face encounter and it was revealing and sad that Wilson went to Free Republic to pick up a botched attribution. What’s up with that?
Just one more point – then we’ll drop this admittedly boring point. But Wilson’s column is just a strange example of why people want to turn the page, come what may. Wilson’s snobbery is unearned and his uncharitable comments don’t mesh well with vibe among Dem party faithful. There is tone of self-disdain in Wilson’s column because his insults would only resonate among Republicans who dislike him more than Obama. There’s just no way that Obama would makes that clunky comment to McCain and it’s unlikely that McCain responded in such a way – McCain sometimes insults, but not that way – RPGs and bongs? Gee – who thought that up?
” I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time — and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.”
There’s the rub – Obama was actually a more prominant anti war voice than Wilson. Obama addressed large crowds – He did not leak snark to Times op-ed writeres like Wilson. Did Wilson get in touch Obama back then?
Obama – say what you will – is a nice guy and he would never dump on Wilson the way Wilson dumps on him. Wilson is jealous. His moment has past.
“It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell’s arguments had he been in Washington at the time.”- Joe Wilson
Powell made no serious arguments – he just past along false information, but who the hell is Wilson to say this? Maybe Obama would have, maybe not – That’s all we know and that all Obama conceded. It’s unlikely that he would have supported the war – before it started, since he ran against it and his base was opposed to it and he was publicising the dissenting intelligence.
Nothing Wilson says makes sense – He says Obama’s “vapid” rhetoric (at least Obama can formulate meaningful sentences – something Wilson cannot do) will not survive the “winds of November” – But then he seems to suggest it will survive and then be attacked.
Like Matthews – Wilson seems to attach faux-erudite metaphors to his arguments, but they just seem like strange non sequitors.
OK = Doc, we will drop the topic. We know these are not your favorite subjects. LOL
“Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.” – Joe Wilson
Again, this incident sounds like it was mostlt invented by rat******s. But what kind of acid is Wilson munching these days? How could this be face-to-face if the ‘incident’ was supposedly an exchange of letters? Also, in the unlikely event that that such a bizarre exchange of letters occured as reported (most likely some weird cut and paste job), how could anyone stand their ground. WTF?
re McNamee and Clemons – sad but the Dickensian names propel the story.
Wilson should probably STFU or just have Sid B. ghostwrite his columns. Even the large community of audacity skeptics have little to rally around in his shrill off-tone attack on a well liked politician.
Take note of all the bad political tone – he elevates hearsay about Blix over the feelings of most Democrats about the war – He repeats prejudicial comments from a nasy Kenyan governement, but fails to note that Obama’s quiet efforts in Kenya were at State Dept. request.
That Joe Wilson article is interesting because that paragraph about McCain, RPGs, and bongs does not have the ring of truth – Then we see Wilson has a link to Free republic. We didn’t bother following the link, but it sure seems odd that Wilson would use that site as a reference for a suspiciuos sounding anecdote.
If we had to guess, that exchange between McCain and Obama sounds modified by someone – amateur ratf*****s – trying to manufacture an unhealthy cross fire between two hated politicians
“How does he get into Dunkin Donuts” – Tweety on Barack
That profile of Tweety in the Observer had a number of jackass quotes from him, but his comparison between Starbucks voters and Dunkin Donut voters was one of the more sublime in dumbness.
In many cases – depending on the city and/or locale, Dunkin Donuts is now hip – in many cases ‘cooler’ than Starbuck. Whatvever – These “anthropological” things are more than dumb.
But tonight as Tweety tries to elevate Starbuck V. Dunkin Donuts as a Dem rivalry to set up another bogus MSM narrative down the road.
But symbolizing the Tweety trainwreck, Tweety kept undermining his whole argument tonight (maybe his producers were having fun at his expense) as they showed Barack entering and leaving and hanging out at Dunkin Donuts in DC and Tweety showed now ironic awareness of this.
Then the camer goes to Hillary and she is drinking Starbucks drink – something Buchanan acknowledged doing too – Then to confirm the whole stupidity, Tucker comes on and tells Tweety that Starbucks is all for Barack.
This Dowdian-type of narrative is important for the small minds on that show.
But if Tweety knew anything outside his blinkered world, he would know that Crispy Creme, not Dunkin Donuts , is the prole Donut shop/
That Fitzgerald quote is used in a variety of ways and lots of people regard others use of it to invalid. But it really depends. Here’s a valid use of it, but one that Fitzgerald would probably disagree with (if we had to guess):
“Quite a few of these American males are suffering from what Sociologist Leon Bramson calls the “Charley Gray syndrome,” after the hero of John Marquand’s novel Point of No Return. Having finally won his bank vice-presidency, Gray finds it meaningless—and far worse, he has no alternatives. As Sociologist Bramson sees it: “We have made it virtually impossible for people to try different kinds of careers in middle life without extraordinary risks.” With depressing finality, Novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald declared: “There are no second acts in American lives.”
Scott may have been right in his time. But no more. Now a noteworthy and increasing number of Americans are beginning second acts with verve and purpose.”
~Time Magazine – March 8, 1968
——
It’s easy to imagine F. Scott saying, “that’s not really what I meant.” But since his quote was just a jotting in a journal, it’s a defensible use of it – Ironically, Tweety is a bit like a tragic John P. Marquand figuer himself – though he would probably wish to be in a O’Hara novel.
Anyway – Of the countless ways to use to quote – Tweety’s use of it as a non sequitor garnishment was the worst – Amazing this Bartlett’s dependent guy got so far in an area that he should be weak in. No doubt, he has virtues – But writing and speechmaking are not his virtues and teh fact that he succeeds in this field is due to cultural factors of decline.
Chris Matthews did the impossible last night – It’s almost impossible to mis-use the Scott Fitzgerald quote, “There are no second acts in American lives.” Almost impossible – because it’s debatable as to what he meant. It was a jotting – a brainstorm. Usually people use it to mean that Americans always start over fresh – Some lit types think it refers to a lack of dramatic arc or interiority in American lives,. It’s either tragic or hopeful – sometimes both.
Anyway – Tweety managed to misuse it – by tacking it on as a tacky garnisment to his otherwise generous and nice eulogy for Rep. Lantos. It made no sense in no way the context of Lantos when he referred to Lantos American life as the second act in his American life – So Tweety implied, but contrary to that implication, he also seemed to say that it vindicated Fitzgerald’s supposed truism, but that makes no sense since if Lantos was having a second act then that would be refuting Fitzgerald. But it made no sense anyway, since Lantos American life began after he left European concentration camps.
Anyway – this is a small complaint , but it was just an example of Tweety managing to botch a quote that no one else could botch.
“You don’t have to be a genius to know that they [China] are producing five times as many engineers and scientists as the Americans. … They are everywhere (in the world) today. Can you be everywhere while focused on Iraq?
In the Caribbean you have one Embassy in Barbados that serves six other tiny island countries. The Chinese have an embassy in each place. And that’s what you call your front yard.”
re: Jeopardy/Recipe for sadness – Interesting that Matthews choose Jeopardy – Comment’s pretty good at that trivia stuff, but we do not delude ourselves into thinking it matterds – Though we do think both Cooper and Blitzer could beat Matthews. Maybe Cooper would lose a few rounds.
But note that fact he chose a game that JPod is notoriously excellent at. Tweety has long set himself against the neocons – So much so that he blames out of power neocons for more of Bush’s policy than he blames Bush.
Now he extols a trivia game as the byword of intelligence, thus implicitly declaring himself inferior to JPod and all the others who would clean his clock (while lauging at him for his bogus lightweight anecdotes) in Jeopardy.
“For California [super tuesday results], Mr. Matthews was considering digging into his vault of personal memories. He had a killer firsthand story at his disposal about seeing Bill Clinton appear in Santa Monica, years earlier, in front of a crowd of Birkenstock-wearing baby boomers who had greeted Mr. Clinton like the Messiah. Should the opportunity arise, Mr. Matthews would use it. They still loved Bill out West.
One of Mr. Matthews’ main assets as a political anchor is his memory, which is prodigious. He has quick recall and the references spring eternal—from the particulars of Mrs. Doubtfire …
… CNN and Fox News have significantly topped MSNBC in the ratings. Even so, Mr. Matthews was not overly impressed by the political acumen of his competitors. He grinned at CNN’s 2008 tag line. “Best Political Team on Television.” Ridiculous, he thought. MSNBC and NBC were the real deal. He envisioned taking on and crushing Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer in a game of Jeopardy. They could do it for charity!”
“Which is not to say that Mr. Matthews doesn’t prepare. On Monday morning [before super tuesday], he spent an hour in the studio, practicing reading the big board of results. Too close to call. Too early to call. Projected winner. He wanted to make the important calls without relying on anybody talking into his ear. It was a mechanical process. But each incoming set of data would signal a direction, a pattern, an opportunity for a story.
Mr. Matthews made sure he had state-appropriate anecdotes lined up ahead of time. For Massachusetts, a Dunkin’ Donuts vs. Starbucks riff might work. For Connecticut, perhaps the fact that Jerry Brown won the state in ’92 based on—savvy voters!—his flat tax proposal. For the South, mental maps of African-American demographics in the old cotton states would come in handy.
For California, Mr. Matthews was considering digging into his vault of personal memories. ”
“Chris Matthews woke up on Super Tuesday at the Ritz Carlton on Central Park South. For breakfast, he tore into a bowl of Raisin Bran with skim milk, slurped down a cup of coffee (no cream, no sugar) and attacked a stack of newspapers. Moving from story to story, he scribbled notes directly onto the newsprint, circling important facts and figures and jotting down the occasional exclamation points. He particularly liked an article in the Daily News by Rich Cohen suggesting that Barack Obama should be president, and Hillary Clinton his chief of staff.
Mr. Matthews underlined the phrases ‘flag burning illegal,’ and ‘her vote was politically motivated.'”
~NY Observer, 2-5-08
Anon says
Wilson, from what we’ve heard, may be mad at something one of Obama’s lawyers said about him or his case re Scooter. And this may be a motive for the malice. Obama probably has no idea about any of that – he has no time for this and he’d probably be pretty puzzled by the ingratitude because he references “Libby justice” in his stump speech.
Whatever – pretty pathetic that Wilson didn’t even get his facts correct. His use of that false rpg/bong statement is a big tip off. He also misused some words – trying to use big words – LOL
Maybe it’s time for Joe to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kRwvdOZC9I
Dr Leo Strauss says
Joe Wilson, what can one really say? The narcissism, the self-referentialitus, the *neediness* of the whole thing? Simply appalling.
Although he does bring up inadvertently one good point — there will be alot of New America Foundation types newly energized with audacious hope. Whatever will the coffee shops of Dupont Circle do with their Diaspora should 08 be theirs? The world wonders.
A Random Quote says
“The telephone companies that were *alleged* to have helped their country after 9/11 *did* so because they are patriotic and they *certainly* helped us and they helped us save lives.”
~Dana Perino
On the irony of telco patriotism
A Random Quote says
“The telephone companies that were alleged to have helped their country after 9/11 did so because they are patriotic and they certainly helped us and they helped us save lives.”
~Dana Perino, 2-12-08
(irony unintended)
Comment says
Someone just asked us why we comment about that schmuck and that is a fair question. It’s all a lot of hot air, no? But it was annoying because Wilson was always a stumbling block for people who wanted to honor his wife’s service and lament what was done.
Wilson should know that Barack speculating that he might have voted for authorization was an attempt to give ‘pro-war’ Democrats rhetorical cover last election. He was very clear that he was against the war based on all public evidence – He just allowed the theoretical possibility that he may have changed his mind if he was made aware of secret intelligence. He was being polite and giving pro war Dems a face-saving way out.
It’s perfectly expected for Bill and Hill to forget this history because they have their game face on and they are all too human. Like Conrad saying of Henry K, we are not surprised.
But Wilson has no excuse – He will not be Hillary’s Sec of State or anything. If he does serve Hillary, his enemies will treat him like Webb Hubell or the guy who put stuff in his socks.
If he is gonna attack Obama, he should stick to the facts instead of cribbing Freepers likes some sad sack self hating liberal
Comment says
Just one more point – Wilson invokes TR. TR would probably support McCain, not Hillary. TR’s bellicosity was his animating force. His progressivism would put him closer to Obama.
It’s just fascinating that Wilson was allowed to put that out and all those HuffPo types just nod along and disagree with him without refuting all the garbage he passes along.
It’s sad what happened to his wife – We supported her, but Wilson reveals a weak mind the more he speaks.
Republicans could probably have a field day if they stopped lying about him and just examined his past looking for shoddy work
Comment says
One bad sign for Obama is that no one corrected Wilson on the facts – Dems of a certain type (like Wilson) have a bad habit of embracing GOP ratf***** smears or repeating them or failing to deal with them. There is just so much weirdnes and wrongness in this one graph
—–
“But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being “disingenuous,” to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, “The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you.” Then McCain said, “Obama wouldn’t know the difference between an RPG and a bong.”
—–
1. Fight? Down boy.
2. It was not an exchange of letters
3. It was not face to face
4. It was not about ethics reform (it was about Iraq and flak jackets)
5. It was not McCain – At best, it was a McCain staffer speaking to Martin at Politico , who wasn then misquoted by Free Republic and then cited even more wrongly by Wilson/
6. Obama did not say that to McCain
7. Politico has problems in this area.
Ok – This time we mean it – No more Wilson.
A Random Quote says
Tweety: I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.
Olberman: Uh … steady
2-12-08
Comment says
Ok – just did a quick search on that Wilson-bong-quote (interesting that bong comments caught Joe Wilson’s otherwise slatten mind, eh?) Apparently is was something a McCain staffer said. A huge difference – clearly not a face to face encounter and it was revealing and sad that Wilson went to Free Republic to pick up a botched attribution. What’s up with that?
Comment says
Just one more point – then we’ll drop this admittedly boring point. But Wilson’s column is just a strange example of why people want to turn the page, come what may. Wilson’s snobbery is unearned and his uncharitable comments don’t mesh well with vibe among Dem party faithful. There is tone of self-disdain in Wilson’s column because his insults would only resonate among Republicans who dislike him more than Obama. There’s just no way that Obama would makes that clunky comment to McCain and it’s unlikely that McCain responded in such a way – McCain sometimes insults, but not that way – RPGs and bongs? Gee – who thought that up?
” I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time — and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.”
There’s the rub – Obama was actually a more prominant anti war voice than Wilson. Obama addressed large crowds – He did not leak snark to Times op-ed writeres like Wilson. Did Wilson get in touch Obama back then?
Obama – say what you will – is a nice guy and he would never dump on Wilson the way Wilson dumps on him. Wilson is jealous. His moment has past.
Comment says
“It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell’s arguments had he been in Washington at the time.”- Joe Wilson
Powell made no serious arguments – he just past along false information, but who the hell is Wilson to say this? Maybe Obama would have, maybe not – That’s all we know and that all Obama conceded. It’s unlikely that he would have supported the war – before it started, since he ran against it and his base was opposed to it and he was publicising the dissenting intelligence.
Nothing Wilson says makes sense – He says Obama’s “vapid” rhetoric (at least Obama can formulate meaningful sentences – something Wilson cannot do) will not survive the “winds of November” – But then he seems to suggest it will survive and then be attacked.
Like Matthews – Wilson seems to attach faux-erudite metaphors to his arguments, but they just seem like strange non sequitors.
OK = Doc, we will drop the topic. We know these are not your favorite subjects. LOL
Comment says
“Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.” – Joe Wilson
Again, this incident sounds like it was mostlt invented by rat******s. But what kind of acid is Wilson munching these days? How could this be face-to-face if the ‘incident’ was supposedly an exchange of letters? Also, in the unlikely event that that such a bizarre exchange of letters occured as reported (most likely some weird cut and paste job), how could anyone stand their ground. WTF?
re McNamee and Clemons – sad but the Dickensian names propel the story.
Comment says
Wilson should probably STFU or just have Sid B. ghostwrite his columns. Even the large community of audacity skeptics have little to rally around in his shrill off-tone attack on a well liked politician.
Take note of all the bad political tone – he elevates hearsay about Blix over the feelings of most Democrats about the war – He repeats prejudicial comments from a nasy Kenyan governement, but fails to note that Obama’s quiet efforts in Kenya were at State Dept. request.
Wilson symbolizes weakness – It’s all about him.
Comment says
That Joe Wilson article is interesting because that paragraph about McCain, RPGs, and bongs does not have the ring of truth – Then we see Wilson has a link to Free republic. We didn’t bother following the link, but it sure seems odd that Wilson would use that site as a reference for a suspiciuos sounding anecdote.
If we had to guess, that exchange between McCain and Obama sounds modified by someone – amateur ratf*****s – trying to manufacture an unhealthy cross fire between two hated politicians
Anon says
Sage Joe Wilson’s begins new defense of HRC by stating the priority of the Democratic party should be to react to Republicans:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/battletested_b_86355.html
Anon says
MoDo outsourcing her anecdotes and her hate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Comment says
“How does he get into Dunkin Donuts” – Tweety on Barack
That profile of Tweety in the Observer had a number of jackass quotes from him, but his comparison between Starbucks voters and Dunkin Donut voters was one of the more sublime in dumbness.
In many cases – depending on the city and/or locale, Dunkin Donuts is now hip – in many cases ‘cooler’ than Starbuck. Whatvever – These “anthropological” things are more than dumb.
But tonight as Tweety tries to elevate Starbuck V. Dunkin Donuts as a Dem rivalry to set up another bogus MSM narrative down the road.
But symbolizing the Tweety trainwreck, Tweety kept undermining his whole argument tonight (maybe his producers were having fun at his expense) as they showed Barack entering and leaving and hanging out at Dunkin Donuts in DC and Tweety showed now ironic awareness of this.
Then the camer goes to Hillary and she is drinking Starbucks drink – something Buchanan acknowledged doing too – Then to confirm the whole stupidity, Tucker comes on and tells Tweety that Starbucks is all for Barack.
This Dowdian-type of narrative is important for the small minds on that show.
But if Tweety knew anything outside his blinkered world, he would know that Crispy Creme, not Dunkin Donuts , is the prole Donut shop/
Comment says
That Fitzgerald quote is used in a variety of ways and lots of people regard others use of it to invalid. But it really depends. Here’s a valid use of it, but one that Fitzgerald would probably disagree with (if we had to guess):
“Quite a few of these American males are suffering from what Sociologist Leon Bramson calls the “Charley Gray syndrome,” after the hero of John Marquand’s novel Point of No Return. Having finally won his bank vice-presidency, Gray finds it meaningless—and far worse, he has no alternatives. As Sociologist Bramson sees it: “We have made it virtually impossible for people to try different kinds of careers in middle life without extraordinary risks.” With depressing finality, Novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald declared: “There are no second acts in American lives.”
Scott may have been right in his time. But no more. Now a noteworthy and increasing number of Americans are beginning second acts with verve and purpose.”
~Time Magazine – March 8, 1968
——
It’s easy to imagine F. Scott saying, “that’s not really what I meant.” But since his quote was just a jotting in a journal, it’s a defensible use of it – Ironically, Tweety is a bit like a tragic John P. Marquand figuer himself – though he would probably wish to be in a O’Hara novel.
Anyway – Of the countless ways to use to quote – Tweety’s use of it as a non sequitor garnishment was the worst – Amazing this Bartlett’s dependent guy got so far in an area that he should be weak in. No doubt, he has virtues – But writing and speechmaking are not his virtues and teh fact that he succeeds in this field is due to cultural factors of decline.
Comment says
Chris Matthews did the impossible last night – It’s almost impossible to mis-use the Scott Fitzgerald quote, “There are no second acts in American lives.” Almost impossible – because it’s debatable as to what he meant. It was a jotting – a brainstorm. Usually people use it to mean that Americans always start over fresh – Some lit types think it refers to a lack of dramatic arc or interiority in American lives,. It’s either tragic or hopeful – sometimes both.
Anyway – Tweety managed to misuse it – by tacking it on as a tacky garnisment to his otherwise generous and nice eulogy for Rep. Lantos. It made no sense in no way the context of Lantos when he referred to Lantos American life as the second act in his American life – So Tweety implied, but contrary to that implication, he also seemed to say that it vindicated Fitzgerald’s supposed truism, but that makes no sense since if Lantos was having a second act then that would be refuting Fitzgerald. But it made no sense anyway, since Lantos American life began after he left European concentration camps.
Anyway – this is a small complaint , but it was just an example of Tweety managing to botch a quote that no one else could botch.
A Random Quote says
“It’s not easy to rally a comfortable and commercial people to assume the responsibilities of a great power.”
~Bill Kristol
NY Times
A Random Quote says
“You don’t have to be a genius to know that they [China] are producing five times as many engineers and scientists as the Americans. … They are everywhere (in the world) today. Can you be everywhere while focused on Iraq?
In the Caribbean you have one Embassy in Barbados that serves six other tiny island countries. The Chinese have an embassy in each place. And that’s what you call your front yard.”
~Lee Kuan Yew
Int w/ Arnaud de Borchgrave
Anon says
Pretty funny – Could have been better executed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
Comment says
re: Jeopardy/Recipe for sadness – Interesting that Matthews choose Jeopardy – Comment’s pretty good at that trivia stuff, but we do not delude ourselves into thinking it matterds – Though we do think both Cooper and Blitzer could beat Matthews. Maybe Cooper would lose a few rounds.
But note that fact he chose a game that JPod is notoriously excellent at. Tweety has long set himself against the neocons – So much so that he blames out of power neocons for more of Bush’s policy than he blames Bush.
Now he extols a trivia game as the byword of intelligence, thus implicitly declaring himself inferior to JPod and all the others who would clean his clock (while lauging at him for his bogus lightweight anecdotes) in Jeopardy.
A Random Quote says
“For California [super tuesday results], Mr. Matthews was considering digging into his vault of personal memories. He had a killer firsthand story at his disposal about seeing Bill Clinton appear in Santa Monica, years earlier, in front of a crowd of Birkenstock-wearing baby boomers who had greeted Mr. Clinton like the Messiah. Should the opportunity arise, Mr. Matthews would use it. They still loved Bill out West.
One of Mr. Matthews’ main assets as a political anchor is his memory, which is prodigious. He has quick recall and the references spring eternal—from the particulars of Mrs. Doubtfire …
… CNN and Fox News have significantly topped MSNBC in the ratings. Even so, Mr. Matthews was not overly impressed by the political acumen of his competitors. He grinned at CNN’s 2008 tag line. “Best Political Team on Television.” Ridiculous, he thought. MSNBC and NBC were the real deal. He envisioned taking on and crushing Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer in a game of Jeopardy. They could do it for charity!”
NY Observer, 2-5-08
A Random Quote says
“Which is not to say that Mr. Matthews doesn’t prepare. On Monday morning [before super tuesday], he spent an hour in the studio, practicing reading the big board of results. Too close to call. Too early to call. Projected winner. He wanted to make the important calls without relying on anybody talking into his ear. It was a mechanical process. But each incoming set of data would signal a direction, a pattern, an opportunity for a story.
Mr. Matthews made sure he had state-appropriate anecdotes lined up ahead of time. For Massachusetts, a Dunkin’ Donuts vs. Starbucks riff might work. For Connecticut, perhaps the fact that Jerry Brown won the state in ’92 based on—savvy voters!—his flat tax proposal. For the South, mental maps of African-American demographics in the old cotton states would come in handy.
For California, Mr. Matthews was considering digging into his vault of personal memories. ”
~NY Observer, 2-5-08
A Random Quote says
“Chris Matthews woke up on Super Tuesday at the Ritz Carlton on Central Park South. For breakfast, he tore into a bowl of Raisin Bran with skim milk, slurped down a cup of coffee (no cream, no sugar) and attacked a stack of newspapers. Moving from story to story, he scribbled notes directly onto the newsprint, circling important facts and figures and jotting down the occasional exclamation points. He particularly liked an article in the Daily News by Rich Cohen suggesting that Barack Obama should be president, and Hillary Clinton his chief of staff.
Mr. Matthews underlined the phrases ‘flag burning illegal,’ and ‘her vote was politically motivated.'”
~NY Observer, 2-5-08