Too Sexy
President William Howard TaftI'm too sexy for my shirt too sexy for my shirt
So sexy it hurts
And I'm too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan
New York and Japan
--I'm Too Sexy, Right Said Fred
So sexy it hurts
And I'm too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan
New York and Japan
--I'm Too Sexy, Right Said Fred
___________
Just musing here upon Ashcroft and the Night Visitors--Jim Comey's damning recent Senate testimony on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's uber-unctious 2004 ''bedside ambush'' of a hospital-ridden Ashcroft, in which he attempted to railroad the ill then-Attorney General into okaying illegal eavesdropping plans.
When WaPo writer Milbank stated ''Gonzales preyed on the infirm,'' I realized how swept up in this crazy GWB administration mindset I had become, for my mind first perceived what was written as, ''Gonzales prayed on the infirm,'' like some kind of latter-day Jerry Falwell.
Still a frightening prospect from your Attorney General, but that I read prey as pray is telling of how the propaganda machine has infiltrated and commandeered our expectations.
Where do we find these people that are leading America? Are we so morally bankrupt as a society that this is the best we can do? What does this bode for our future as a nation? I wonder, what is the critical mass of avarice, corruption, vanity and shallowness a society can bear before it implodes?
The selection and election process is not mindful of the needs of the average taxpaying American. Ranger knows that something is seriously wrong when Mitt Romney fronts a major news magazine cover which touts, ''He Looks Presidential.''
Think about it. Did General Grant look like a general? Would Grover Cleveland have had a chance in today's world of pretty boy politics? Surely FDR in his wheelchair would never have passed the virility test, which demands clearing brush off the ranch.
John Kerry lost his pretty boy chance in his tight, frou-frou lycra biking shorts. Too pretty boy. Yes, he has a Silver Star, but that signifies real-world action; the proof is, he looks like a pansy, and in the metrics of electability, he fails.
Electability is such a precarious quality. The candidate must seem like us, which means he must dissemble (as Bush taught us) to begin with. Pugilistically patriotic, in insecure and xenophobic times. In our newly pious times, the wife (and he must have a wife) must not be too threatening, possessing just enough stand-by-her-man -ishness.
Yet she must strike the balance, too. She must be seen as trying to do something, like advocate for children's literacy, for instance. Something close to the hearth, and cute. We can indulge her aspirations in that arena. Something motherly, or teacherly, or librarian.
Laura Bush strikes it, and Al Gore's wife, too, with her worries over naughty song lyrics. Lady Bird did with her wildflower prettification projects. Hillary did and does not, though it remains to be seen whether Bill will. Jackie Kennedy would be too French for our current times. Refinement is outre.
Appearances have trumped reality, image trumps essence, but maybe this is not new. Reminds me of my Texan grandma, who loved James Garner and Dean Martin (I'm certain it was only because she had lived with my Air Force grandfather while he was stationed in Italy, she could brook Martin) --the hale, well-met fellows with swagger, and feet of clay.
She always said what a ''good looking man'' Reagan was before his election, with nary a word on his politics. That did not much matter. He looked presidential. Tough, but with an aw-shucks demeanor. You could see the boy beneath the man (but not in a Mark Foley way, you see.)
In the way that Romney looks like Ted Danson, who looks like he could play a president; in the way that Danny DeVito looks like he could not.
What is the value of democracy and free elections if there are no clear differences between the candidates? If it is a beauty contest, where $400 haircuts happen, but they must not seem to be $400 haircuts. And if that is what we want, that is what we will get. The blame gets shared all the way 'round for this failure.
In U.S. elections, the choices benefit the corporations and not the taxpaying electorate. Why can't we see that, and demand better?
--Jim and Lisa
When WaPo writer Milbank stated ''Gonzales preyed on the infirm,'' I realized how swept up in this crazy GWB administration mindset I had become, for my mind first perceived what was written as, ''Gonzales prayed on the infirm,'' like some kind of latter-day Jerry Falwell.
Still a frightening prospect from your Attorney General, but that I read prey as pray is telling of how the propaganda machine has infiltrated and commandeered our expectations.
Where do we find these people that are leading America? Are we so morally bankrupt as a society that this is the best we can do? What does this bode for our future as a nation? I wonder, what is the critical mass of avarice, corruption, vanity and shallowness a society can bear before it implodes?
The selection and election process is not mindful of the needs of the average taxpaying American. Ranger knows that something is seriously wrong when Mitt Romney fronts a major news magazine cover which touts, ''He Looks Presidential.''
Think about it. Did General Grant look like a general? Would Grover Cleveland have had a chance in today's world of pretty boy politics? Surely FDR in his wheelchair would never have passed the virility test, which demands clearing brush off the ranch.
John Kerry lost his pretty boy chance in his tight, frou-frou lycra biking shorts. Too pretty boy. Yes, he has a Silver Star, but that signifies real-world action; the proof is, he looks like a pansy, and in the metrics of electability, he fails.
Electability is such a precarious quality. The candidate must seem like us, which means he must dissemble (as Bush taught us) to begin with. Pugilistically patriotic, in insecure and xenophobic times. In our newly pious times, the wife (and he must have a wife) must not be too threatening, possessing just enough stand-by-her-man -ishness.
Yet she must strike the balance, too. She must be seen as trying to do something, like advocate for children's literacy, for instance. Something close to the hearth, and cute. We can indulge her aspirations in that arena. Something motherly, or teacherly, or librarian.
Laura Bush strikes it, and Al Gore's wife, too, with her worries over naughty song lyrics. Lady Bird did with her wildflower prettification projects. Hillary did and does not, though it remains to be seen whether Bill will. Jackie Kennedy would be too French for our current times. Refinement is outre.
Appearances have trumped reality, image trumps essence, but maybe this is not new. Reminds me of my Texan grandma, who loved James Garner and Dean Martin (I'm certain it was only because she had lived with my Air Force grandfather while he was stationed in Italy, she could brook Martin) --the hale, well-met fellows with swagger, and feet of clay.
She always said what a ''good looking man'' Reagan was before his election, with nary a word on his politics. That did not much matter. He looked presidential. Tough, but with an aw-shucks demeanor. You could see the boy beneath the man (but not in a Mark Foley way, you see.)
In the way that Romney looks like Ted Danson, who looks like he could play a president; in the way that Danny DeVito looks like he could not.
What is the value of democracy and free elections if there are no clear differences between the candidates? If it is a beauty contest, where $400 haircuts happen, but they must not seem to be $400 haircuts. And if that is what we want, that is what we will get. The blame gets shared all the way 'round for this failure.
In U.S. elections, the choices benefit the corporations and not the taxpaying electorate. Why can't we see that, and demand better?
--Jim and Lisa
Labels: ashcroft and the night visitors, jim comey vs. alberto gonzales
posted by rangeragainstwar at 9:29 PM
6 Comments:
Yeah ... I can't take it anymore:
I heard this the other week from some mid-level political pundit ...
"... Mitt Romney ... straight out of 'central casting' ... tall ... thick black hair ... just enough grey around the temples ... and a nice booming voice ..."
And this is from a guy.
My first impression of the pundit was "This pundit is gay ... Mitt Romney turns him on ..."
And as Seinfeld would say ... "not that there's anything wrong with that ..."
My point is, as a "consumer" of this pundit's political analysis ... he owes me more than "Whoa ... This Romney guy turns me on !!! ..." as political analysis. Regardless of whether or not he is out of the closet gay or just posing as a heterosexual.
I heard there is an article in Vanity Fair re: Guiliani. Never mind Guiliani for now. One thing that was pointed out to me was the assertion that the younger journalists are not drinking the "Guiliani, the Great 9-11 Mayor of NYC" Kool-aid. I was told that the article points out that they are writing critical and accurate articles about his pre September 11 days as well as addressing the reality vs. the hype with re: his 9-11 involvement.
So maybe there is some hope - "with these here young ones" coming into the mix.
Until then, we are stuck with this:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh061403.shtml
KW,
Right--when people begin to say enough, then we will get something better. When we stop bowing before the altar of celebrity and good looks.
You are right, I have seen some correct reporting on Guiliani, though the apparatchiks only need the grim-faced picture with him in his thin windbreaker on rubble to satisfy.
--Lisa
Hi Lisa,
Remember the poll that asked the Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq if they thought it was okay to fire on U.S. troops and etc? Like just over 60% said they approved. I think it was Fall of '06.
For perspective, the same organization should ask the following in a new poll:
For you Iraqis that answered "yes" to firing on American troops being okay -
Which American Presidential candidate is so damn "hot and good looking" that it would make you change your mind and say "no" to firing on U.S. troops if that candidate became President of the U.S.?
In your opinion, which American Presidential candidate is so damn "hot and good looking" that their "good looks" and their "hotness" would make Al Qeada reluctant to conduct terror operations against the U.S. or its interests?
"Freestyle" Question:
Understanding the minimum requirements for presidential eligibility in the U.S.
(Natural born citizen, at least 35 years old and has been fourteen years a resident within the United States)
Which eligible American CITIZEN is so damn "hot and good looking" that - if elected President of the U.S. - their looks:
Would cause Al Qeada (and all other anti - U.S. terror groups) to lose interest in conducting terror operations against the U.S. or its interests,
Make all Iraqis disapprove of any Iraqi firing upon U.S. troops
and
Cause all sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq to end?
-----------
And what the heck ... a question for every one on Earth ...
Which American CITIZEN is so damn "hot and good looking" that - if elected President of the U.S. - half of the world's population would dig into their personal savings and send at least $20 US to the U.S. Treasury to knock out our deficit?
If I am going to vote on "looks" and "hotness" they have to be "good looking" enough to accomplish all of that.
Oh yeah - throw in "good looking" enough to improve the U.S. health care system, too.
KW,
This is inspired, and y'know, I'm thinkin' hard and prayin' on it.
Clint Eastwood already has the benefit of local government service behind him, though Carmel might be a tad more privileged than the average American district, and maybe they've had enough of the gun-totin' thing. . .
Robert Redford wasn't bad in his day. Having been out of the film loop for the past decade or so, I find it hard to scrape up the name of someone who would really do it for me today.
Our salvation may come in the form of different cultural ideas of beauty. However, our government in its infinite wisdom, has seen fit to fire the 50 or so gay Arabic translators who were in our service, so I don't know who to appeal to on this account. . .
Come to think of it, the idea may be a tad ethnocentric, appealing only to vainglorious Americans.
But it is brilliant and new, and I think we can go somewhere with it.
Now off to Shaha; she's not a woman to be kept waiting.
L
Ah, yes ... Shaha ... she is actually looking quite fetching in one of the "Impeach Bush Now" T-Shirt she bought for us yesterday ...
Anyway, off to the craps table to parlay her ill-gotten World Bank gains ...
And then off to mail some of those "Impeach Bush Now" T-Shirt photos to Wolfowitz !!
:-)
See ya.
A whale who is also a card shark--I love it!
Enjoy, and don't rub it in too badly with Wolfie. This is not his finest hour.
L
Post a Comment
<< Home