<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV> <DIV class=blogbody> <P>(I've been back 'n' forth on the VF scribe for years, but he's found his true voice in blogland -- no rad he, but a mainstream lib who sees how corrupt the mainstream is -- DP)</P> <P>"For much of last night's debate George Bush looked like a blister about to pop. Loud, mouthy, swaggering, interested only in hearing himself lay down the law, he behaved like a verbally abusive husband. Not a wifebeater but a browbeater with a bar-fighter's grin. It is astonishing and sobering that this dull roar with a one-track mind that runs on tank treads is fighting for reelection instead of facing impeachment; his lies and failures have fed thousands of graves, and filled thousands more hospital beds with bodies and psyches that will never be whole again. And still our mainstream pundits can not, will not see him for what he is. He cracks a corny joke, and they marvel at his Reaganesque humor. He hollers at Charlie Gibson, and he's hailed as a take-charge guy.</P> <P>"Bush reminded me most of Pat Buchanan last night, not perhaps the best model to imitate if you're courting independents and women. The same judo chop to emphasize a point, the same hot-temperature demeanor and rhetoric, the same empty machismo masquerading as decisiveness. Here we have multimillionaire pundits who pride themselves on being knowledgable, articulate, capable of taking issues and personalities apart and examining them from different angles and reassembling them--and they swoon over someone who is none of these things, like intellectual jocksniffers in a locker room listening to some athlete grunt platitudes. They use words for a living, but distrust any politician who treats words with care, or even acts as if words might have meanings. Bush throws words as if they were rocks picked up in a playground, and they treat him like Roger Clemens. </P> <P>"But just as the MSNBC panel, which ought to be shipped to Guantanamo for the duration of the election season, blundered so badly after the Cheney-Edwards debate, the pundits didn't seem to recognize what was happening in front of their eyes last night. As Pauline Kael used to say after reading the reviews of certain movie critics, 'It's hard to believe they were actually looking at the screen.' Fortunately, the cable-news spinmeisters seem to matter less and less in the framing of the debate reaction--they've insulted the viewers' sense of reality too many times. </P> <P>"The sanest debate analysis I heard last night came from Fox News' Chris Wallace, who was a guest on Charlie Rose after Charlie had subjected us to some deadbeats. Wallace came across as someone thinking for himself rather than inhaling fumes, and he saw that it was Kerry who was persuasively presidential last night, a perception that may widen over the coming days as the footage of Bush hollering like a hogcaller are replayed to a cringing nation."</P> <P><<A href="http://www.jameswolcott.com/">http://www.jameswolcott.com/</A> ></P></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>