Monthly Archives: October 2004

Well, it's over. I don't know how the public will react to it. I don't think any knockout punches were landed. My suspicion in these things is always that the folks who were already going to vote for the Democrat will say the Democrat kicked butt and the folks who were already going to vote for the Republican will say the Republican took no prisoners…and those who have no great emotional commitment will say, "We don't really want either of these guys." But then, I was surprised that so many Bush supporters were willing to concede that he did poorly last week.

I thought Edwards did make a few strong points on issues like Health Care (and especially the Administration siding with drug companies over people) that are probably not going to budge a lot of voters. I also thought Cheney did a good job of throwing a lot of semi-personal accusations at Edwards — too many for him to address.

I guess I was disappointed in both men. It was a pretty bland debate, especially after they hit the speed bump of Domestic Affairs. Maybe it is true that no one votes for Vice-President and that we all just wasted 90 minutes of our lives.

They're discussing malpractice insurance and frivolous lawsuits. This is an important topic but no one's going to shift their vote over it.

I'm getting really sick of Edwards saying, "We have a plan…" and Cheney snarling and looking down.

Just heard.

Cheney has said a couple of times that he doesn't have enough time to respond to things Edwards is saying. Wonder what would happen if Edwards turned to him and said, "Well then, how about if we schedule another debate next week with no silly time limits?"

The moderator's doing a good, by-the-books job. But what I'd love to see are a couple of questions that the debaters' prep crews couldn't have anticipated.

We're halfway through and my sense is that nothing that's been said has changed anyone's mind about anything.

About fifteen minutes ago, I thought I saw Edwards give Cheney one of those looks that Chevy Chase used to deliver behind the back of someone who was delivering a serious editorial on Weekend Update.

Oops. There's another one.

Well, so much for the rule where they're not supposed to address each other directly.

I wish Edwards sounded a little less like Kerry's agent.

Too many planned talking points. Both of them.

Being limited to 90-120 seconds per answer may have helped Kerry. It may even have helped Bush. But at the moment, Cheney and Edwards are tackling too many areas in each question and the topics cry out for longer discussion.

I just thought of something I'd say tonight if I were John Edwards. At some point, Dick Cheney is bound to make some sort of outrageous, over-the-top attack on Edwards or his running mate or both. If I were Edwards, I'd smile and begin my reply with…

Well, Mr. Vice-President, that brings to mind a suggestion that you recently gave Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor…

…and then, I'd throw in a "however" and give a proper, dignified response.

For those of you in or around Orange County: A gaggle of top cartoonists — including Sergio Aragonés, Scott Shaw! and Stan Sakai will be appearing this Saturday at the Orange County High School of the Arts. Details here.

In a Broadway musical, the musicians are usually playing from a pit in front of and under the stage. Occasionally, they're on stage. But lately, they're sometimes elsewhere.

You have lots of choices on the Internet today…websites that will tell you Kerry is slightly ahead, even or slightly behind. Obviously, what it means is that a lot can still happen with a month to go and more debates ahead. For some reason, I'm looking especially forward to the Vice-Presidential one tomorrow night. Cheney is so unpopular, even with folks who intend to vote for the Republican ticket, that Edwards may have to decide whether to go in for the kill, or just sit there and look statesmanlike by comparison. One assumes he will not make the error Joe Lieberman made of letting Cheney get away with claiming he has never made money off the government.

More interesting to me is this evaluation of the polls that suggests Democrats have a real chance of taking control of the Senate. I'm not sure, given the choice, I wouldn't rather have President Bush and a Democratic Senate than President Kerry and a Republican Senate.

I am also amused by the fact that Alan Keyes, who was selected from another state to run against Barack Obama, is running around fifty (50!) percentage points down. This is one of those situations where, like John Ashcroft and his track record of convicting domestic terrorist suspects, I think, "Hey, I could have done that!" At one point, the premise was that Keyes probably wouldn't beat Obama but they thought he'd keep the guy busy so he couldn't campaign for other Democrats, and maybe he'd get bloodied in ways that would hamper his future prospects. But Obama's sailing to the easiest win in the whole Senate race, so you have to wonder: Maybe the real motive of the Republican leadership was to rid their party of Alan Keyes.

I don't think Bush is going to get far with his claim that Kerry's use of the term "global test" means that a President Kerry would give foreign nations a veto power over U.S. actions. William Saletan has a pretty good column up today explaining how Bush is misinterpreting the term. Clearly, Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations, filled with solid evidence that has proven faulty, failed some sort of test that we ought to regret.

The question I would most like to see in Friday's debate — of those that might actually be asked: "Mr. President…if, as you say, we're 'making progress' in the war on terror, why do we keep seeing all these orange alerts that say, 'High risk of terrorist attacks'?"

P.S. I just Googled to get the exact wording of an orange alert and I found that if you search for "terror alerts," the highest-ranked page is this one that translates the alerts into Sesame Street characters. Make of that what you will.

Tuesday morning, Turner Classic Movies is running The Hollywood Revue of 1929, one of the first talkies ever made and a movie with an amazing cast. How amazing is it? It's this amazing: Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, Jack Benny, Marion Davies, John Gilbert, Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Buster Keaton, Cliff Edwards, Conrad Nagel, Marie Dressler, Gus Edwards, Polly Moran, Bessie Love and a number of others. Among other highlights in this plotless spectacular, Laurel and Hardy do a short but funny magic act, Buster Keaton dances a ballet, Cliff "Ukulele Ike" Edwards leads most of the cast as he introduces the song, "Singin' in the Rain"…and Jack Benny makes his screen debut.

Benny is the host, in fact. At one point early in the film, he introduces Conrad Nagel as "a name to conjure with…" and as per the script, he mispronounces the word, "conjure." As filmed, this then led to a brief sequence in which Nagel corrected him, but that bit was cut, leaving Benny saying the word wrong for no apparent purpose. One of the main reviews of the film said, "If Mr. Benny wishes to have a film career, he had better learn the English language."

Also, in case you read this in time: Much of today on TCM is taken up with Buster Keaton flicks, both sound and silent. Many funny things in there.

The highly-talented Lennie Weinrib sends me this article that explains what Bush and Kerry would each do about health care in this country.

A couple of folks have written me, as if I could do anything about it, to say that they disagree with the picks on the E! Specials, The 101 Most Unforgettable SNL Moments. Well, of course you disagree. These are just the selections of some anonymous folks whose opinions are bound to be different from yours or mine.

That said, it occurred to me that if I were asked to mention the SNL bit that I've most often heard people mention over the years, it would be one that wasn't anywhere in the 101. It would be the time Lorne Michaels appeared on the show to offer the Beatles a whopping $3000 to reunite and appear on Saturday Night Live.

So, uh, what do you suppose is on Ralph Nader's mind these days? Something like, "Hmm…I didn't get into the debates. I haven't gotten any real publicity. I stand a good chance of doing worse this year than last time. And if it looks like I threw one or more states to Bush and won him the election, a lot of people are going to come after me with large, pointed sticks. Gee, maybe running for president wasn't such a good idea, after all."