« Yummy Yule! (or: Why Does Bill O'Reilly Hate Hanukkah?) | Main | Huh »
December 05, 2005
Swirling Down The Memory Hole
Good piece by Timothy Noah detailing how Bush's ugliest moments -- namely his revolting mockery of Karla Faye Tucker -- quietly slip down the memory hole. My treasured example of this is Bush's unjustly less-than-famous comment that:
"We haven't heard much from [Bin Laden]. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is..."I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.
Unlike the Tucker tale, which relied on Tucker Carlson's memory's for its evidence, we've got that statement on video, on tape, on transcript and in the archives. During the third debate, Kerry even made reference to it, with Bush dumbly denying the moment's existence. I was sure Bush had lost the election at that instant, the media would obviously play the footage 3,000 times, splintering Bush's War President cred and creating an unimaginably awful storyline as the campaign hurtled towards its conclusion. Kerry had won.
Instead, we got five days out outrage that Kerry outed an openly gay woman. We never, for that matter, got Bin Laden, and no one ever asked if Bush was still unconcerned about him. Somehow, that comment, unpleasant and inconvenient as it was, vanished as soon as he uttered it. If only all politicians were so lucky.
December 5, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834638ea453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Swirling Down The Memory Hole:
Comments
"We haven't heard much from [Bin Laden]. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure.
Recent history has borne out this message. BinLaden is probably not in charge of much these days. Do we still want him? Surely, and I believe we still have a hefty price on his head. I am also sure we know pretty much where he is as well. The question is if we invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden, does it do more harm to our ultimate goals in the middle east than it's worth?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 5, 2005 10:41:20 AM
As bad as the Karla Faye moment was, I'm not even sure if it is absolutely Bush's worst moment. The "My Pet Goat" moment and a couple of smarmy post-invasion/pre-vacation press conferences come to mind too. It is hard to figure why the press gives him such an easy ride. He's had it easy since he was running against Al Gore, really. It wasn't so long ago that the country seemed stuck in the mentality that criticising the prez at all was pure blasphemy. At least now that his approval ratings are in the crapper, it seems a bit more acceptable to mention a fault or two on TV.
Posted by: sprocket | Dec 5, 2005 11:28:42 AM
Liberals and Democrats need to wake up to the fact that it is a corporate, right-wing media. Whitewater is over a decade ago. Wake up!
Democrats are going to come to power, as the inevitable consequence of Bush's screw-ups, and then they are going to be hooverized by the corporate, right-wing media . . . unless they wake up now, and make Media Reform, job 1. Destroy the Media giants with a slice-and-dice antitrust policy; revive the fairness doctrine; make the cable/satellite networks common carriers, etc.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Dec 5, 2005 12:10:15 PM
I remember seeing an analyst on CNN the day after that last debate, doling out what I presume to be the CW at the time.
In effect, he said the Bush gaffe wouldn't really hurt Bush because people OBVIOUSLY KNOW that he's concerned about Bin Laden, whereas Kerry's Mary Chaney gaffe was just mean-spirited and beyond the pale.
The media seem to be quite used to excusing Bush for what he says. The man makes so many gaffes that the default reaction seems to be, "Well, what he REALLY meant was...." It's maddening, but there you have it.
Also, a lot of people have bought the conflation of Iraq with the War on Terror, and even though they may not like the war, they see him as doing SOMETHING in regards to terror. It's a very strange dynamic.
The man gets a lot of free passes. Howard Dean, love him or hate him, can say the most obvious things (not safer after invading Iraq, that Bin Laden would have to get a trial, that there's a political component to terror alerts) and get slaughtered for it. Bush can say things that are factually untrue (Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in) and not be questioned. I guess people don't expect much from an idiot, but my how nice he looks in a codpiece.
Still, Kerry tried to get cute with Mary Chaney, if he hadn't, the Bin Laden comment would have gotten more play. I can't believe that's the way things turned out, but even so, it was a ridiculous risk to go for the cheap shot when the benefit was so negligible. I'm still annoyed with him over it.
Posted by: Royko | Dec 5, 2005 2:00:34 PM
My reaction to the Noah piece was that if the Karla Faye Tucker thing really hasn't been mentioned anywhere in the non-blog media for two years, then I'm reading too many blogs, because I feel like I read about it all the time. (I probably am reading too many blogs.)
Posted by: DonBoy | Dec 5, 2005 3:34:44 PM
Sam Rosenfeld quotes Ron Silver today over at Tapped:
"I see him once a year when I go down to Washington for the Kennedy Center honors. We kibbitz. I don't know if he calls it kibbitzing, but I call it kibbitzing. He is really a likable guy. At one point he said: "You're a good man, Ronnie. It is nice to see you." And I was kidding around, so I said, "Mr. President, only my mother calls me Ronnie." And he looks me in the eye and says, "You're a good man, Ronnie.""
I really do, when judging character, tend to put more weight on the consistent daily interactions and behavior than either the great achievements or rare screwups, no matter how horrible. And Bush is a constantly aggressive jerk, the kind that shakes your hand and insults you simultaneously. As far as I know, no one actually likes the guy or finds him good compant, especially his family. I want to punch him in the nose.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 5, 2005 6:14:26 PM
Hmmm. Been thinking about this for an hour. I guess the post has two components: Bush, and the press.
I will start here. Karl Rove is ugly. Very ugly, born pug-ugly. I, for most of my life was ugly, although not as ugly as Rove. An ugly person gets the double-take and cognitive dissonance, when people would like to avert their eyes yet need to be kind. So an ugly person learns about the trapped animal he sees in the other's glance. He becomes bitter. People are always lying to him. He becomes arrogant and maniulative.
Bush has chosen to be ugly. Attractive in physical appearance, yet always insulting, sneering, aggressive, sarcastic, alienating. And even more so in that he doesn't hide it, but dares and challenges to be called on it. The archetypical chip-on-the-shoulder guy, one word away from a fistfight or embarrassing confrontation. He strikes me as showing some symptoms of child-abuse.
That Bush and Rove go together is no coincidence. Rove understands ugliness and how to use it. The press can no more call Bush out for his anti-social character than they could refuse to put Rove on TV because he would break the camera.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 5, 2005 7:55:41 PM
Here's an issue that has dropped into the "Memory Hole" and that is the case against Tom DeLay. Oh, yeah, bebe!!! Ezra and the rest of the left were all over this when he was indicted. You should have seen the posts flying on pandagon as well.
Well, there was big news today and no one seems to want to talk about it, do they? Who can blame them? The indictment took three grand juries and finally was handed down by a grand jury seated only a few hours. It now seems that the charge of conspiracy was baseless.......yes, baseless and with no criminal act committed, the other charges of money laundering are moot since there is no criminal activity to launder money for. Bottom line is Ronnie Earle is a hack and has done the same thing to other politicians. The best part is all of the conservative pundits knew this and predicted it.
....but no one wishes to talk about it.....do they??
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 5, 2005 10:26:18 PM
"....but no one wishes to talk about it.....do they??"
Not me, as a Texan it isn't news that they changed the law to retroactively clear Delay, and I am too ashamed of my state.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 5, 2005 11:31:17 PM
Wrong thread, fred. Now, go die in Iraq for your cowardly president.
Posted by: merlallen | Dec 6, 2005 12:36:32 AM
Not me, as a Texan it isn't news that they changed the law to retroactively clear Delay, and I am too ashamed of my state.
Man, you should get out more. It seems you get all of your "news" from bloggers like Sterling Newberry, not the epitome of impartiality. That moron is claiming conspiracy, the last refuge of the ignorant and stupid. Yes, it appears that Sterling knows the Texas judges are crooked. That is how he explains DeLay's aquittal. Pathetic. Judges in Texas are elected.
Of course, you laud the legal system when it goes your way, and when it doesn't it's "We wuz robbed!!" and "We got fucked!!" like small children. Oh, and I can safely say that the vast, VAST majority of Texans are ashamed of you as well. Don' like it? Move to New York!!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 6, 2005 8:00:43 AM
"Of course, you laud the legal system when it goes your way, and when it doesn't it's "We wuz robbed!!" and "We got fucked!!" like small children."
As opposed to say, screaming "Activist Judges!" when they don't rule your way and crying about "Tort Reform" when you get sued for doing something dangerous?
I mean, that's really a stupid comment. Of course if you don't like the way that the law has ruled, you're going to object to it. That's true for everyone - its a standard of the legal system, ANY legal system. Hell, its a standard of any political system. The only political system where someone gets to be 100% happy with what's going on is a totalitarian one - and even then its only one guy (if that) who gets to be totally happy with the setup.
Posted by: NonyNony | Dec 6, 2005 10:12:35 AM
A fair comment, Nony.
However, here's the difference:
Conservatives point to lawful reasons why it didn't go their way and wish to lawfully change things such as Activism and problems with the tort system. Liberals point to conspiracy, because there is no ratiional explanation. They have nothing so they claim, without any evidence, the other side cheated. 2000 election, 2004 election and now in this aquittal. It's a pattern for every issue that doesn't go their way. In each of these cases cited, the evidence was just not there so it's "We wuz fucked" and "We wuz cheated!!". Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.......Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 6, 2005 10:21:26 AM
Conspiracy can be a very, very rational explanation. To say otherwise is a "I believe nothing I cannot see" way of thinking. The relevant question is whether it's plausible, not rational.
But to decide this, you need consider rationality is neither a highly characteristic, nor an exclusive sign of reality.
Posted by: Martin Bauer | Dec 6, 2005 10:50:41 AM
Conspiracy can be a very, very rational explanation.
When you have exhausted all rational explanation and don't want to give up your position no matter how much the evidence is stacked against it, conspiracy is the ticket. Why? Conspriacy requires no evidence. Conspriacy requires no proof.
Very close to lying and that doesn't seem to bother the lilbrals as long as it serves their agenda. Now you know why they are not trusted......
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 6, 2005 12:01:37 PM
Power requires no evidence too. Sorrily, it doesn't even require moderation.
Let me give you an example. There is no rational explanation why I should go on bickering with you so profusively. Or you with me. So, it's obviously some "conspiracy" in my head (and yours) which commits us to indulging in this habit.
The same goes for this endless use of the pejorative term "liberal" by (neo-)conservatives who are baffled on any issue. I bet it is not beyond statistical means to assert how much more often this occurs compared to anyone reviling "conservatism".
But does that rationally prove any conspiracy of the right? No, it does not, and I wished I could convince you I mean what I say.
Posted by: Martin Bauer | Dec 6, 2005 12:52:13 PM
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
出会い
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
beijing hotel
beijing travel
china tour
china tour
beijing
beijing
great wall
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
保洁
保洁
rolex replica
rolex replica
beijing hotels
beijing hotels
识别
OCR
OCR
即时翻译
即时翻译
身份证识别
身份证识别
税控收款机
税控收款机
高速扫描
手写
手写
光学字符识别
光学字符识别
shanghai hotels
shanghai hotels
Posted by: zsdzgfsd | Aug 31, 2007 12:17:36 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.