Pardon me, for the duration of this posting I need to speak fluent Geek.
Wow. I can’t believe how much some folks hated X Men: The Last Stand.
This is not a picture of reviewer and On Tap contributor Jim Geraghty. But a lot of folks have made that mistake.
I’m not saying it was a perfect movie; if you’re an X-Men purist, you probably have a lot to hate in this movie, although it’s unrealistic to expect a two-hour movie to match any of the comics in every detail. Admittedly, it’s a Brett Ratner movie, and it shows. If they had added about a half hour of “quiet scenes” — just the characters talking, interacting, reacting to the life-altering events that are occurring – then it would truly have been one of the all time greats.
As it is, X-Men: The Last Stand is the only movie that has truly depicted teams of superheroes going at it with full abandon and no limitations due to an insufficient special effects budget. Yes, for all the endless DC and Marvel superhero movies we get, we generally get solo heroes – Superman, Batman, Spider Man, Hulk, Daredevil, Electra, Ghost Rider. Okay, there’s Fantastic Four, which was “eh” at best, and even they were only taking on one villain.
Imagine if somebody said, “we’re telling the very last X-Men story.” One where anybody could die, and anybody could lose their powers. Well, that’s was The Last Stand was, and on that level, it worked wonders. If you’re a fan of the series, you’re holding on tight, because anybody’s expendable. By the end, three major, major characters are dead and three more are de-powered.
If this movie’s got a problem, it’s that it has too many big moments in rapid succession.
(SPOILERS! Read below if you have seen the movie, or have no interest in seeing it.)
It begins with the subtle visual bang of the great de-aging technique used to make Patrick Stewart and Ian McClellan appear 20 years younger. It moves quickly to a Danger Room sequence. Lots of X-fans have been complaining that the previous films didn’t show the X-Men’s training center; I didn’t see it as a huge loss. This short sequence gives fans a glimpse of an outlandish, but legendary X-Men foe, the giant robotic Sentinels.
I’ll count the Beast as one of the characters I was hoping they would get around to, and Kelsey Grammer pretty much nails the part as seen in the comics and the Saturday morning cartoon. Grammer has only one moment where his “Frasier” persona spills out – in the middle of a massive brawl, no less.
We move on, strikingly rapidly, to the death of Cyclops. The return of Jean is no shock, but I liked that they made clear from the beginning that this was not the Jean we knew; this was someone/something different, and darker.
The whole scene at Jean’s house is where the writers just said, “the hell with it, let’s just go crazy.” And so we get not only some great fights between our heroes and villains, but the death of the professor – played to the hilt. Not even Halle Berry’s wet-noodle acting could ruin this scene.
Wolverine was Hugh Jackman’s first big part, and it was perfect to put a relative unknown into such an iconic character – from his first scene in the first movie, he wasn’t some star playing Wolverine; he was Wolverine. Really, few franchises have made such an effort to get actors who look right (Batman Begins is off to a good start); Jackman carries every scene he’s in. He’s earned his Wolverine spin-off.
The way they translated the Jean Grey/Phoenix issue from comic book to film struck me as perfect. (In the comic book it was an alien, otherworldly force; in the film, it’s an alternate personality of Jean’s that the Professor has repressed within her since she came to his school.)
From there, it’s just one big scene after another – Mystique’s rescue and subsequent “curing,” an early showdown between Iceman and Pyro, Rogue’s issues, and finally a showdown to end all showdowns. Golden Gate Bridge getting tossed around? Yup. Cars hurled through the air and ignited like grenades? Check. Every mutant using their power to the max? Got it.
And I cannot believe they put the Juggernaut – the biggest, meanest, hulking brute around – up against Shadowcat. The actress playing her, Ellen Page, looks about 12. (In the comic books, Kitty Pryde was the ideal girlfriend; here, Page’s pubescent looks make her character more of an ideal kid sister.)
As you can tell from this review, I collected comics in my younger years and was very much a geek in these matters. Since about, oh, Batman Returns, comic book fans have had to put up with Hollywood directors taking characters and titles with built-in audiences and fanbases and rewriting them into junk. Nipples on the Batsuit. Ben Affleck as Daredevil. Shaquile O’Neal as “Steel.” The creators of the X-Men films have done the best job so far of balancing the needs of a two-hour movie with keeping the spirit and tone of the original work. And I’ve gotten three good movies out of it.
Meanwhile, Cam and Marshall continue to fight the Chinese Food War, wreaking considerable havoc on the surrounding area.
Cam: I haven’t seen this movie yet, but I really want to. Unfortunately Andrew (my five-year-old) is more interested in seeing “Over the Hedge”.
I’ve said this before, but I don’t go to movies to think. I go to be entertained. 90 minutes of superheroes doing super stuff will entertain me. That’s all I’m looking for. Well, that and to see James Marsden and say “Hey, I went to school with his dorky brother!”
The anti-smoking campaign thetruth.com has a new series of PSA’s charmingly called Whudafxup (say it out loud).
I’m awfully glad to know that my 5 year old will be getting his anti-smoking message in a hip and profanity-laced package.
Over at his primary site, Jim mentions that the first trailer is out for Oliver Stone’s 9/11 movie — World Trade Center.
Here’s the bottom line for me:
I tried to watch the trailer for United 93, and couldn’t make it all the way through. It evoked such a strong reaction that I had to turn it off after a minute and a half.
On the other hand, not only did I make it all the way through the Stone trailer, I didn’t feel anything. Nothing. Nada. I might as well have been watching a trailer for Firebirds (the worst movie ever made).
I can’t say I’m surprised. Oliver Stone hasn’t been a very good moviemaker in many, many moons.
Jim: What blew my mind was how… schmaltzy the trailer was. “I’ll follow ya, Sarge!” I remember discussing this movie a long while back on Cam’s program - and Cam feared a typical JFK-style paranoid conspiracy theory docudrama from Oliver Stone. The marginal good news is, we didn’t get a movie insinuating that the Mossad, CIA and Halliburton teamed up to commit the attacks; instead, we got… well, something one step removed from the Michael Bay action thrillers that “Team America: World Police” was mocking.
“I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark… when he made Pearl Harbor… I miss you more than stupid movie missed the point… and that’s an awful lot, girl, and now… all I can think about is your smile… and that sh*tty movie too… Pearl Harbor sucked… and I miss you.”
Let me start by saying that I have no information whatsoever to support the theory I’m about to propound. It’s pure political conjecture.
However, all the signs are there, and there are facts to support it. Here’s the theory:
President Bush is increasingly a lame duck, and since the Vice President is a non-starter, he has no obvious successor. The President believes there is no more important mission for the next President, and the nation for that matter, than winning the War on Terror. So more than anything else, he’s looking a successor who will continue the fight and continue his policies – most notably, taking the fight to the terrorists on their turf before they bring it to our shores.
The President likely believes, as I do, that no Democrat can be relied on to fight the War on Terror effectively and aggressively. And looking at the likely Republican field, there are too many foreign policy blank slates. Certainly, too many candidates who say all the right things but have no track record and no experience. The President might also think that his successor ought to have some understanding of the military given the current state of war.
So the President is looking for a strong, tough, independent leader who can be counted on to continue current policies on terrorism and the war, stay the course in Iraq, and ensure the military is an effective fighting force to face today’s ever-present threat.
It’s not hard how he sees Sen. McCain as the ideal choice, given those criteria.
Of course, to make the leap from believing that the Senator is the right choice to take over leadership of the War on Terror to supporting him for the Presidency, one has to set aside much of the rest of the Senator’s record.
Most notably that he’s a dishonest, self-contrived phony.
Nevertheless, there are more and more subtle signs that the President may be setting the stage to back Senator McCain as his successor.
- Some of the President’s key political advisors are signing on with Senator McCain.
- Senator McCain is being allowed to effectively veto at least on of the President’s judicial nominees without so much as a whimper from the White House.
- Senator McCain remains the stoutest supporter of the President’s course of action in Iraq.
To be sure, it’s a thin case, based on facts anyway. So chalk it up to gut feeling if you like. But the more I think about it, the more I think I’m right and the more nauseas I feel. I’ll do the full diatribe on the Senator later. For now, what does everything else think? Am I crazy?
And if so, what are the implications?
Cam: What are the implications? You mean besides the fact that I just threw up a little in my mouth?
The notion that President Bush is making things easier for McCain to begin his ‘08 run wouldn’t shock me, but quite frankly, that would indicate there’s an actual plan of action being executed right now. I’m still not sure that’s the case.
Jim: Interesting. First, I probably ought to note that I don’t share the disdain for McCain that many conservatives feel. I wouldn’t call him a “a dishonest, self-contrived phony,” for example.
But let me try to poke holes in Marshall’s evidence. First, it’s not surprising that some of Bush’s advisers are signing on with McCain. They’re GOP consultants with two successful campaigns under their belt. They’re going to be shopping for a frontrunner, or at least a guy with a great shot at the nomination and the presidency. (No guy wants their resume to read, “Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, Alan Keyes 2008 campaign.”) There are, right now, only four serious candidates for the GOP nomination — McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Allen. That could change, but right now, that’s the field. Romney and Giuliani have “their guys,” the ones who have been with them throughout their careers; Allen signed Dick Wadhams, who’s been a genius with Senate races in recent years.
Second, right now Bush and McCain need each other. McCain needs to establish himself as a conservative so he doesn’t get squashed in the 2008 primaries, and Bush needs a popular independent to defend his unpopular policies. Could you imagine how the Hill would react to Iraq if McCain pulled a Murtha? So it’s not shocking to see them coordinating on issues - even on judges.
Marshall, I’m sure you’ll be able to point to many, many decisions on the part of Sen. “I’d rather get rid of the First Amendment than have dirty money in politics” McCain that we would disagree with. And this posting isn’t to be interpreted as an endorsement. But I would observe that the only guy who did more for GOP candidates in 2002 and 2004 (and 2006?) was Giuliani. McCain’s got a lot of folks owing him a lot of favors — and it wouldn’t be surprising if he has been courting the President since 2001, the same way he’s courted the media that covers him.
I wrote this over at my other blog, but I wanted Jim and Marshall to be able to chime in on this.
We’ve known Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a bit loopy for awhile now. Consider this news another piece of evidence.
The mayor said DNA and fingerprint technology could be used to create a worker ID database that will “uniquely identify the person” applying for a job, ensuring that cards are not illegally transferred or forged.
Donna Lieberman, director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said a DNA or fingerprint database “doesn’t sound like the free society we think we’re living in.”
“It will inevitably be used not just by employers but by law enforcement, government agencies, schools and all over the private sector,” she said.
It’s not all that often I agree with the ACLU, but they’re pretty spot on with this one. Mayor Bloomberg… you’re a mayor. You’re not the Lord High Mighty of Bloombergia and we’re not your loyal subjects.
Can this guy please just go ahead and change his party affiliation?
Marshall: It’s been fashionable of late to talk about NSA eavesdropping and other such stories by invoking the nightmare world of 1984. But Mayor Bloomberg takes the cake. If he gets his way, we’ll all just be mere subjects of government, living our lives as labratory mice trapped in a cage, subsisting in a perfectly controlled environment. Our movements will be tracked. Our moods monitored. Our diet mandated and carefully delivered to us as the designated hours for eating.
I’ve written a lot lately about tyranny. About how government is increasingly becoming the dominant force in our lives and interfering with every choice we make about how we live our lives. And the more I write about tyranny, the more I’m afraid that no one is listening or that we’ve all just become immune to the quiet consumption of our freedom. I’d like to be persuaded that I’m wrong about this. That people really do realize that our freedom is being eroded, one little decision at a time. But for now, I’m pretty dishearted, and pretty concerned.
I like to remind people that government only has what power over us that we give it. And that we have to maintain control of it, or it will inexorably drift out of control. That’s precisely what’s happening, and too many of us just don’t seem to care.
NRO’s got its list of the 50 Most Conservative Rock Songs.
The first thing that struck me was the the fact that the band who recorded “Sweet Neo-Con” has more than one song on the list (”Sympathy for the Devil” and “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”). The second thing that struck me was that these are mainstream artists.
Do ya think these guys are a little cheesed that “Bush Was Right” didn’t make the list?
Personally, there are a few artists that I no longer listen to because they’ve become more political than musical. R.E.M.’s a classic example of that. Yeah, I know. They’ve always been political. But for most of the 80’s, you couldn’t understand a word Michael Stipe was singing, so it was okay. So I tend to listen to the music first, and try to ignore the political persuasions of the artist. When I’m hearing songs like “Shut Up and Teach” and “Welfare is a Joke”, I’m getting preached to as much as I am listening to the new Neil Young album. I just want something I can bop along to. But that’s not to say I don’t appreciate conservative values that just happen to make their way into songs.
A perfect example of this is The Offspring. From the anti-violence (not necessarily anti-gun, by the way) message of “Come Out and Play” to the anti-drug song “The Kids Aren’t All Right” to the ode to personal responsibilty “Why Don’t You Get A Job”, there are lots of great themes for conservative/libertarian types.
Of course they have their own “Neo-Con” song as well. No one’s perfect I guess. Still, in my own list of “Conservative Rock Bands Who Won’t Admit They’re Conservatives”, the Offspring would be the top choice.
Jim: Can I get away with praising “Pretty Fly for a White Guy” by the Offspring? I don’t know if it’s a conservative song, but it’s certainly a politically incorrect one. My teenage years in New Jersey were marked by plenty of well-off white teenagers — who enjoyed just about every priviledge society had to offer — dressing, speaking, and acting as if they were the hardest of hardcore African-American gang members. I’m sure some will be offended by those who adopt (steal?) another’s culture; I just find it bizarre, like if I suddenly pretended to have a deep connection to Albanian or Vietnamese culture.
John J. Miller did a brilliant job in his article, but I tend to shy away from looking for political affirmation from my entertainment choices. Looking over my CDs right now, I see U2 (forgive third world debt!), Bruce Springsteen (let’s campaign for John Kerry!), and Shakira, the hot-tushie-shaking Bolshevik. (Oh, to spend hours and hours reeducating you, my Columbian-Lebanese temptress/archnemesis.) Okay, I have one Toby Keith CD.
Marshall: I’m sorry. I just can’t into this. The only thing that this tells me is that John Miller needs more to do.
Cam: John Miller doesn’t need more to do… you just need to rock harder.
So, Hugh notes that each party has narrowed its list of candidate cities for their 2008 conventions to four each. For the Republicans, the list is:
- Cleveland
- Minneapolis-St. Paul
- Tampa-St. Pete’s
- New York City
For the Democrats:
- New Orleans
- Minneapolis-St. Paul
- Denver
- New York City
As somebody who plans on being at both, I have to say I’m a bit underwhelmed.
A convention city has to meet the distinct criteria of logistics and symbolism. I can see a lot of folks complaining about New York City getting the convention two cycles in a row, but the 2004 convention came off masterfully in both logistics (particularly security) and post-9/11 symbolism. New York knows how to do it.
Hugh wants Cleveland; I’m “eh” on it. I know the city has come a long way from the “mistake on the lake” days, but I’m not sure about the symbolism (”Hooray for Ohio putting Bush over the top in 2004″? “We’re the party of the blue-collar working class”?) and again, hosting a convention is a major, major undertaking. Hugh wonders if Minneapolis-St. Paul has enough hotel space. (In Boston, the National Review crew ended up staying at a hotel easily a half-hour outside of Boston. You would think the Democrats didn’t like us or something.)
I went to Tampa/St. Pete’s for a week in 2001 to watch the Yankees in Spring Training; the city’s public transportation system struck me as insufficient and hard to figure out, and its skyscraper-laden downtown area seems to have surprisingly little commerce. The Cuban neighborhood was fun, though.
New Orleans has to be the far and away emotional favorite for the Democrats - if the city’s hotels, transportation, and other issues can handle an influx of tens of thousands of press, delegates, protesters, etc. by summer 2008. I’m surprised, and a little disappointed, that the city didn’t make the GOP’s list. Yes, they just reelected Ray Nagin, the state’s governor is stunningly incompetent, and the city has a long reputation for political corruption. But selecting NOLA as a convention city would say, “the country hasn’t forgotten about you, or given up on you.”
As for the other Democratic choices, picking New York City would seem about four years too late, although it would follow the hometown coronation of John Kerry with the hometown coronation of Hillary Clinton. Denver’s an interesting choice. There are a slew of red-state Democratic governors out there, and the convention could aim to showcase the party as not just coastal elites.
(By the way, dissaude yourselves of any notions that hosting a convention helps a party win the state that hosts it. The Republicans had their conventions in San Diego in 1996, Philadelphia in 2000, and New York City in 2004, and carried none of those states; if memory serves, not many of them were all that close.)
Still, I’m surprised at which cities have already been eliminated - Chicago? Any of the California cities? Tampa, but not Miami? Atlanta? All of these cities have successfully hosted major events in recent memory.
Cam: If New Orleans can handle the influx of crowds, it would be a great choice for… Republicans. Seriously, do Democrats really want to risk the chance of a gaggle of drunken Kennedys running loose through the French Quarter? I don’t think so. Plus, we know Kos has a nasty habit of Peeping Tom-ism, and that’s (presumably) when he’s sober. Lord only knows what trouble he’d get into in the Big Sleazy. So now that I think about it… go to New Orleans, Democrats!
For the Republicans, Cleveland makes sense if Ken Blackwell wins the governor’s race this year. If Ted Strickland wins, something tells me the land of Cleve misses out on the convention. I’m not thrilled about New York (are they thinking Guiliani here? Why go back two conventions in a row?). The twin cities wouldn’t be my first choice either (Minneapolis is such a blue town they’ve outlawed gun stores within the city limits). I guess I’ve gotta go with Tampa-St. Pete by default here.
Marshall: It seems to me that selecting a convention city ought to get the party something. Other than New Orleans, I don’t see how any of these cities really do that. Minneapolis is an interesting choice for the GOP because Minnesota has become increasingly competitive in recent cycles. Not so interesting for the Dems. Cleveland? Cam’s right. Only if Blackwell wins the Governor’s race. Tampa? Blah. New York? It’s always a great choice, but the GOP just did that. Are the Dems going to go hang out in a city with a Republican mayor? Probably not. And I’m sorry — New Orleans is a non-starter. There’s no way it’s going to be ready in time. So the Dems are going to Denver? Ugh.
Bottom line: Both lists are thoroughly underwhelming. Both parties can do better.
Cam: All right, so what your choices for both parties?
For the Democrats, I say it’s a trip to LaLa Land. A star-studded tribute to Hillary Clinton seems like a natural choice.
As for the Republicans… I say Miami. Sun, sand, and butterfly ballots. Who could ask for anything more?
Cam again: In the comments, Sharon makes some very compelling arguments for the Twin Cities. In addition to walleye-on-a-stick and deep fried Snickers (hopefully not at the same time), I could rub elbows with both Hindrocket and Cap’n Ed. Count me in.
Actually if the convention is held in Minneapolis-St. Paul I could finally go see a Saint Paul Saints game.
Jim: If I were the dictator of both parties, I would put the Democrats in Seattle. Spectacular views of Mount Ranier and lots of environmental types as Al Gore gives the keynote address about saving the planet, the technology industry demonstrating all kinds of innovations that will generate economic growth. The message would be, “we’re hip, we’re forward-looking, we’re a party that’s ready to tackle the challenges of tomorrow.” It would fit with a Hillary campaign theme of “Change vs. More of the Same.” They would have to downplay the Dino Rossi issue, though.
For the Republicans, I like Cam’s choice of Miami a lot. But let me throw out some crazy ideas — if Ehrlich keeps the governorship and Michael Steele wins the senatorial race, what about Baltimore, Maryland? It would send a signal that the blue states aren’t so blue, and that the GOP is expanding its reach into “exurban” communities. The message could be in the vein of, “after years of failed Democratic leadership, more and more of America is turning to Republicans for solutions.” Of course, I’m sure the hotel capacity is probably way too low.
Memphis, Tennessee. Hold the convention in the Pyramid. Country music, heartland values, good food, and a convenient trip for Instapundit. It’s red state, sort of southern, sort of midwestern.
If the Republican candidate is running on a national security theme, Charlotte, North Carolina might be a good choice, with the nominee attending a wreath-laying ceremonies at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base on the way into the city. The outskirts of the city epitomize the GOP-leaning exurbia, the southern food is great, and the contrast with any hoity-toity elitish city the Democrats pick… (like, er, Seattle) would be great.
BTW, Cam, I just remembered - the Democrats were in Los Angeles in 2000. Yes, the city fits them (including the fundraiser at the Playboy Mansion that was cancelled at the last second) but I doubt they would go back there two times in three cycles.
Marshall: I like Miami. I like Charlotte. And based on the idea of fish on a stick, I now endorse Minneapolis.
Marshall again: Commenter Dave suggests Kansas City. To me, that’s actually the perfect answer for the GOP. It’s red, but swing. It’s a great town. And the cultural cornerstones are things like barbecue and ribs. How can you go wrong?
Marshall again: Kos is polling the netroots on where they think the Dem convention should be held. Right now, Denver and New Orleans are running neck and neck with Minneapolis and New York far behind. New Orleans is obvious. Denver?! I don’t get it. Maybe the netroots like prairie dogs. I know I do.
I’m a horse racing fan. And anyone who has spent an idyllic afternoon in the spring sun at Keeneland knows why. There’s something majestic about the sport. And something satsfyingly pseudo-scientific about trying to choose a winner based on record, winnings, bloodlines, splits and all the rest.
So each spring when the Triple Crown comes around, I like to think of myself as more than the casual fan.
And each spring, because I’m a horse racing fan, I root for a horse to emerge and seize the moment, to grab the chance to be the first Triple Crown winner since 1978. I’ve watched each of the last few years as a good horse proved himself unworthy on the long homestretch at Belmont and waited for a true champion to come along.
This year, I was certain he had arrived. Barbaro had the right bloodline, the right perdigree and the right record to make a serious run at the Triple Crown — to become the kind of legend that horse racing needs right now to spur interest and attract new fans. His 6 length win at the Kentucky Derby seemed to confirm that he was the a real contender. And as the Derby champion left Louisville, it seemed that in five weeks, he would have a date with history at Belmont Park. Only, he had to win the Preakness first.
Only, he didn’t. Indeed, he didn’t even make it to the first quarter pole.
Most folks who have been to more than a few races have seen — or, more accurately, been told by a track announcer that a horse has been pulled up or broken down. But in a grandstand or on a simulcast, fans are kept at arms length. They never see the effect of an injury up close. Not so on Satuday at Pimlico. NBC’s cameras captured every detail from every conceivable angle. And, for my own part anyway, the images will stay with me a very long time.
As Barbaro was tended to on the track and then through the excruciating next day’s surgery, it seemed that anyone and everyone who watched the race or saw the replays was waiting for the news. And when it came Sunday night, it was welcome. He had survived the surgery. 50-50 the surgeon said. Eating hay and nickering at mares. Huzah! That’s a start.
To be sure, it’s a long road from the stall at the large animal hospital to the breeding barn, but Barbaro’s very survival is testament to how far medicine has come in recent years. It wasn’t that long ago that a horse with an injury as severe as his simply would have been put down. Not out of choice, but out of necessity.
Barbaro’s devestating injury prompts a question: with the risks so high for man and horse, why do it at all?
But the answer is simple, and it’s a fundamental element of being for these fine horses. Thoroughbreds are born to run. If they weren’t racing each other around the track, they’d be racing each other around the pasture. Running is their nature. Coded into every fiber of their being by their DNA. It is their very nature.
Which is why, despite the photos, and despite my profound sadness watching Barbaro break down, I will keep going to races and keeping watch the Thoroughbreds run.
UPDATE: Andy Beyer is, in my opinion, the best racing columnist anywhere. And he has two must-read columns on Barbaro’s injury.
Here’s the first, written within minutes of the Preakness.
And here’s the second, probing the complex issue of why today’s horses don’t seem as durable as the horses of yore.
Cam: I don’t want to stink up this post with my thoughts on horseracing. I just want to say it’s great to have a place where we can write about what we love.
Nice post.
Jim: I don’t follow horse racing much at all, but I enjoyed Marshall’s post and Beyer’s columns. There are some great sportswriters in the world who can take a competition that people don’t follow and lay out a simple, dramatic, here’s-why-you-need-to-watch storyline that will hold the attention of the most casual fan. Michael Wilbon does this pretty well with the NBA; I recall a column he wrote before the playoffs saying, “since Jordan retired with the Bulls, the NBA has been looking for the next great breakout star, the guy who becomes the face of the sport. For a while it looked like Kobe or Shaq, but they stumbled. This year, we learn if LeBron James is that star.” And I found myself reading the sports pages in Washington and in the International Herald Tribune, just to see if James was earning the Jordan mantle or not. (My impression: He’s getting there, but he’s not there yet.)
I joked earlier about figure skating, but really, every four years many Americans do get transfixed by some big international rivalry.
I had my own moment of this sort of breakthrough-in-sports-salesmanship earlier this year when I described ESPN’s annual coverage of the NFL Draft as “The Oscars for Men.” Indeed, this year you had the shock of Reggie Bush not going first, the tight end from Maryland breaking down and crying after he was picked by San Francisco, and Matt Leinart’s seething as he slipped lower and lower in the first round…
Marshall: Quick update: Jonathan David Morris has an excellent post on this topic over at the Conservative Voice.
A friend e-mails about this Washington Post article:
I don’t know if this is the same headline that’s online, but the lead headline in today’s Washington Post reads: “Elections Are Crux Of GOP’s Strategy.” Now I have a couple responses to that…First, duh, isn’t it obvious that winning elctions is the primary, if not sole, goal of any political party. But second, reading the headline as pointing out somthing newsworthy, then perhaps this headline deomstrates just how lost the liberal Democrats are. After all, reading the headline with that sense, then can we infer the same isn’t true for Democrats such that “Elections Are [NOT] Crux of Denocrats’ Strategy”? Empirically, this reading seems to be borne out since the Democrats have proven over and over again that the crux of their strategy isn’t to win elections.
Uh huh. Exactly. Also, it’s always fun to point and laugh.
Jim: Marshall, I won’t go into the whole thing, but there’s a section in the forthcoming book that lists all the ways that various Democrats insisted that 2004 was really a win for them. Their far-fetched justifications, excuses, and big-big-picture-scenarios suggest that, at least for some, maybe Democrats don’t go into every year aiming to win elections.