Oxford, Mississippi. The first choice was David Brooks "moderating" the debate in Neshoba County. Theme: "Ronald Reagan -- Merely a Great Communicator or Misunderstood Visionary."
Oxford, Mississippi.
Actually, it would be awesome to have the debate moderated by William Faulkner.
I suppose I should start saying nice things about Wonkette again.
It would be more awesome if it was moderated by James Meredith.
A good debate. The candidates could not want a better one, a better one to lie in. It will give them confidence and comfort. I will ask the first question, followed by
-----------------------------------------------Chuck. Chuck. Chuck. Todd.
of MSNBC.
A good debate. The candidates could not want a better one, a better one to lie in. It will give them confidence and comfort. I will ask the first question, followed by
-----------------------------------------------Chuck. Chuck. Chuck. Todd.
of MSNBC.
Actually, it would be awesome to have the debate moderated by William Faulkner.
I'm sure his voice would be deemed 'not ready for primetime'. Here he is giving his rather eccentric Nobel Banquet Speech. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Somewhere in the UVa collection, I think there are online audios of him reading some of his work, but I couldn't find them.
There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up?
That is so fucking awesome.
She's got a survey question about the reason why the Commission didn't choose New Orleans.
The Commission on Presidential Debates Spurned New Orleans Because... 1.) Exactly why they said publicly: the logisitics weren't in place. 2.) Because it would practically require that the candidates be asked about (and the news talk about) Katrina and someone might look bad. 3.) Because they were scared someone, somewhere would get caught doing something naughty. 4.) Because they're just a bunch of idiots that don't give a shit
I'm having a hard time picking only one of thsoe options. Personally, I'm inclined to think that the only one that doesn't apply is #1. Having said that, nos. 2 and 3 seem slightly stronger choices than #4.
I seem to be in a minority on this one, but I really, really don't care about this. Great, another chance for politicians to say stupid things about New Orleans. Oh wait, the debate's in Hempstead. Stop the presses.
It's just evidence that the 2008 will be staged from beginning to end by the same people who staged the last two. Not really about NOLA or what the various candidates will say. It's bad news AFAIAC.
I suppose I should start saying nice things about Wonkette again.
They have new writers now. The Anonymous Lobbyist (who wrote the linked piece) is the best of the bunch.
Faulkner's whole Nobel speech is a work of drunken brilliance.
Political discourse these days usually prompts me to give the finger to my computer screen while muttering obscenities. Can Emersonian levels of crankiness be far behind? No.
13: on the bright side your computer probably isn't getting its feelings hurt.
juicily ripping...a new one
Yuck.
14: on the down side, neither are Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd, etc.