Bang, zoom!
A few months back, I bought a DVD set of an old TV variety show, black and white but digitally remastered. A bit too digitally remastered, as it turned out. It would be ungallant to name the lady artiste in question, but in several alarming close-ups it’s all too clear she’s come back from lunch a little the worse for wear, and in one scene she looks as if she’s just been woken up after sleeping in the park for a week.
Not her fault. The make-up guy was making her look good enough for 1960 monochrome UHF lines. He couldn’t have foreseen that 40 years on they’d have big-screen satellite TVs and DVD players and technology that would make that little facial pimple look like Mount Krakatoa about to blow through your screen.
That’s what happened to John Kerry.
It’s Mark Steyn, it goes on for two fun-filled pages after this, and that ought to pretty much provide all the info you need to aid you in deciding to read the rest. And consider this post my announcement that today’s posting will either be delayed, truncated, or cancelled entirely, depending on how much in the way of other obligations I can manage to get taken care of in the next few hours.
Update! And just that quickly, my blogging addiction asserts itself as something not to be shaken off so lightly. So yeah, go read this one too:
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Senator, we’ve been talking for the past week now about the fact that Harold Ickes was holed up in the Four Seasons in Boston with Democratic fundraisers and John Kerry’s top contributors for an entire week during the Democratic National Convention.
And yet, nobody wrote about his 527 ad and the $20 million that he raised for ACT. Nobody talked about the fact that John Kerry’s former campaign manager is running this Media Fund, which also is spending millions and millions of dollars.
You ran for president. It’s easy for me to talk about media bias, but did you see media bias in 1996? And if so, how widespread is it?
DOLE: It’s widespread. I mean, you look at the number of stories written about or on the three big networks at night and “The New York Times,” “The L.A. Times,” “The Washington Post,” all the big newspapers. How many dozens of stories they’ve reported about George Bush and the National Guard, and now they had to rush to the defense of John Kerry.
“The New York Times” last Friday had a front-page story, trying to discredit all these other Vietnam veterans, some who’ve been wounded seriously, all of whom served honorably. And many were decorated. And they’re cast as a bunch of liars or paid off by the Bush people. And that’s the kind of coverage you would get from the so-called mainstream media.
President Bush is going to go out and rebut this, for the most part, with paid advertising. He doesn’t have “The New York Times” every day. if you added up the value of all “The New York Times” propaganda, it would probably be $3 or $4 million.
Give ‘em hell, Bob.
- Entries
Gray LadyPravda on the Hudson", ol' Bob deserves to get in a few pay-back bitchslaps.Give 'em hell, Senator !
Eggzackly.
Nutcases really love Kerry.
I likes it, I likes it a lot.
I'll try to get over the twitchy refreshing of the page that has beset my past 24 hours. And I'll read each posting only once, to leave room for others.
A few years ago, journalists were unable to untangle Clinton?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s definition of the word ?¢‚Ǩ?ìis.?¢‚Ǩ? More recently they?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve had difficulty grasping the idea that an ?¢‚Ǩ?ìally?¢‚Ǩ? is a country that supports goals to which they have agreed, NOT one that obstructs. In the last weeks before the Republican National Convention, they are confused over whether the function of journalism is to report news or suppress it. At the current rate of regression, by election day journalists will have difficulty working out a use for their fingers beyond merely excavating their nostrils.
Someone needs to remind Mr. Kerry that there will be no purple heart awarded for a self-inflicted loss of a Presidential Election.