Do we really need two hours of television pundits disecting campaign speeches? : LUSENET : like sands : One Thread

Being 'cableless' has subjected me to far less of this than I assume the 'cabled' have to endure, however were I 'cabled' myself I would surely tune into Bonanza The Lost Episodes at the far end of the dial rather than watch one more hapless boring minute of the contrived, pointless speech dissection that the television news media forces me to endure just so I can catch the last fifteen minutes of Friends.

Campaign trail speeches are painstakingly created to 'hit' all the major points that a well groomed society cares about, so what the hell is there to dissect? It's not like Dubya pulled a Lincoln, sat at a mahogany desk and poured his heart and ink onto worn parchment -- no! Ol' Dubya pays highly astute political pollsters and wishy-washy, bland tide swayers absent of any real conviction to generate his catch phrase 2000.

Why then, do we need another batch of astute television, lackluster tv jouralists to examine his carefully pieced vocalizations? Did anyone really think his speech would be void of issues like social security or education or military strength? Is it really worth raking over every detail with a fine toothed lice comb? Afterall, the best liberal minds Stanford has for hire are probably hard at work on his next speech anyway.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000


dude, the 'I'm way cool... but I cannot change the future...' bit is one of my all time Butthead favs. Makes me laugh even now -- could you use a little less whitespace next time though?

However, I do appreciate your response to my highly rhetorical rant.

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2000

Moderation questions? read the FAQ