Stompy, I don't agree that arnold has been a very effective governor for our state for a variety of reasons, but I should save that for another thread.
But his speech last night was clearly powerful, despite the pitfalls touched upon by the article lurkette posted (thank you, btw). I was wondering, too, just what the impetus is from the right to reinterpret that 1960's era so romantically--it used to be the 50's. Has the focus of reinterpretation moved forward a decade in synch with real time? I would hope they've got a tough time ahead in regards to that project, but people are actually eating up the valorious and noble vietnam war along with the standard bearer of republican truth--
Richard Nixon, WTH?
All that aside, Shwarzenegger gave the best speech I have ever seen him give (and, no, he didn't give great ones before, acting career aside). One of my deepest felt fears is his powerful persona and how much effect he may have on the political landscape of California. I would prefer substance over this melding of pop-culture and politics ('girlie men', no please, spoofing SNL is not my idea of greatness), but the people seem willing to eat it up--so who am I to object to what befalls them as a result?
Oh yeah, and I'm not a kerry supporter, either, but wanted to respond to this:
Quote:
|
I'm no huge fan of John Kerry. He sees two sides of every one-sided issue, and four sides of every two-sided issue. But the alternative is a president who sees one side of every issue, no matter how many sides it has.
|
I actually see that as a strenght, and I suspect that kerry does, too, along with many of his supporters.