Comments on: Marrying Up

By: Publius

Publius — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:43:22 +0000

I think Kerry’s answer was brilliant, and TOTALLY trumped Bush’s. Why? When asked about “strong women” Bush chose his wife. Kerry chose his mother. I think Kerry sewed up the votes of MANY undecided women, right there, in one answer. I might explain. When I was a young single asshole (as opposed to the old married asshole I am now), the focus of my life was gaming the “dating” system for my own hedonistic gain. I had several platonic female friends who were very sharp in gaming the system from the other side, to secure the “perfect” man. We respected each other and compared notes and I learned a lot. One of the things I learned is that an important question savvy single women ask a prospective mate is: “How would you describe your relationship with your mother?” It’s a very important question and the answer supposedly reveals a lot about man’s attitude towards and respect for women, and his comfort with and ability to maintain loving, close, personal relationships. From what I’ve been told, a woman can quickly “out” a closeted misogynist, nebbishy mama’s boy, or various other afflictions, based on his level of comfort in answering this. Just as Kerry aimed his Swift Boat directly into fire, he aimed his answer directly at the archetypal strong woman in his life, the woman that has the single greatest influence on any mammal’s life, the one who really defines for most men the ideal of what women are all about: his mom. He went above and beyond the call of duty. Award the man a Silver Star for that answer. It’s even more ironic (and telling!), since Bush’s mom is most definitely a strong woman—well-known and admired by many—who had a huge influence on him and would have been an excellent political choice as an answer. She’s also the person in the family that he resembles most: her nasty and vindictive streak is legendary. Regardless of whether Bush chose not to answer “Barbara Peirce Bush” out of political cowardice, emotional cowardice, neglect, or stupidity, he loses.

By: DonBoy

DonBoy — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:49:48 +0000

To expand on Seth Edenbaum’s point, above: Republicans mock Kerry because he married into all that money, which is somehow unfair. Theresa’s money, of course, was inherited from her husband, Republican Senator John Heinz, who in turn inherited it from his own family. Did any Republican ever mock John Heinz’s inherited wealth, which is the same damn money that neither of them earned themselves? I don’t think so.

By: son volt

son volt — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:56:31 +0000

Just one more thing about Bob Schieffer, the one whose animus against Bush was so blatant that Mr. Levy (posting above) believes that Schieffer ought never to moderate a presidential debate again: Bob Schieffer is not merely a friend of Bush’s. His brother Tom was, with Bush, a co-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball franchise. Moreover, Tom Schieffer is now the U.S. ambassador to Australia, and was appointed to that post by Bush.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:47:06 +0000

test

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:36:32 +0000

Kerry was born rich, with relatives who had even more money. Now he’s married to a woman who married extremely well the first time around and who as a result has more money than he does. Kerry and Bush are both ‘Bonesmen’ and the Times had even had a graph of their overlapping family histories. Bush and Kerry are distant cousins. This is not a vote for Jacob Levy; I find them all unbearable, Volokh included.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:34:17 +0000

Bob Schieffer: Mrs. Heinz-Kerry, are you a string woman? Teresa Heinz-Kerry: No, I’m a frayed knot.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:32:00 +0000

Bob Schieffer: Mrs. Heinz-Kerry, are you a string woman? Teresa Heinz-Kerry: No, I’m a fraid knot.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:30:51 +0000

I only had half an eye on it, with sound off and closed-captioning on. If the “marrying up” episode is the one that caused me to look up from the keyboard at John Kerry’s huge sustained shit-eating ear-to-ear grin…..it may have locked in the election for him. Just charmed the hell out of me.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:42:49 +0000

Kieran, the link is broken for me; though the only other post from Lindgren I’ve read supports your overall estimate. (MoveOn says Bush said that Saddam sought uranium from Niger! But Bush said “Africa”!) I agree with catfish about the Volokhs overall, though. Giles, I agree with you that Teresa Heinz is not “string.”

By: dfinberg

dfinberg — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:59:58 +0000

Jim was enough to make me break out the volokh.com/?exclude=jim addtion. Works like a charm.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:47:16 +0000

I think the soft ball part of it is that Teressa isnt a “string woman” she came from a well off family, flitte around in swtizerland then married a fortune. The correct responce would be that no she’s a rich brat Whereas George Bush, on the other hand…?

By: djw

djw — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:41:45 +0000

I thought I saw softballs in both directions (Kerry esp. had big ones on the min. wage and “do you oppose the backdoor draft?”), but Bush had a few as well. The social security questions were ill-informed and poorly phrased, which worked against Kerry.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:58:16 +0000

Jacob: This demonstrates the difficulty of judging bias. I thought the moderator had a pro-Bush bias, and that Kerry got the bulk of the “gotcha” questions.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:53:14 +0000

Do you think this is a fair characterization of Lindgren’s post? Yeah I do, and the link’s right there. But I’ll put a bit more quote in to make it absolutely clear.

By: catfish

catfish — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:52:00 +0000

I have to speak up in favor of volokh.com. I think people read it because Eugene’s thoughtful style makes him a rightwinger that lefties can turn to for sane analysis. His posts are carefully argued, and he usually addresses the opposing view without mockery, ad hominem dismissal, or unfair characterization of the argument. Also, he normally sticks fairly close to his area of expertise, so his posts are usually more valuable than those of a generalist or a political junkie. In short, he seems to be arguing in good faith even if you disagree with him. Levy was also good, as was Tyler Cowen back when he used to post more