USA TODAY: “From McCain, an erratic response to crisis”
In many ways he reminds me of Bush’s deer in the headlights look on 9/11.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
McCain Failing The 3AM Phone Call Test On Economics
September 19th, 2008
23 Comments
“talking about the economy is gay”-Laura Ingraham
It’s incredibly ironic that wall street melts on talk like a pirate day.
If I were a Republican I’d be running from my own failed economic dogma too … McCain doesn’t need to be an expert on economics to work that part out
It’s incredibly ironic that wall street melts on talk like a pirate day.
Oh SHIT! Is that today?
Arrrr, mateys!
Bush’s deer in the headlights look on 9/11
To my eyes Bush’s expression seems pretty neutral. Eyes not open wider in shock. mouth a pretty straight line. I suppose the photo can actually serve as a kind of Rorshack test.
Those opposed to Bush tend to see him as stunned. Those in favor tend to see him as focused.
Focused? Bwahahaha. If you remember 9/11 had Bush crapping in his pants as they flew him from point to point. It was until the end of the day that Bush had manned up.
I do remember. And certainly if you look at the longer events of that day, or even the minutes immediately following the photo as he continued to sit there you get a far less impressive view of him.
But I was referring only to the moment caught in the photo. And in that particular still image, I think one could read a number of things into his expression (or lack thereof) depending no their personal politics.
I have never thought of a deer caught in headlights as appearing to be particularly focused, decisive or ready to lead in a moment of crisis, but that’s just me speaking out of my personal bias, I suppose
Just so, yes.
I have never thought of a deer caught in headlights as appearing to be particularly focused, decisive or ready to lead in a moment of crisis,
No, it’s more of an “Oh shit” moment.
Whaaa? Really? Hahahaha
No, it’s more of an “Oh shit” moment
A reaction I defy anyone to have when presented with that kind of news.
No problem – but “Oh shit” is not as a “focused” deer in headlights
Not sure why you want to go to bat on this
Here’s the thing. When something like this happens I want my president to say:
Holy Shit! Something earth shattering just happened and I’m the leader. I have to stop what I’m doing, talk to my advisors, then tell the American people what happened and what we’re doing.
This, for example.
What Bush did as:
Oh Shit! Something really bad just happened. Let me finish reading this story book and then I’ll fly around from one place to another not projecting any sort of leadership. Later, I will give a pretty good speech and then proceed to fuck everything up.
OK, since I apparently have to talk slowly for folks to actually deal with what I’m saying so let me try this again.
I. Don’t. Think. Any. Reasonable. Person. Can. Argue. That. Bush. Wasn’t. Scared. And. All. But. Useless. On. 9/11. Given. His. Utter. Inability. To. Lead. That. Day.
But my point was and remains that people interpret his expression and state of mind at the instant shown in the photograph based on their own opinions of the man, and not on anything intrinsic to his expression at that instant.
I would lay odds that if you showed this photo to a group of folks who did not know what Bush was being told at that moment that they would be less inclined to see him as ‘in the headlights’ than a group who did know what he was being told.
Why don’t you just lower the bar further and present the photo to another group of folks blindfolded and placed in a dark room?
We all recognize the photo and it still captures Bush’s failure of leadership at his metaphorical 3AM moment. You’re going to such absurd lengths to strip the photo of all context that it reveals more about your eagerness to absolve Bush of weakness than it does of anyone else’s personal politics.
Save your condescension for a situation where you have an actual argument, my friend
In lieu of an actual photo of McCain feeling that 3AM economic heat, the photo works. I will just imagine more teleprompters and a lot of blinking
A reaction I defy anyone to have when presented with that kind of news.
I totally agree with you, Sean. It’s his actions that followed that moment that define him.
Duros: I totally agree with you, Sean. It’s his actions that followed that moment that define him.
And I totally agree back. His actions for the remainder of that day and the weeks/months/years which have followed have shown what a pathetic attempt at a leader he is.
And to those inclined to project onto me an “eagerness to absolve Bush of weakness” because I dare to disagree with them about his expression in that photo, I suggest you read that last paragraph again carefully. Have someone else explain it to you if the big words confuse you.
My point remains that his expression in that photo is open to interpretation and the extent to which it is perceived as “Here’s Bush clearly looking shocked and scared (aka ‘dear in the headlights’)” correlates pretty closely with the viewer’s general opinion of him. Those who hate him tend to see the photo as clear evidence to support their opinion, and woe to any who see it otherwise.
It’s not your interpretation of the photo that betrays your panicked defensiveness: it’s the way you want the photo only considered with blinders on, as if no one recognizes the photo or what is going on that day.
How else to interpret the charge that we should abandon memory, and act as if a photographic moment in time ought to exist in a vacuum?
I suggest you distort the motives of people who disagree with you and heap on further condescension and scorn. It will assure you of the rightness of your position. Oh wait, you’re already on top of that
essrog: It’s not your interpretation of the photo that betrays your panicked defensiveness: it’s the way you want the photo only considered with blinders on, as if no one recognizes the photo or what is going on that day.
Lovely to see how you continue to ascribe to me attitudes which I don’t think I’m presenting. Now I’m panicked and defensive?
OW referred to “Bush’s deer in the headlights look on 9/11″ and posted the photo showing, I believe it safe to assume, the look to which he was referring. I comment that, to me, Bush’s look in the photo looks more neutral than anything else. Not talking about his actions the rest of the day. Only about the “look” that OW mentions as present in the photo.
So, yeah. We were talking about just the photo. I find it telling that you insist on changing the subject to his actions over the course of the entire day (which I have made my views on very clear) and try to chide me for sticking to the subject originally discussed. (An someone proving my original point in the process.)
The original subject was McCain’s 3AM phone call test on economics.
The thing that “confuses” me aren’t your big words: it’s why you’re going to such lengths to support a trivial assertion, regarding the photo on its own, etc. etc. etc.
That said, I admit feeling ridiculous going to such lengths to challenge your point about whether it’s litmus-type photo subject to personal interpretation.
So, between your dramatic “saying it slower” and “get someone to explain it to you” I have indeed read between the lines and picked up sarcasm, condescension and defensiveness where maybe there was none. At any rate, you can post another comment and I’ll let you have the last word. I’m ready to move on
ARgggh!! Deer in headlights! Deer in headlights!!!!
(sorry)
To often here folks just seem to utterly refuse to respond to the point someone has actually made. My apologies if I appeared overly sarcastic when that’s what you appeared to be doing.
And I appreciate your recognizing your going to the same lengths you tag me for.
Moving on myself.