|
Explaining my parody of the debate
A reader protests that my parody of the Bush-Kerry debate “doesn’t lead the reader anywhere, except maybe to total despair. This is an important, perhaps critical, time to focus on choice, and I don’t see your item, although very clever (as usual), as helpful in that regard.” The reader is making a valid point. My point, however, is that there are no good outcomes in this election. On one hand, we have a smooth-talking leftist anti-American appeaser (or at least he seemed smooth-talking for one evening, mainly because his opponent repeatedly failed to challenge him on his incredibly self-damaging comments); on the other hand, we have an apparent virtual moron who smugly persists in a failing policy and ignores all countervailing facts and criticisms and can’t even explain his policy and doesn’t even respond to the gross lies and various indefensible statements of his opponent. My suggestion is that, faced with the choice laid out by my parody, the American people might choose the smooth-talking appeaser over the apparent virtual moron. The satire is dark, and it’s meant to be.
Email entry |