*** Update: Herald Coverage Here ***
Here are some gut reactions from my end, leave your thoughts on the WTKK debate below:
— Martha Coakley’s campaign rhetoric continues to be exceptionally vague. It’s not clear to anyone why she wants to be a US Senator or what she would do if elected.
— Scott Brown is taking a fairly soft approach toward Martha, is this part of the strategy?
— “Joe Kennedy” seems there to undermine Scott Brown. Who is behind his fraudulent candidacy?
— Listener questions are high-quality, but in execution, the studio atmosphere was too subdued. Perhaps “Lite Talk” 96.9 isn’t the proper venue for the debate voters deserve.
— During Michael Graham’s show, Jim Braude and Graham claim the debate was relatively heated. From the listener’s standpoint, I’m not sure that’s the case.
— Margery Eagan’s attempt to attack Scott Brown over per diem reimbursements fell flat when the state senator pointed out he donates the last legislative pay increase to charity. Nice try, Margery.
— WTKK’s debate has clearly been overshadowed by the release of a Rasmussen survey showing Brown within striking distance of Coakley. If this spooks loyal Dems, they could turn out and vote, so this could prove bad news for Brown’s supporters. But it’s not clear the average lefty voter is feeling terribly motivated by Coakley’s campaign or any sense that Democrats are in trouble.
One especially bright spot for Brown: Rasmussen found him leading unenrolled voters, which represent about 50% of the electorate, 65% to 21%.
I missed all but the last few minutes. I have to watch/listen later in the day.
Graham Cracker is positively orgasmic with the current poll results- what is it, a 9 pt. difference?
I heard most of the debate. Ms. Eagan seemed to be campaigning for Coakley. Coakley avoided answering some of the questions concerning Jessica’s Law and BinLaden, nothing new there.
Who was doing all the sniffling on mic? I kept wanting to hand them the box of kleenex.
Why are they burying the debate during most people’s working hours?
Joe, Mag, like nearly all liberals, seems to think we need diversity of superficial characteristics like gender and race, but not diversity of ideas. No surprise there.
I heard the traffic/news reporter on RKO this morning reporting the results of the Rasmussen poll. The nitwit said that Brown had the “undecided” 4 to 1 instead of the “unenrolled”. It may be a small slip up, but just another indication of RKO’s shoddy reporting…Laura Ingraham is really pushing Brown this AM. Brown was on with Hannity on WABC yesterday. Brown is making the most of his solid support in the talk radio audience. It may be enough to push him over the top.
why didn’t WTKK put the whole video up on their site? the only video was of the candidates final statements. they have pics and the debate on podcast….and I still haven’t had the time to listen.
Appears this race is finally heating up. I don’t think Brown will come out on top, but he will have a good showing (if the polls are right- who knows with these polls?).
Toby – they didn’t post it because station management is a bunch of morons.
Honestly, I only half mean this as hyperbole, but why else would they not only continue to employ Eagan and Braude, but put them on during morning drive?
It would have been nice if Ingraham had allowed Brown to get a word in edgewise, instead of lecturing him on how to win his campaign.
She really, REALLY turns me off with her hectoring approach.
Don’t let her turn you Off, turn her Off!
Problem is, Bea, I agree with her on most issues. I just can’t stand her inability(or unwillingness) to let a guest answer a question.
Hannity has the same problem. Must be something in the Fox water.
Laura Ingraham was the host who turned me on to talk radio…..and here’s why:
I was going thru a bitter breakup and if my ex came home, I’d hop in the car and check into a hotel. My brain spinning constantly, the only remedy was listening to this Laura woman. I’d get so pissed off listening to her; I’d forget my own problems. That summer she was my respite. I couldn’t stand her, but welcomed her ability to transform my brain for a few hours.
So it was Laura – she’s responsible for my listening to talk radio…..I haven’t figured out yet if I should thank her, or damn her.
Swami, sorry. I did not realize you are a fan. My problem is 3 hrs of nasal talking, which has
not a thing to do with her politics.
PT, Have you ever watched Joseph Cotton and
the drop dead gorgeous Jean Tierney in the
movie “Laura”?
Your young, you still have time to decide on the
thanks or the damns.
No, I’ve never seen the film, but just read about it. Otto Preminger was the producer and the review I read states it was Preminger’s finest films.
Tierney (she’s Gene, by the way)…..anyway she was totally drop dead gorgeous. Graceful and feminine, yet strong and self-assured. Total package- just a beauty.
I’m gonna get the film- sounds great.
Look forward to your review. I watch it every
now and then. Definitely not a waste of time.
Hi Bea and pirate. “Luara” is a great film, and the title song was written by Charlie Chaplin. Just a bit of trivial info! Gene Tierney was probaly one of the most beautiful woman as far as I’m concerned. I haven’t seen the movie in some time, but it was Dana Andrews who was the Detective, not Joseph Cotten who fell in love with Laura while investigating her murder. Pirate, I didn’t give anything away, you have to see the movie!
As for Laura Ingraham, I agree, I have found myself talking to the radio and telling her to “shut up” so I can hear the answer from the other person, but she seemed a bit better when she interviewed Brown. He does have a chance, and Michelle Malkin is also talking him up!
Medic, thank you for the correction. J. Cotten was in “Portrait of Jennie” which was also a good movie. It is not the first time I have put him in
“Laura”.
Well, my fellow movie buffs, you can expect my “Laura” review pretty soon. I found it and bought it on eBay. You’ve both raved about it, so I’m excited to watch it.
Saw a few movies over the long weekend that are on HBO. One was the Coen’s “Burn After Reading”- great cast including: Frances McDormand (wife of one of the brothers and just a wonderful actress), John Malkovitch (just playing his quirky self- I adore him), George Clooney (I like him more and more with every film) and the surprise, Brad Pitt. He is great as a dim-witted personal trainer trying to be cool as he cons Malkovitch. And he nails it. All talented actors…oh and Tilda Swinson, she’s in it, too.
And “Revolutionary Road”. Leonardo DiCaprio doesn’t do it for me, and he didn’t in this film, either. But Kate Winslet- man she was just a joy to watch. So talented and she has that gorgeous skin, she’s just luminous. And the story was good, too. No, the story was better than good.
I liked it and even Leo wasn’t half bad. They love working together and are very comfortable with each other. That much shines thru to their audience.
A few weeks ago I watched a new film; I think it was one of those IFC’s available the same day as theaters. It starred Willem Dafoe (I’ll have to look up the title)……anyway, it was one of the most disturbing films I have ever watched. And I’m not easily disturbed. It was described as “sexy and erotic” and, in my opinion it was neither.
Now, just writing about it makes me wince.
My cable was out for a while, so I had some TV time to catch up on!
Disturbing how? You are right about Clooney.
I do not know if he gets better as he approaches
mid-life or he has better scripts. I think that Brad’s talent depends on who he is surrounded
by in any given movie.
I am on a black & white kick as of late and loving
every one of them.
I find that in these erratic and sometimes sad times, they bring a certain comfort level.
Bea: The title of the film is “Antichrist”. The movie starts off with a young boy falling to his death from a open window, while his mother and DaFoe’s character are having slighty rough sex. The women, unable to get over her grief, sets out to her cabin w/Dafoe to work on her grief (he’s a therapist). While there, he discovers she is a sadist….including forcing her son to wear his shoes on the wrong feet. She self-mutilates herself, inflicts unspeakable pain onto Dafoe. It was so graphic, really I had to shut my eyes a few times. I’ve almost never had to do that.
When she took a knife to her clitoris, close up? I couldn’t watch, even if I tried.
Disturbing.
What the hell would motivate someone to put up
$$ to produce such garbage? The screenwriter
and or original author won’t be on Oprah or any
red carpet soon. Disturbing seems like such an
inadequate word for such horror.
I guess my forte is not movie reviewing.
Bea: The crazy thing is I had mentioned the film to a friends- she’s in the arts- taught Art History at Hunter College, worked at NYU’s museum, published various arts pieces, etc. After I told her about the film, and she read up on it, she got back to me with how the reviews had the actress as outstanding, the filming beautiful. Yes, I told her I agreed with all that- technically it was well acted and beautifully filmed, HOWEVER those things do not diminish the content. And if the premise was a psychological study of women who do intentionally inflict physical pain on others, or women who are truly evil, it could have been made without such graphic scenes.
When I looked up the title last night, on IMB, the film had maybe 8 out of 10 stats. I started reading the first comment – they loved the movie???
I’m still baffled by the description as a “sexy and erotic thriller”. That’s what I read on “On Demand” for cable movies. Dafoe does seem to wind up in these kind of films. Temptation of Christ- wasn’t that really bloody and violent?
I would have to give you a yes on that but so was Bambi. Maybe there are “degrees” of evil which I do not know about. Is it artsey fartsey or just
plain schlock? There will be no popping of the
corn for that one. It is amazing just how much
is sold as art. Choices, choices!
the reviews and comments seem to view it as an art film, and it starts off feeling that way….the cinematography, music, black and white. The director has a reputation for pushing his films to the limit. He’s Polish (what’s w/there Polish directors? The seem to dwell in some sickness/genuis world unknown to most of us).
I like movies that challenge me to think. Steven Soderberg has that ability when he stays away from “blockbuster” films. He has the ability to get the viewer into the psyche of the character.
This movie did not challenge me. Maybe I just couldn’t get over the horror. I can’t even stand thinking about it. The readers comments put it at a 7 out of 10.