The proper way to conduct a Republican presidential candidates' debate would be to begin with first having all candidates sing together the praises of Ronald of Olympus, on their knees, within the majestic span of the 100 foot nude statue's wide stance. Harvey Mansfield would firmly and manfully grasp each candidate on the shoulder, signaling each to rise.

Then, each candidate would have 10 minutes to speak on why they love Ronald Reagan more than each other. They will be judged on the passion in their voice, on the artfulness of their words, and, last but not least, in the majesty of poses struck.

In the moderated round, Chris Matthews would ask each candidate to suggest why he, Chris Matthews, should ever consider any of these candidates to be as manly, as attractive, as fierce, and as bold, as Reagan the Lesser, George W. Bush.

Finally the candidates would have 30 minutes to exchange questions and answers on the great land that will be Iraq in 100 years, and what great honor the Iraqis will build to George W. Bush in that century to come.

The closing ceremony would have the candidates joined by all the reporters and the audience in a solemn repeat of the phrases, "9/11", "Terrorism," "Global Islamic Jihad," "Patriotism," "Dead or Alive," and of course, "No Warrant Shall Restrain Our Bravery," accompanied by the wailing of women and the banging of timpani drums.

jojo++, I came really, really close to writing a different body part, but the mental image was so sickening I couldn't even write it, so I punted.

It's a way of telling a story without reason, without logic, without persuasion, without careful and respectful deliberation.

It's actually sad, really, because however funny it is for those not gushing at the manly macho mastery of today's tough guy right winger poseur, you also see a lot of citizens who should know better react to it in a way which they trust more than words, because words can be tricky, words can fool them, words can manipulate them, but surely, surely they think, surely they can read a man's persona and know what kind of man he is, and what kind of leader he'll be.

The good part of that reaction, though, is that when the loudest tough guys are shown to be weak on the things they're supposed to be tough at -- for example, this war in Iraq, which whichever way people see it, it is NOT seen as some clean, reassuring, manly victory -- it makes a few more people than normal a bit more sour, for a little while at least, on the whole chest-puffing game.

If you actually had a debate between candidates, most of whom were the typical fake tough guy, even the smirkingly fake 'bomb them all' neo-con twits like Kristol or Krauthammer, versus an actual murderer, a man who loudly proclaims that he has killed a lot of men and he likes killing people, especially with his bare hands or maybe a knife, and there's a record to back him up...

...well, it would be really interesting, to say the least.

I don't think it's a chromosomal difference in why I've found Harvey Mansfield to be so amusing on the topic of manliness.

For me the high amusement came with this quote that someone (I apologize, I can't find the post) highlighted from his commencement speech at Hillsdale college. I tried to read it out loud, and every time started laughing, because it really does sound like a Monty Python script:

"A second suggestion following the acceptance of sex differences is to respect the manliness of men. Manliness is the character of men that makes them insist on being men, on distinguishing themselves from women and also from unmanly men. Manly men reproach unmanly men, but merely look down on women, who are excused from manliness. After all, they are women. To accept differences between the sexes is to tolerate this apparently irrational prejudice of men. A man needs to feel he is important. "

http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2006/06/

I'm all for discussions of how gender roles are constructed, but combined with the last 6 years of tiny little angry men screaming for other people to go to war for them in situations for which they'll never face any consequences, and with all the major pundits taking for granted that right wingers are by definition 'manly' and liberals by definition effeminate, and even our whole national political fascination with 'stupid' as macho and 'intelligent' as wimpy, it's simply impossible for me to take these concerns about "manliness" from pathetically obvious authoritarian-worshippers seriously.

The nation that sees wealthy drunken scion, former Andover cheerleader, draft / service dodger, and failed businessman who is always bailed out by his family's connections, George W. Bush as a 'smoke 'em out' tough guy -- versus John Kerry, no less -- has some serious, serious, serious problems with their perceptions of manliness.

Sour grapes? I'm pointing out what's hilarious about a bunch of fake, unmanly men parading around this nation for the last 6 years acting manly, and laughing about it, and laughing at them and their weird worshippers who wouldn't know courageous if it slapped them in their face, and you see it as sour grapes?

Back when I was in the military, my fellow servicemen also knew how to detect the fake macho types who could never really do anything useful & courageous but who could bluster a lot. I never had that problem, because I never claimed to be any more than I was, nor did I have a painful need to shout about my 'manliness'.

It's a skill this country could use. But then, this thread isn't about what you find to be sour grapes or not, is it?