Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 December
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 May
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
My Links
The Mixed Reviews Blog, featuring reviews by Jill Cozzi, Gabriel Shanks, and Ned Depew
Cinemarati: The Web Alliance for Film Criticism
The Online Film Critics Society
Flak Magazine
The Kansas City Film Critics Circle
Mixed Reviews
The Filmsnobs Main Page
Jill Cozzi's Brilliant at Breakfast blog
Gabriel Shanks' Modern Fabulousity blog
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Random Thoughts While Watching MSNBC's Coverage of the Wisconsin Primary |
| 02.18.04 (8:25 am) [edit] |
You can read below where I say that John Kerry frightens the Republicans. What I meant to say is that Democrats *think* John Kerry frightens Republicans. He doesn't. Democrats have got to get over this "We Don't Want to Be Called Pussies Ever Again" complex. John Kerry voted for almost everything we Democrats say we're against. And then Team Rove is going to paint him as a Massachusetts liberal. Nobody is going to know what to think of Kerry, especially Kerry himself. That's worse than being unpopular, like Dean. At least Dean leaves the race on his own terms with some dignity intact. But we're voting for Kerry simply because he's a war hero--that's what those "Can Beat Bush" numbers are really code for. This isn't going to work.
John Edwards is defeating Kerry in open primaries among Independents and disgruntled Republicans. That's exactly who we need to win. What Democrat is going to vote *for* Kerry but *against* Edwards? Edwards has so much more appeal, but the party base doesn't see that. We want to line up behind a war hero so that Nascar Dads can't call us pussies when we say we say we're for Civil Unions. That's what this Kerry thing is really about. But we are shooting ourselves in the foot by nominating Kerry. Can't we see that John Edwards has a chance to be Clinton without the sleaze? I don't give a damn if Edwards is a trial lawyer or not. That's a whole hell of a lot easier to spin ("I've spent my whole life fighting for working people...") than Kerry's dizzying turnabout on key issues. Hell, the irony here is that Edwards speaks directly to traditional Democratic concerns, but Democrats aren't voting for him because they think their values aren't electable. That's exactly what's wrong with the party: We're finally on the right side of the issues, but we're still too wounded by the "Liberals are Pussies" card to seize the opportunity to win back Congress and the White House.
Edwards, though, has got to lay some smack down on whoever is in charge of his venues. Look below to read more about Team Edwards' Missouri screwups. And last night, not only did they let John Kerry sweep them off the stage, they underbooked the room, had to convince old people to stop playing bingo and listen to the speech, and then they fired the confetti canon at his feet. Edwards is a great candidate with an amateur staff, where Kerry is an ok candidate with a professional staff. If Edwards wants to win, he's going to have to knock Kerry out in that upcoming one-on-one CNN debate. There's an obvious pro-Edwards bias in the media, and they're going to have to carry the election for him.
As for the coverage itself, Ron Reagan is now my favorite pundit, if you can call him that. His analysis is fraught with both humor and insight; I remember that ridiculous log cabin set for Hardball in New Hampshire, where they had Reagan with an easel in front of a fireplace: "I'm so excited, Chris (Matthews), that my butt is on fire." He referred to the Joementum's push for victory on mini-Tuesday as "Delaware: The Tiniest Kingmaker." And then last night, Matthews asks Reagan what he thinks the Bush team is thinking when they show the President talking to all those National Guardsmen, looking at airplanes and such. "I think the Guard is the new African-American kids for Bush. Remember when they used to always show the President reading to little African-American kids at their tiny little desks because he cares about minorities and schools, especially minorities in schools. Well, if you see Bush reading Clifford books to the Guardsmen, you know they're out of ideas."
----shimes
|
|
|
| |
| President Bush Tells Some Big Fish Stories in Springfield |
| 02.16.04 (7:51 pm) [edit] |
The Monday after President Bush was inexplicably thrown to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" (presumably so he could seem “tough” by taking tough questions, whether or not he answered them well), they sent him to the friendly confines of Springfield, Missouri. The thinking had to be that, after taking a pretty firm bitchslap from Russert the day before, the good folks right here in Johnny Ashcroft, Kit Bond, Jim Talent, and Good Ol' Boy Roy Blunt's backyard would treatem' right. Well, most of the pundits agreed that Russert didn't pull out the A-List material (which would have probably limited his future access to the Oval Office), but the President managed to look bad anyway. He couldn't even answer the simplest questions; he had that confused look on his face; he waffled and stumbled on the Iraq War and his own service in Vietnam. So where better for the President to land on his feet, to get his confidence back, to replenish his spirit than with a warm, affirming reception at Springfield-Branson Regional Airport and a trip to Bass Pro Shops--Missouri's Number One Attraction, and a perfect place for the President to solidify his country-boy image for the good folks of this here swing state.
We got some snow that morning, which cancelled school, so I got to watch the President's "conversation"--as it was billed--with workers at SRC Automotive out in the industrial part of northwest Springfield. Air Force One, I can tell you, makes a damn lot of noise--it's like a whole stock car race flying over your house. A minute later, Springfield Republican Television, better known as KY3, cut live to the airport. The President shook hands with SRC employee Travis Morrison, who put in a lot of time in Pierce City, site of last year's devastating tornados--"a soldier in the army of compassion", as the President put it. Then he did his usual smirk-and-wave routine, while the motorcade was loaded up to head for the plant.
SRC Automotive was chosen for a number of reasons. First, owner Jack Stack is a local legend, one of those innovative businessmen who "does things differently." Stack is famous for involving his employees directly in the running of the business (which amounts to, as has been reported to me by former employees, letting them see the balance sheets), and he used to sponsor an annual Young Entrepreneurs contest held at Drury College (once won by a team captained by the esteemed JimmyO). SRC remanufactures heads, crankcases, rods, and cranks on racecar engines--a perfect thematic for launching the President's re-election campaign. Framing the stage were several automobile engines hung from the ceiling, like Camaro blocks from sturdy oak trees in a trailer park. Behind the President and his "panel" was a giant Missouri license plate reading "Jobs for the 21st Century." In fact, when the President sat down, two giant engines, one on each side of him, hung in front of some giant industrial machines in the background. The scene was, it now seems, a test-run of the President's new NASCAR-based strategy to get those poll numbers up.
Bush is trying to attach himself to images of the testosterone vote, those male voters who turn out for him in droves--commonly called "Nascar Dads." These guys are rural and Southern, yes, but they're also new suburbanites who still think they're tough guys--you know, the kind of guy who thinks it's bad-ass to have an SUV or giant truck with a hemi in it. These used to be Reagan Democrats, union guys who didn't like being associated with the effete liberal left. And that's what the President's Daytona trip and conversation at an racecar engine remanufacturing plant is all about: Convincing guys who are getting screwed in this economy that if they're really macho, they need to vote for a War President. Besides, he cares about jobs, and it's all Clinton and 9/11's fault anyway (from the Springfield "conversation"): [url=]http://www.whitehouse.gov/new...[/url]
"See, when a stock market sometimes indicates -- is a predictor of the future, and sure enough, in the first quarter of 2001, the country was in a recession. And when you're in a recession, it means somebody is not going to be able to work. Things are going backwards. The economy is in decline. People are starting to get laid off. There's a lot of uncertainty out there. People just aren't sure what their future looks like. It's tough times when the country is in a recession...
"The march to war affected the people's confidence. It's hard to make investment. See, if you're a small business owner or a large business owner and you're thinking about investing, you've got to be optimistic when you invest. Except when you're marching to war, it's not a very optimistic thought, is it? In other words, it's the opposite of optimistic when you're thinking you're going to war. War is not conducive to -- for investment."
As you can see, Bush's rhetorical strategy is to explain things on such a reductive level that the point seems self-explanatory--I mean, listening to that explanation, how could how blame anybody but bin Ladin and Clinton for the loss of jobs? There's something to that, sure, but Bush repeats the talking points over and over again, filling up time so that it sounds like he's saying a lot when he's merely passing the buck. Unfortunately, this is the sort of "Common Sense" rhetoric that can be effective out here in the Midwest. We're really skeptical of long-winded, lawyerly-sounding answers--but the President? He's a straight-shooter! Check out his hayseed explanation of trickle-down economics:
"A lot of it had to do with the fact that we cut your taxes, a lot of the reasons why this economy is growing. (Applause.) Make no mistake about it, the main reason the economy is growing is because the entrepreneurial spirit of America is strong and we've got the greatest workers in the world. (Applause.) But it helps when those workers have got more money in their pocket. And it helps when the small business owners have got more money in their coffers. And that's what tax relief does. See, when you cut the taxes for the people, you let them keep more of their own money. It means somebody is going to demand an additional good or a service, and when they demand an additional good or a service in our economy, somebody is going to produce that good or a service. And when somebody produces it, somebody is more likely to find work...
"That means that it was the tax relief passed by Congress encouraged him to invest. When he buys a piece of equipment, somebody has to make the equipment, which means somebody is more likely to find a job. So when Jack makes a decision to buy a piece of equipment, based upon the tax relief, he really says, I'm going to not only help my workers become more productive -- which means better pay over time -- but it means somebody is going to have to make the equipment. And that's how the economy works. It's an economy that responds to the decision-making process of a lot of people around the world like Jack."
And that's exactly how it works, right? It's just that simple, right? How can it be any more complicated than that? You must be a moron if you can't understand how this economy works! So that's what the President told us, and then he headed toward the motorcade and scooted off to do some shopping at the Bass Pro Superstore. But if you're like me, you want to know what the President thinks about Jack having to compete with China because we keep bestowing Most Favored Nation status on them (Not that Jack Stack does: Racing engines had better always be made in the USA, right?). You want to know about outsourcing of technical jobs. You want to know about the decreasing power of unions to negotiate living-wage jobs. You want to know how immigrant amnesty is going to affect the service economy. You want to know about all kinds of stuff--and, to be fair, a campaign stop at SRC Remanufacturing in Springfield, Missouri probably isn't the time and the place for a Stiglitzian discussion of national budget concerns. But still, this hayseed explanation of trickle-down economics worked in the last election because this straight-shooting, common sense-sounding rhetoric appeals to the Midwestern and Southern sensibility.
But as more people begin to see that this "Jobless Recovery" isn't going to trickle down to them, that the real issues in our working class lives aren't being addressed, the President's rhetoric is going to sound more and more like carpetbagger bullshit--which it is. At least, that's what the Democrats have got to communicate to the Midwest. The truth is on their side, but they've got to counter the President's common touch rhetoric.
This is why I think John Edwards has a better shot at beating Bush than John Kerry. If Kerry reverts back to his fall 2003 form, like he did in last night's Wisconsin Primary debate, he'll come off like a double-talking lawyer. That won't fly here, but Edwards has the right tone--a rhetorical flair that meshes with the message. And people will be smart enough to know that he's on the right side of the issues, and he's got the back-story for credibility. To counter, Bush will just have to amp up the testosterone and play the "War President" card as often as possible.
But even on the war issue, he may be losing touch with the nation. The day President Bush was in Springfield, forty miles away in the small town of Aurora, Missouri, Staff Sgt. James Douglas "Doug" Mowris was buried after being killed in an explosion in Afghanistan. [url=]http://springfield.news-leade... [/url] Not that the President should have necessarily attended the funeral (though that would have been an extraordinary gesture toward the family of that soldier of compassion), but Bush didn't even mention the man's name or otherwise acknowledge him during his visit here. This, especially after a day when his credibility on the war was stringently questioned, when his appreciation for the armed forces is under attack from experts who say he's overextended the military, especially when his own service to the United States military is under intense scrutiny.
To be clear, whether or not President George W. Bush intentionally misled us on the Weapons of Mass Destruction does not make the war any less just. Those of us who have read the numerous Saddam Hussein biographies published over the last decade know that the genocide in Iraq was far worse than Kosovo's, which itself justified a war. But we also knew that Hussein was primarily occupied with keeping his own power, and that his global aspirations were dashed after the first Gulf War. Al Gore, during a speech in Tennessee leading up to the state's primary, [url=]http://slate.msn.com/id/20951...[/url] may have overstated the case when he said, "President George W. Bush reminds me more of former President Richard Nixon than any of his other predecessors," but when Gore really went Dean on the crowd, he did say something that's quite right: "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!" Gore screamed.
President Bush strained when he told Tim Russert that he was a "War President" on "Meet the Press," but the next day in Springfield, Missouri he could have acted like one by at least acknowledging a fallen soldier in the War Against Terror. But he didn't, and I think that's what's hurting this President in the eyes of so many, even those who supported this war. Iraq under Hussein was a human tragedy, and a President with more skill and grace could have sold that to the American people as a pretext for war. But he didn't--he played to our fears and bullied popular opinion by trumping up the evidence of WMD. And now, while he stumbles over questions about Iraq and refuses to attend funerals, or even to associate himself with any human casualties of this war, he seems aloof to such personal concerns of the American people.
Mr. President, it's not about the War, sir--just like, in a less-important way, it wasn't about sex with Bill Clinton. Instead of attending that funeral in Aurora, or at least meeting with the wife and family of Doug Mowris, President Bush was gone fishin' at Bass Pro Shops to look at rods and reels (which, incidentally, is owned by Bush family friend and huge donor John Morris). A local TV station captured the photo op that defines Bush's current problems: Outside the exit of the Bass Pro Shops is a giant arching sign the reads "Liars Club"--as in a Big Fish story, where you can get your picture taken next to a giant bass. While those in Aurora, Missouri mourned, President Bush walked out of the Bass Pro Shop and stood right under that sign, smirking and waving as the Secret Service opened his limo.
----shimes
|
|
|
| |
| John Kerry: A Top-Shelf Candidate? |
| 02.08.04 (7:40 pm) [edit] |
In one of the most banal and bizarre moments of the campaign coverage thus far, on the day of the New Hampshire Primary on “Crossfire”, Tucker Carlson and James Carville squared off over John Kerry's charity/fundraiser hockey game the previous Saturday. Senator Kerry put together a couple of squads of retired Boston Bruins and a few local kids, beginning with a stump speech by the Senator before the puck dropped, and featuring Kerry himself strapping on the pads to skate a few shifts. Tucker, of course, took offense at the two goals Kerry scored in the game. CNN brought up the tape of the first goal, with Kerry on a breakaway and the defense noticeably slowing down to let the Senator challenge the keeper.
"Look at that! They just let him skate in there! That's so phony!" crowed Carlson. And Tucker had a point--the D did back off Senator Kerry. Carlson got even more riled up: "They were instructed to let him score! That’s just plain pathetic!"
Then James Carville, the party's most feisty and reliable voice, came to the Senator's defense: (In Carville's Lou-sanna accent) “Now looky here Tucker! If yer tryin' to say that the Senator idn't an athlete, just look at that! (Cut to more footage of Kerry carrying the puck through the neutral zone.) This man is one of the most athletic men to ever run for the White House, and yer tearin' him up for gettin' after it!"
"But look at that! They just let him score! He can barely skate! Disgraceful!"
I've seen this tape a few times, and I think Tucker is about half-right. Yes, the defense did let up on Kerry--and, later, it was reported that no one was to touch the Senator, which I doubt anyone would say isn't the right thing to do. On the play in question, the only thing the defensemen could do is try to poke-check Kerry from behind to tie up his stick and risk hooking the Senator down, or sweep check the Senator and try to touch the puck before tripping Kerry with the stick--either option results in Senator John Kerry hitting the ice and probably crashing into the goaltender. So, yeah, the defense let Kerry go.
The truth about that first goal is that the goaltender completely misplayed the shot--he made a pick-up league keeper's error. Kerry came up the middle with the puck and skated to the forehand side. The goalie tried to be aggressive and cut off the angle, but since the defense didn't force Kerry to the backhand and right into the keeper's chest, the goalie overplayed the forehand and didn't cut off the backdoor--his glove-side angle. The result: Senator John Kerry had the whole glove-half of the net to shoot at, and Kerry buried it just above the keeper's right shoulder. Would Kerry have scored if the keeper would have played a better angle? Probably not. But in the Senator's defense, he did blast the forehander on net. It was a clean goal, but the better question is whether Kerry have scored if the defense would have forced him to the backhand--that's the difference between a really good rink player and your average hack. Let's go back to the Carlson/Carville exchange:
"Oh come on James! This is just a typical, bogus Democratic dog-and-pony show. I mean, come on! He can barely skate! This is just sad."
"Now I know a finely tuned athlete like yerself, Tucker, may not be able to recognize this, but look at that: (Cut to footage of Kerry in what I assume to be the second period, because he's skating the other way.) The Senator can skate like hell, Tucker! That's a real man's man right there! That man is macho! Looky at that!"
And then we see the footage leading up to Senator Kerry's second goal. At this point, I think Carville has made a little too much of Kerry's hockey prowess, but that's ok because they don't play a lot of hockey in Lou-sanna and he doesn't know the difference. But I also think Tucker Carlson was being a little rough on the Senator too. Hockey's a tough sport, and it takes a lot of work to develop skating ability. To his credit, from what I had seen, Senator Kerry has a decent skating stride and can build up a good bit of speed.
And then something happened that caught my attention: Kerry emerges from a scrum near the blue line, carrying the puck in on the forehand. This time, Kerry is coming in from the wing rather than the middle, so the keeper cuts off the near post. Kerry has some room to cut back to the center, so the Senator transfers the puck to his backhand, skates across just above the crease, and as the keeper dives back to the far post, the Senator flips the puck top shelf--on the backhand!
Now that was a good shot! Your average rink player usually just slides the puck along the ice on the backhand, or just barely lifts it off the ice. Most rink-rat goaltenders know that even if you over-commit to the near post, you usually have time to slide back to the far post with the right pad or the stick on the ice to stop the backhander. Had Kerry just scooted the backhander, the goaltender might have gotten to it. But the Senator got under the puck while skating full speed and--well, he didn't roof it, but he got some real good wood under it.
"Now looky here at that Tucker! You can't tell me that's not a man's play right there!"
"Oh come on James! They're babying him out there!"
This stupid little exchange strangely exemplifies the subtext of the Kerry candidacy. Remember last year when it came out that the Republicans said that Kerry "looked a little French"? (As a sidenote, one of my best friends is a French national, so I’ve grown to resent all this “The French are a Bunch of Surrender Monkeys” bullshit. Six in ten French men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-eight died or were permanently maimed during World War I. The French are not pussies.) Kerry frightens the Republicans because, as a decorated war hero who will be juxtaposed with a guy who has, at best, an "incomplete" record of service, he thwarts Karl Rove's usually strategy of testostorizing of the campaign. And here, you’ve got James Carville and Tucker Carlson crossfiring over whether or not John Kerry is a “man.” This dumb exchange is fascinating for how fired up they both got over something so small, and how quickly it degenerated into a referendum on the “machismo” of the candidate.
The subtext of Rove-engineered campaigns is that the Republican is the Alpha Male and the Democrat is the effete pussy. The construct is merely the extension of a long-standing insecurity on the political left, whose roots can be traced to the Vietnam War protests. All Rove has done is actively voiced this psycho-social construct in the conduct of Republican campaigns. Probably the most shameful campaign I've seen in my lifetime is the Ralph Reed-run (former executive director of the Christian Coalition, now a Republican strategist) campaign in which Saxby Chambliss ran ads depicting three-limb amputee Max Cleland side-by-side with Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein. Not that the Democrats are at all innocent of vicious campaigning, but these are the levels they're willing to stoop to prove that all "liberals" are pussies. Whoa boy, what about one from Massachusetts, where they’re such pussies they even allow gay people to get married!
And so it's already begun with Kerry. "He looks French." "He's the 'liberal' senator from Massachusetts." "He's not backing the troops by criticizing the war." "John Kerry sucks at hockey"--the Republicans are already showing their hand as to how they're going to play this campaign. That's why I think John Kerry can win: They don't know what to do if they can't call us pussies. John Kerry is already beating Bush by five points in some polls—yes, I know that all the focus is on the Democrats right now and that's inflated the poll numbers, but the Republicans clearly thought that opponent was going to be Dean, and they geared the beginnings of the re-election campaign incorrectly toward that. The result is that second-rate State of the Union address and the lame interview with Tim Russert. Right now, they’re having trouble adjusting the game plan. If you really want to understand the standard Republican game plan, just tune into any episode of “Hannity and Colmes”. Sean Hannity plays the loud, macho, “tough” conservative who tells it like it is, while puny little Alan Colmes just sort of whines his way through the show. The Republican strategy is to Colmesenize the opponent, paint him as weak on defense and doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to protect the country in these dangerous times. Throw in some God, guns, and gays, and you carry all of the rural vote and most of the suburban Nascar dad vote, and there's your election.
This is also why I think Democrats have been so eager to jump on the Kerry bandwagon. In Iowa, his big victory can be credited, in large part, to the humanizing and wrenching speech by the man Kerry saved in that river delta in Vietnam. Kerry's Purple Hearts are a big deal to us because we are sick and damn tired of having our manhood questioned. Hell, Wesley Clark was second in Democratic polling when he jumped into the race, and he hadn't even campaigned yet--because he's a four-star general, that very idea touched something deep in the Democratic psyche. We've spent the last twenty years having our manhood questioned, and now it's been extended to our patriotism. We Democrats are tired of this pseudo-macho suburban Nascar Dad, Hemi-In-My-SUV bullshit.
That’s the appeal of John Kerry. Howard Dean shot to the front because he was against the war, and he found a voice that seemed tough for liberals. Howard Dean is right: He stood up to the President when no one else would--from the safety of the distant campaign trail, sure, but Dean's anger that fueled his rise is an outgrowth of the sensitivity we Democrats feel about having our manhood questioned on the war issue. But Dean wasn't electable, and Kerry shot to the front mostly on the strength of the *perception* that he could win. Why? Mostly because he's a war hero, he doesn’t freak out on stage, and they won't be able to call him a pussy. Most registered Democrats have experienced this, I’m sure. That’s the subtext of Kerry campaign, and that is what’s steamrolling his campaign to the finish line.
That's how far American politics has degenerated--a schoolyard name-calling hissy fit. I feel bad because we’re as much at fault as the other side, but because Rove has been so successful in pussyfying and Colmesenizing candidates (even war heroes), this is what's happened. Not that Democrats don't call Republicans stupid every chance we get, but we aren't in charge right now. Personally, I think the substance of John Kerry is still very much in question: Can a Skull and Bones initiate who's the richest man in the Senate really run a populist campaign? I’m not sure Kerry can sell a campaign based on “rooting out the special interests” and appealing to “average Americans” when he’s taken more special interest money in the last fifteen years than anybody else in the Senate.
Despite my grave doubts about Kerry, I don't think his rise to the nomination is that hard to figure out. Democrats just have to convince that fifteen percent of Americans in the middle that John Kerry really is the macho man who can skate like hell and stick the puck top shelf on the backhand. I don't wish to say that my whole take on the election can be boiled down to who has the bigger penis, but in the current state of American politics, "manliness" has become the code word for character--the Republicans successfully argued that Michael Dukakis wasn't "man" enough to be President, and they would have about Howard Dean. The economy, health care, all these are issues that people are concerned about but don't really understand because they're so complex that I'm not sure they're entirely understandable. What people look for is character, and John Kerry's war hero status--on the surface, anyway--vouches for that. But please, John, stay off the motorcycle and get rid of the leather jacket.
----shimes
|
|
|
| |
| Did This Guy even Watch Tanner '88? |
| 02.07.04 (6:09 pm) [edit] |
Well, another caucus day has come and another caucus has gone with John Kerry cleaning up. Personally, I have no problem with John Kerry's history or his record in the US Senate. War hero, prosecutor, and a politician who has seen his fair share of battles. He's also voted his conscience when it comes to the environment and labor. He actively calls for tenure reform in a party beholden to the teacher unions. And did you see him play the guitar with Moby in C-SPAN? Not bad, until one realizes that most of Moby's work is done with a computer.
But I often worry about him as a candidate. His voting record is largely inconsistent with the message (Anti-war, pro-resolution; pro-environment, anti-Kyoto) and there are those pesky photo-ops with Teddy Kennedy and Mike Dukakis, for whom he served under as Lt. Governor. Hell, campaigning with Dukakis was so bad it drove his first wife into a mental hospital. But he's done well for himself with Ms. Heinz, including making him the richest person in the US Senate. I do love hearing the Republicans make may with this, considering the combined wealth of the Bush family and Dick Cheney. He'll be great, but how did he walk away with this contest so handily?
Perhaps a little bit of Jack would have put the love of Willie Horton into John Kerry. Who is Jack Tanner? He was the fictional Presidential Democratic candidate back in 1988 that was devised from the minds of Garry Trudeau and Robert Altman. [i]Tanner '88[/i] was one of those early premium-cable shows that is now seen as a precursor to the equally successful Soderberg/Clooney collaboration [i]K Street [/i] Michael Murphy, as Tanner, would trudge around the campaign trail bumping into the likes of Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson. The thing was hardly scripted and was filmed, chopped, and aired within days apart. A film crew mocking the Presidential primaries. Can't miss, right?
Wrong. This is KC's own Robert Altman, and during that period in the 1980's where everything he touched went down the drain. The series was full of misguided statements about South Africa, trickle-down economics, and other things the Democrats could never wrap their fingers around. Plus, it had that cheap [i]OC and Stiggs [/i] feel whenever Altman would film the exterior of Tanner's jet with a model or the tackiness of Tanner being Gump-ed into the debates. This did make for great TV when Tanner told Jackson: "America is ready for a black President. It just isn't you." Tap! Take that, Jesse! Altman and Trudeau didn't care much for Jackson, but they loved Bruce Babbit. Yes, Bruce Babbit. The former governor of Arizona and eventual (inevitable) Secretary of Interior under Clinton. Tanner always talked this guy up and even had a chance to eat bagels with him one morning. "This is a sad day", Tanner remarked when Babbit dropped out of the race. "This guy really said something."
What this was is anybody's guess. He must have been pro-weed (for Altman) or anti-farming (for Trudeau). At any rate, I only mention this because the Sundance channel is running [i]Tanner '88[/i] as a reflection of the current race. T,his week, Altman hometown paper, [i]The KC Star [/i], ran a follow-up complete with an interview with Altman. Altman says he's for Kerry but we all know he was a Dean guy until he started to tank in the contests. Altman also went after the American media, praising the BBC for being more accurate with its portrait of American politics. In the same breath, Altman also mentions that the BBC plays [i]Tanner '88[/i] once every couple of years. Keep those royalty checks coming! The Star reporter gushed of the show's audacity and edgy material. I'm not sure he actually watched it. (Please see my review of Tanner '88 in the "Altman Owes Us" section.)
But perhaps we need another dose of Tanner this time around. The mood seems right. Tanner represented, or attempted to anyway, a gush of anger against the Republican machine and the Democrats inability to answer. Another guy from Mass is running against another Bush. But perhaps Tanner now has learned a thing or two from two Clinton terms and the failure of Al Gore. Perhaps he could say a thing or two about the conservative shift of the media or the influence of the Internet. MMMMM... The Internet. We have at least a few dozen readers. Maybe we can get something started in this post-Joe Trippi era. Snobs, get ready for this November because we want you to write-in Tanner for President. That would never work. He would probably pick Babbit as a running mate. But who knows. As Altman says, "Tanner did get 20,000 votes in back then." Yeah, Bob. That's why we love you.
|
|
|
| |
| John Edwards Flashes His Pearly Whites in John Ashcroft's Backyard |
| 02.06.04 (9:23 am) [edit] |
First things first: Attention Howard Dean supporters! Please stop handing me "Common Sense for a New Century" at every campaign event. You bothered me at the Franken book signing. You harrassed me at the Wesley Clark rally. You shoved that thing in my face at the John Edwards campaign stop. I know you're mobilized. I know you're part of a "movement." I know Howard Dean has eroded your cynicism of politics. But don't be rude when I say I don't want to read Howard Dean's manifesto on the New World Order. I've read it five times. Please don't take it personally if I refuse to take your little pamphlet. And please stop telling people, "Hey, we've got a right to voice an opposing view here!" outside opponents' rallies. We know you do--that's not the issue. The issue is that most of us who go to these things have been getting the Howard Dean treatment from you people for about five months now, and it's now more annoying than convincing. I'm not saying you shouldn't stump for your candidate, just don't be angry when I say politely that I don't want the Dean manifesto. Thank you.
By now, you've heard all about how great John Edwards is on the stump. He's got this great speech, he's got an optimistic vision of America, he talks about things all Americans believe in, he's Clinton without the sleaze, his years as a trial lawyer have groomed him for politics, he scares the Bush team, he's going to be a superstar, etc. So when I heard that John Edwards was coming to Springfield the day after the New Hampshire primary, I knew I had to see this for myself. Besides, when the hell is another national Democrat going to come into John Ashcroft and Roy Blunt's backyard?
I got there an hour and a half early, and the place was already packed. Word is that they had to turn people away, with 300 people already packed into Southwest Missouri State's Strong Hall. The scene inside was pretty remarkable. People were packed onto the stairs overlooking the stage, even standing far down the hallways stemming from the lobby just to hear the senator. I have never seen anything like that for a Democrat in Southwest Missouri. There was also a wide range of people: college kids, elitist professors, guys with union jackets, a bunch of cowboy hats, teachers, and retirees. We waited twenty minutes past the scheduled time for the senator, who first appeared walking across a field, seen by people in the lobby through the large window on the east side of the building. The crowd starting chanting "Ed-Wards" when Lieutenant Governor Joe Maxwell took the stage. Maxwell, the most popular Democrat in the state, whipped the crowd into a frenzy, and through the doors marched Mr. John Edwards, JD.
Edwards seemed genuinely overwhelmed by the crowd. As the John Cougar Mellencamp played on, Edwards flashed the double thumbs up to the people three stories above him on the stairs, then stalked the tiny stage, flashing that big pearly grin at all us country folk as "Small Town" faded away and Edwards' roadies handed him the mic. First, he pandered to the Gephardt crowd; "My friend," he called the House Minority Leader. And then John Edwards told us "what you and I already know"--that there's two Americas in this country, one for the rich and powerful, and the one for everybody else.
I won't recount the content of the speech for you--if you've seen it once on CNN, MSNBC, or C-SPAN, you know what it's all about. What doesn't come across on television is how remarkably Edwards directs the crowd, incorporating them directly into the rhythm and message of the speech. Edwards will say something about poverty or health care or another plight of the Second America, and people will start whoopin' and hollerin'. Then, Edwards will put his hands out, palms down, with a big smile on his face and look right at the loudest noisemaker. Everyone else in the room gets quiet, he lets the guy or gal yell his "Yeah John!" or "You can do it, John!"--and then a hush falls over the room. John Edwards has silenced the crowd while swelling our enthusiasm for the message with his knowing smile. When a room of 300 people goes quiet, the next thing said is going to carry a lot of weight, so from this silence, Edwards will say something like, "I want to talk about something nobody else will talk about, but something you and I know is important..." When he delivers the line, that welling up of enthusiasm mixes with the purging of our liberal guilt. The effect is that we believe this is a guy who has an intimate understanding of our problems, because we've been put on pins and needles to hear what he has to say. The crowd absolutely bursts at this point, with Edwards taking the opportunity during the applause to walk the stage, flash his thumbs up, clasp his hands and shake them about his shoulders, swaggering his body around the room. Edwards has huge hands with long fingers that he then uses to direct the crowd all over again. We know exactly what the cues are without knowing we're being cued--we've become emotionally involved because we're a necessary part of the performance. This is how John Edwards projects himself and his message into the crowd.
So, yeah, it's a great speech that recalls the old liberal populism--and Edwards can sell it, where John Kerry just comes off like Al Gore. The problem with the Edwards campaign is this: His staff scrambled around at the beginning, like they didn't know how to set up the place. And the room was way too small. I got a call later from my friends Bob and Jonathan in St. Louis, where Edwards was supposed to speak two and a half hours after his Springfield speech. An hour before speech time, they were already turning people away. In Springfield, that's not an issue because, hell, we're excited just to have something to do, and it's probably ten minutes from home. But in St. Louis, you might have to drive forty-five minutes to see the senator, and then have to turn around and go home. Apparently, the Edwards campaign misbooked both appearances. That's liable to upset a lot of potential supporters, not to mention the bad press that'll generate--even Al Sharpton book the UMSL gymnasium. It seems that the day after New Hampshire, the Edwards campaign was still running a Nashua/Dubuque campaign in a big-time state. Springfield, as small as it is, would still be the second largest city in Iowa and New Hampshire combined. And then going to St. Louis and only planning for a few hundred people?
I think all this points to John Edwards' main problem. Yes, he's a great speaker, he's got a resonating message and he knows how to sell it. But this trial lawyer is having trouble transitioning from the jury rooms of Iowa and South Carolina to the big stages he'll need to win the nomination. His organization isn't raising the money it needs right now, and he's not getting the most bang for his buck. Edwards has great Red State appeal: In Missouri, he was within ten percent or beating Kerry in nearly every rural county in Missouri, though he got beat by thirty five points in urban counties. If Edwards can make make big state problems seem intimate to him, he's got a shot. But every time Edwards misbooks a campaign stop, goes on Meet the Press and forgets that he voted for the Patriot Act and called it "a good idea," every time he tries to pretend he doesn't understand Chris Matthews when he's accused of "being in bed with trial lawyers," he looks more and more like a hayseed candidate.
But I don't think John Edwards is just a regional candidate. His Two Americas speech should resonate with working and middle class voters everywhere to whom the benefits of the "jobless recovery" haven't trickled down to yet. I was seduced enough by his speech to re-embrace my natural populist leanings without the cynicism bred by Gore. Seeing Edwards live, I am convinced that his hardscrabble childhood does help him understand why George W. Bush's "health care savings accounts for working families" is non-solving idea concocted without any idea of what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck. I would like to see John Edwards succeed in knocking off John Kerry--but he's got to realize that just playing "Small Town" in small town halls isn't going to get it done.
----shimes
|
|
|
| |
| Dennis Kucinich: The Patch Adams of the Health Care Debate |
| 02.06.04 (7:43 am) [edit] |
Whatever can be said about Dennis Kucinich, one cannot say that he doesn't stand on principle: He protested the WTO in Seattle; at the Iowa candidates forum, he asked Hillary Clinton to introduce him as "the only candidate … who pledges to cancel NAFTA and WTO as his first act in office." And, not only was Dennis Kucinich against the War in Iraq, he has used his opposition to proffer the most ambitious and insane policy initiative of any Democrat this election season: The Department of Peace. [url=]http://www.kucinich.us/issues... [/url] The Department of Peace seeks not just to "make non-violence an organizing principle," in places like Iraq, but to create a giant lumbering bureaucracy to facilitate our "tap(ping) the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love."
Howard Dean may have built his campaign on being against the war, but Dean never established what he was for. He never outlined his vision of a post-9/11 America, how he would build a better world community. Only Dennis Kucinich molds this geopolitical vision into a guiding domestic principle as well: "Domestically, the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, police-community relations conflicts and work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as 'violence is inevitable' or 'war is inevitable'. Thus it will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus."
Kucinich doesn't get into particulars about whether the Vice Lords would be eligible for federal matching funds to facilitate their youth programs to examine the mythologies of ghetto kids looking to follow new paths toward peaceful consensus, but he doesn't have to--it's the vision that counts. Dean has often said he leads a movement, but a "movement" requires more of a messiah complex than Dean's willing to muster. Take Kucinich's reply in the South Carolina debate to a question about social policy: "My presidency will be to take these hands and to put them on the country to help heal America."
That has to be the craziest thing any candidate has ever said in any debate...ever. The masterstroke was when Dennis raised both his hands to shoulder level, his palms down toward Tom Brokaw. Let's be honest: Had John Ashcroft done that (and it's not too hard to imagine that he would), Bush would have no choice but to distance himself from the Attorney General. But at least Ashcroft has the good sense to save his "I've been crucified three times in politics, and God has resurrected me each time" speech for Assembly of God church groups and Springfield Public Access television (no joke, I've seen). But Dennis Kucinich has the gall, the guts to play the messiah card during a nationally televised debate. And attempt to faith-heal Tom Brokaw.
Just who is this Kucinich guy? He was elected to the Cleveland City Council when he was in his early twenties, and was elected mayor when he was just 30. With the city deep in debt, Kucinich refused to sell the public utilities corporation to the city's creditors, plunging Cleveland further into debt and solidifying one of the most resounding defeats of an incumbant mayor in the US history. According to Cleveland Magazine, "In 1995, a panel of 25 historians ranked him the seventh-worst mayor in American history."
But this only tells half the Kucinich story. The AP has reported that Shirley MaClain is the godmother to Kucinich's daughter. And this only makes sense, considering that he told the Praxis Peace Institute in 2002 that "The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite, and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water, and fire source of nearly 15 billion years of cosmic spiraling."
One couldn't assume enthusiastic support for the Pentagon's "Star Wars" missile defense system in a Kucinich Administration. What if American intelligence mistook a bursting forth of kinetic elemental creative energy for a rogue missile launched by North Korea? The United States government would be culpable for interrupting nearly 15 billion years of cosmic spiraling, that's what. We must imagine that a Kucinich Administration would carefully weigh that against the cost of security of West Coast urban areas. I think it's clear where Dennis Kucinich stands.
Which is not to say that Dennis Kucinich isn't a patriot. Consider this moving exegesis at the Redwood Sequoia Conference in 2002: "In that moment I had a new understanding that this flag, as spangled with stars as a bolt of heaven itself, connects the United States with eternal principles of unity, of brotherhood, of sisterhood. … One bright star shines for hope. Another star for optimism. Another for well-being. One for freedom. One for abundance. One for creativity. One for togetherness. One for peace. One star to wish upon to create your highest aspirations, to make your dreams come true"
Imagine the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention this summer in Boston, when Comeback Kid Howard Dean introduces his running mate Dennis Kucinich with a little "red meat" for the party's liberal base: "WE'VE GOT ONE STAR FOR HOPE! ONE FOR OPTIMISM! ONE FOR CREATIVITY! ONE FOR TOGETHERNESS! ONE FOR PEACE! ONE FOR YOUR HIGHEST ASPIRATIONS! ONE TO MAKE YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE! YYYEEEAAAHHH!!!!"
Perhaps the Kucinich candidacy is best summarized by this press release: "Kucinich and Patch Adams to Raise Funds and Spirits in D.C." [url=]http://www.kucinich.us/pressr...[/url] In fact, Patch Adams' approach to medicine approximates Kucinich's approach to health care. Yes, Patch Adams' might not be based on scientific medical study, but who can argue with the pie-in-the-sky optimism that we must treat the soul as well as the body? Adams' steadfast devotion to the cult of his own personality is alarming, no doubt--but it provokes no rational response. What do you say to a man who advocates clowning away cancer? "Patch, you're crazy"? Since he is, those words mean nothing to him, and thus lack persuasion.
I thought of Patch Adams while watching the South Carolina debate last week on television. Tom Brokaw asked Kucinich what he would do about health care in this country, and Dennis launches into a minute long diatribe describing how drug companies and HMO's have hijacked health care, how this is a moral issue, how the profit motive of these companies have driven up costs, how the insurance companies squandered our co-pays in the stock market, how the government works best when it eliminates profit motive from essential services, how patients and doctors both suffer under a regressive system built mostly by profiteers literally cashing in on our pain. Then Dennis boldly offered the idea of a government-run, single-payer system. Kucinich just stood there and stared right past Brokaw into the audience, as silence fell over the auditorium, as if the self-evidence of his words had ended the debate. None of the other candidates had a damn thing to say to Dennis Kucinich.
And what could they? Does John Kerry really want to say, "Dennis, you're a lunatic"? Does John Edwards want to jump in and explain his bad-idea "Lawyers policing lawyers" proposal for tort reform? However, it's tough to argue with Kucinich's case, except to say that it's completely unrealistic and unworkable. But Dennis bore his cross further: "(With the money I'd save from cutting out private sector greed, I offer) a system where everybody is cared for, where all medically necessary procedures are covered, plus vision care, plus dental care, plus mental health care, plus long-term care, plus a prescription drug benefit."
How do you tear down that vision without sounding like the most cynical bastard in politics? So Kucinich just stood there while everyone let the single-payer idea soak into their souls. For a brief moment, I thought to myself, "You know what? Dennis Kucinich is making sense. This is the sort of bold visionary America needs, maybe not to govern, but at least to have a voice."
And then Howard Dean broke the trance: "I think Dennis makes some very good points...." and it was over. Like waking from a dream, Dennis Kucinich transformed from bold visionary back to the crazy short guy trying to get a date at the Iowa Caucuses.
Essentially, what Kucinich offers is the Patch Adams approach to health care policy. But he does say some things that the rest of the candidates don't have the guts to talk about--things that need to be talked about, like insurance gouging, laws against suing HMO's, and spiraling administrative costs. And as much fun as it is to mock Dennis Kucinich, I respect his convictions and his willingness to hold the health care industry culpable for its own profiteering. Still, as symbolized by his plege to use his hands to heal America, Kucinich advocates the liberal equivalent of faith-healing, the belief not in the healing power of the messiah but the healing power of massive, benevolent government. Yet, the awkward silence of the South Carolina debate points to this: When considering the ideas of Dennis Kucinich, laughter may not always be the best medicine. Except when he's campaigning with Patch Adams.
----shimes
|
|
|
| |
|
|
