As a legendary woman of the last century turns 85 tomorrow, there are echoes of a Marilyn-like media frenzy in the hide-and-seek game being played now by another super-celebrity.
“Congratulations, Sarah Palin, you have turned the Washington press corps into a bunch of paparazzi stalking your every move,” a reporter writes about the bus tour meant to bolster her presidential chances by blowing kisses to crowds while avoiding contact with journalists.
What we have here is a 21st century equivalent of that classic photo of Marilyn posing on a subway grate, her skirts billowing up while dodging reporters’ questions about her future.
Somehow, with as little political substance now as Monroe had in her acting career then, Palin has attained the same iconic status and, no matter what the media and public think about her, she is an irresistible object of curiosity.
“Why,” Marilyn asked me when we first met back then, “do they print things about me that aren’t true?”
“Because,” I told her, “pictures of you sell magazines and newspapers, and when there’s no excuse for running them, they’ll print rumors, gossip, anything they can get.”
Palin and her people have learned this lesson of publicity sainthood well and, instead of subjecting her to the normal electoral process of being questioned by press and public, are putting her out there to be seen and idolized but remain untouched by substantive scrutiny.
When Marilyn Monroe got serious about her acting, she made a movie titled “Bus Stop,” to reveal more about herself than her looks and manner. As Palin continues her tour, there is no sign that she intends to do something similar.
Yet, at some point, she will have to get off the bus and get serious if she intends to have it carry her all the way to the White House. When will she be ready for her closeup?
Update: The Magical Mystery Tour, after a sneak-off visit to Gettysburg, does Philadelphia and the Liberty Bell. The Palin family tours the Civil War gravesite but bypasses Eisenhower’s retirement home. Just as well, Ike must be spinning in his grave if he knows about any of this.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Forgotten on Memorial Day
The parades, flags and mass prayers are meant to honor men and women who died nobly for their country, but they also commemorate the barbaric enterprise of those who sent them to kill and be killed for reasons that are not fully understood and shared by fellow Americans.
Since World War II, our young people have been giving up their lives in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East and smaller wars elsewhere with no clear consensus about the goals. On this of all days, shouldn’t we question why they have to do so?
As a member of the so-called Greatest Generation, I left and came back to a country united in an agreed-on reality--to defeat a Nazi war machine bent on world domination. Since then, younger generations have given their lives for abstractions such as the Domino Theory of Communism and the War on Terror, the former turning out to be a fallacy, the latter clearly heading that way.
This gap between the bravery of those who wear the uniform and the muddled motives of those who send them into danger makes a sad mockery of Memorial Day.
On 60 Minutes, Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, the first living Medal of Honor awardee in this century, describes himself as an “average, mediocre” soldier and says, "I'm not at peace with that at all. And coming and talking about it and people wanting to shake my hand because of it, it hurts me because it's not what I want.”
What Giunta feels will be understood by anyone who has been a soldier and knows that the essence of war is doing what has to be done and that circumstances, not individual choice, determine the rest. When the risks get higher in some situations, as Giunta’s, soldiers don’t stop to calculate the odds and are certainly not seeking rewards.
This kind of selfless behavior is at the other end of the human spectrum from politics, where everything is done not out of a sense of duty to others, no matter what the consequences, but for calculated self-advantage.
On Memorial Day, we should, of course, cherish those who wear the uniform, but our bearing witness is incomplete without acknowledging the darker side of their service.
TV screens are full of heroic John Wayne movies, but they should also show Paddy Chayevsky’s anti-war satire, “The Americanization of Emily,” in which the World War II protagonist bitterly proclaims:
“War isn't hell at all. It's man at his best; the highest morality he's capable of. It's not war that's insane, you see. It's the morality of it. It's not greed or ambition that makes war: it's goodness.
“Wars are always fought for the best of reasons: for liberation or manifest destiny. Always against tyranny and always in the interest of humanity. So far this war, we've managed to butcher some ten million humans in the interest of humanity. Next war it seems we'll have to destroy all of man in order to preserve his damn dignity. It's not war that's unnatural to us, it's virtue.”
At the very least, as we honor those brave souls who have given their lives, we should be asking questions that might keep future generations from having to do the same in the pursuit of such absurdities.
Since World War II, our young people have been giving up their lives in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East and smaller wars elsewhere with no clear consensus about the goals. On this of all days, shouldn’t we question why they have to do so?
As a member of the so-called Greatest Generation, I left and came back to a country united in an agreed-on reality--to defeat a Nazi war machine bent on world domination. Since then, younger generations have given their lives for abstractions such as the Domino Theory of Communism and the War on Terror, the former turning out to be a fallacy, the latter clearly heading that way.
This gap between the bravery of those who wear the uniform and the muddled motives of those who send them into danger makes a sad mockery of Memorial Day.
On 60 Minutes, Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, the first living Medal of Honor awardee in this century, describes himself as an “average, mediocre” soldier and says, "I'm not at peace with that at all. And coming and talking about it and people wanting to shake my hand because of it, it hurts me because it's not what I want.”
What Giunta feels will be understood by anyone who has been a soldier and knows that the essence of war is doing what has to be done and that circumstances, not individual choice, determine the rest. When the risks get higher in some situations, as Giunta’s, soldiers don’t stop to calculate the odds and are certainly not seeking rewards.
This kind of selfless behavior is at the other end of the human spectrum from politics, where everything is done not out of a sense of duty to others, no matter what the consequences, but for calculated self-advantage.
On Memorial Day, we should, of course, cherish those who wear the uniform, but our bearing witness is incomplete without acknowledging the darker side of their service.
TV screens are full of heroic John Wayne movies, but they should also show Paddy Chayevsky’s anti-war satire, “The Americanization of Emily,” in which the World War II protagonist bitterly proclaims:
“War isn't hell at all. It's man at his best; the highest morality he's capable of. It's not war that's insane, you see. It's the morality of it. It's not greed or ambition that makes war: it's goodness.
“Wars are always fought for the best of reasons: for liberation or manifest destiny. Always against tyranny and always in the interest of humanity. So far this war, we've managed to butcher some ten million humans in the interest of humanity. Next war it seems we'll have to destroy all of man in order to preserve his damn dignity. It's not war that's unnatural to us, it's virtue.”
At the very least, as we honor those brave souls who have given their lives, we should be asking questions that might keep future generations from having to do the same in the pursuit of such absurdities.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Corruption of Power Up Close
He would have turned 100 this weekend, but Hubert Humphrey is a forgotten figure--a hero of the Civil Rights era, V.P. of the U.S. and yet, in the end, a good-hearted man destroyed by the corruption of power and the desire for it.
I was a witness to his downfall with failings of my own as it unfolded.
At the 1948 Democratic Convention, Humphrey sounded a call that led to a walkout of Southern delegates:
"To those who say, that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late...the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!”
Truman won reelection that year, and Humphrey, a former Republican, went to the Senate where he became a champion of Liberal causes until Lyndon Johnson put him on the ticket in 1964.
LBJ wanted a smiling silent partner, a role ill-suited to the ebullient Humphrey. (At one Washington dinner, as M.C. I had had to tug at the back of his jacket to make him stop filibustering the dozing postprandial crowd.)
As America turned against the Vietnam War, Humphrey was assigned to dampen media opposition. At a meeting with editors, he took the hardest possible line against any negotiation to end it.
“Why not?” I asked, “Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is willing to try.”
He glared at me. “But I’m the Vice President of the United States!”
“Yes, sir,” I answered, “and that’s what worries me.”
A few days later, Humphrey’s chief of staff came to smooth things over: “After years of agreement, you’re not going to turn against Hubert over this one issue?”
No sale. “It’s not his judgment I question, it’s his character.”
After being tear-gassed along with protesters at the raucous 1968 convention that nominated him for President, I was asked to campaign for Humphrey as I had for Eugene McCarthy. I refused, saying I would vote for him but do nothing more.
Humphrey lost by the narrowest margin in an election that gave us Richard Nixon and, eventually, Watergate
Looking back, my feelings about Humphrey’s behavior are unchanged, but I have doubts about my own.
I thought about all that in 2000, waiting to cast my ballot for Al Gore in a line of college students eager to vote for Ralph Nader. Hubert Humphrey may have been done in by eagerness to become President, but that corruption by power doesn’t excuse those of us who remained purists and punished him for it to the nation’s detriment.
Happy Birthday, Hubert. Sorry for us all.
I was a witness to his downfall with failings of my own as it unfolded.
At the 1948 Democratic Convention, Humphrey sounded a call that led to a walkout of Southern delegates:
"To those who say, that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late...the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!”
Truman won reelection that year, and Humphrey, a former Republican, went to the Senate where he became a champion of Liberal causes until Lyndon Johnson put him on the ticket in 1964.
LBJ wanted a smiling silent partner, a role ill-suited to the ebullient Humphrey. (At one Washington dinner, as M.C. I had had to tug at the back of his jacket to make him stop filibustering the dozing postprandial crowd.)
As America turned against the Vietnam War, Humphrey was assigned to dampen media opposition. At a meeting with editors, he took the hardest possible line against any negotiation to end it.
“Why not?” I asked, “Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is willing to try.”
He glared at me. “But I’m the Vice President of the United States!”
“Yes, sir,” I answered, “and that’s what worries me.”
A few days later, Humphrey’s chief of staff came to smooth things over: “After years of agreement, you’re not going to turn against Hubert over this one issue?”
No sale. “It’s not his judgment I question, it’s his character.”
After being tear-gassed along with protesters at the raucous 1968 convention that nominated him for President, I was asked to campaign for Humphrey as I had for Eugene McCarthy. I refused, saying I would vote for him but do nothing more.
Humphrey lost by the narrowest margin in an election that gave us Richard Nixon and, eventually, Watergate
Looking back, my feelings about Humphrey’s behavior are unchanged, but I have doubts about my own.
I thought about all that in 2000, waiting to cast my ballot for Al Gore in a line of college students eager to vote for Ralph Nader. Hubert Humphrey may have been done in by eagerness to become President, but that corruption by power doesn’t excuse those of us who remained purists and punished him for it to the nation’s detriment.
Happy Birthday, Hubert. Sorry for us all.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Degrading Democracy: Count the Ways
Republicans are doing more than try to win elections next year. In both presidential primaries and Congress, they are undermining the kind of American government that people are literally dying to emulate in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.
The Presidency is in its second round of insult to injury as Sarah Palin follows Donald Trump into making a circus of the selection process, taking a free ride to pump it for personal publicity with no clear intention to take part in it, even as Michele Bachmann lowers the bar with an Iowa no-show, sending instead a video praising Trump.
If by some off-chance she does run, Palin will have made a bad joke out of the most important decision American voters have to make—-choosing who will repair the economy, send young people to war, name Supreme Court justices-—based on wisecracks and hoopla at motorcycle and pep rallies.
In Washington, the GOP is turning the legislative process into the same kind of farce as Mitch McConnell, in the face of rising public opposition to the Ryan Plan, blandly holds Medicare hostage to budget and debt-ceiling votes vital to preserving American credit throughout the world.
A duly elected President is under attack, for the present and the future, by politicians who are clearly serious about only one thing-—exacerbating Tea Party outrage and milking it for votes, no matter what damage they do to the body politic along the way.
In his Iowa debut, “centrist” Mitt Romney declines to give primary voters the red meat they clearly crave, saying “I want to win that final race and say to Mr. Obama, ‘You’re a nice guy, we like you, you have a lovely family and you’ve done your best. But frankly, it’s time for somebody who understands how the country works.’”
With that kind of approach, Romney will separate himself from the GOP pack by bringing a note of civility into the race, but how far will it take him? One clue is that Rudy Giuliani, Mr. 9/11 who was declared politically dead three years ago, has risen again for no discernible reason than desperation, to lead him in national polling.
In this climate, babies and bath water are flying through the air everywhere. Wherever they land, it won’t be in the safety of the kind of democracy that has protected past generations of Americans for centuries.
The Presidency is in its second round of insult to injury as Sarah Palin follows Donald Trump into making a circus of the selection process, taking a free ride to pump it for personal publicity with no clear intention to take part in it, even as Michele Bachmann lowers the bar with an Iowa no-show, sending instead a video praising Trump.
If by some off-chance she does run, Palin will have made a bad joke out of the most important decision American voters have to make—-choosing who will repair the economy, send young people to war, name Supreme Court justices-—based on wisecracks and hoopla at motorcycle and pep rallies.
In Washington, the GOP is turning the legislative process into the same kind of farce as Mitch McConnell, in the face of rising public opposition to the Ryan Plan, blandly holds Medicare hostage to budget and debt-ceiling votes vital to preserving American credit throughout the world.
A duly elected President is under attack, for the present and the future, by politicians who are clearly serious about only one thing-—exacerbating Tea Party outrage and milking it for votes, no matter what damage they do to the body politic along the way.
In his Iowa debut, “centrist” Mitt Romney declines to give primary voters the red meat they clearly crave, saying “I want to win that final race and say to Mr. Obama, ‘You’re a nice guy, we like you, you have a lovely family and you’ve done your best. But frankly, it’s time for somebody who understands how the country works.’”
With that kind of approach, Romney will separate himself from the GOP pack by bringing a note of civility into the race, but how far will it take him? One clue is that Rudy Giuliani, Mr. 9/11 who was declared politically dead three years ago, has risen again for no discernible reason than desperation, to lead him in national polling.
In this climate, babies and bath water are flying through the air everywhere. Wherever they land, it won’t be in the safety of the kind of democracy that has protected past generations of Americans for centuries.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Romney's Energizer Bunny Run
It’s only his second campaign for president but Mitt Romney seems to have been running forever, like that battery-powered toy in the classic commercial, always in motion but never in a straight line.
In a Republican field where too little name recognition is a problem for most candidates, Romney has too much. In 2008, he changed positions on issues as often as shirts and is starting now with a campaign tome titled “No Apologies,” but the dazed voter is likely to be sorting through a laundry list and asking for which?
He looks and sounds right for the White House, his resume is fine (successful business man, governor of a large state) but “Empty Suit” seems to be stamped on his forehead. Among has-beens, never-weres and who-knows-whats, he is the default GOP candidate, reflected by his 17 percent as frontrunner in a motley field.
As Sarah Palin starts her vanity tour at a Rolling Thunder motorcycle rally, Romney will be making his announcement at a New Hampshire farm, where no one will be mistaking him for Mr. Excitement. At this moment, the two symbolically represent the Republican 2012 dilemma—to go all in for Tea Party loony or try to straddle an unlikely coalition that would attract enough Independents to win.
For the latter role Romney comes with baggage—his Massachusetts forerunner to “Obamacare,” his Mormon faith, his invincible blandness. (In 1948, when he seemed sure to beat Harry Truman, someone labeled Thomas E. Dewey “the little man on the wedding cake” and took him down.)
Beyond that, there may be a problem in Mitt Romney’s genes. In 1968, when his father was the frontrunner for the nomination, a fellow Republican remarked, “"Watching George Romney run for President is like watching a duck try to make love [PG version] to a football."
In a year when Trump and Gingrich have been providing comic relief galore, that may not be fatal. But GOP voters will have to go through a lot before they find themselves exhausted enough to turn to Romney’s straight-man Energizer Bunny act.
In a Republican field where too little name recognition is a problem for most candidates, Romney has too much. In 2008, he changed positions on issues as often as shirts and is starting now with a campaign tome titled “No Apologies,” but the dazed voter is likely to be sorting through a laundry list and asking for which?
He looks and sounds right for the White House, his resume is fine (successful business man, governor of a large state) but “Empty Suit” seems to be stamped on his forehead. Among has-beens, never-weres and who-knows-whats, he is the default GOP candidate, reflected by his 17 percent as frontrunner in a motley field.
As Sarah Palin starts her vanity tour at a Rolling Thunder motorcycle rally, Romney will be making his announcement at a New Hampshire farm, where no one will be mistaking him for Mr. Excitement. At this moment, the two symbolically represent the Republican 2012 dilemma—to go all in for Tea Party loony or try to straddle an unlikely coalition that would attract enough Independents to win.
For the latter role Romney comes with baggage—his Massachusetts forerunner to “Obamacare,” his Mormon faith, his invincible blandness. (In 1948, when he seemed sure to beat Harry Truman, someone labeled Thomas E. Dewey “the little man on the wedding cake” and took him down.)
Beyond that, there may be a problem in Mitt Romney’s genes. In 1968, when his father was the frontrunner for the nomination, a fellow Republican remarked, “"Watching George Romney run for President is like watching a duck try to make love [PG version] to a football."
In a year when Trump and Gingrich have been providing comic relief galore, that may not be fatal. But GOP voters will have to go through a lot before they find themselves exhausted enough to turn to Romney’s straight-man Energizer Bunny act.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Slow-Motion Apocalypse
The world didn’t end last weekend as predicted, but tornadoes have made the middle of America look as if it did. Devastation fills TV screens, making those safe at home aware of how fragile the daily existence we take for granted really is.
How do we reconcile going about our days as if we were safe and going to live forever with the knowledge deep in our bones that we walk on a thin crust of earth that could crack at any time and swallow us forever? How do we cope with the world without either becoming numb and indifferent or acting as though we could control it?
A tornado victim tells of lying in bed with his wife and seconds later finding her gone while his own life is spared. Others stare in wonder at rubble where their homes were minutes earlier. Even after we click the remote control, what they are feeling is in the room with us.
If Nature does not care whether we live or die, neither do the darker recesses of human minds. We learn that the gunman who shot Gaby Giffords and killed six others isn’t “competent to stand trial,” and our desire for an explanation or justice or revenge disappears with him behind the walls of an institution.
We watch cocksure politicians spout certainties as if they were the center of a universe with others only supporting players or pawns in a drama starring their self-righteous selves.
Every day, the news is about devastation. Apocalypse may or may not ever come for the entire human race but surely awaits us one at a time. Can’t we learn to live our lives together as decently as possible without spending what time and energy we have fighting and demeaning one another?
Or is that (dirty word alert) naïve?
How do we reconcile going about our days as if we were safe and going to live forever with the knowledge deep in our bones that we walk on a thin crust of earth that could crack at any time and swallow us forever? How do we cope with the world without either becoming numb and indifferent or acting as though we could control it?
A tornado victim tells of lying in bed with his wife and seconds later finding her gone while his own life is spared. Others stare in wonder at rubble where their homes were minutes earlier. Even after we click the remote control, what they are feeling is in the room with us.
If Nature does not care whether we live or die, neither do the darker recesses of human minds. We learn that the gunman who shot Gaby Giffords and killed six others isn’t “competent to stand trial,” and our desire for an explanation or justice or revenge disappears with him behind the walls of an institution.
We watch cocksure politicians spout certainties as if they were the center of a universe with others only supporting players or pawns in a drama starring their self-righteous selves.
Every day, the news is about devastation. Apocalypse may or may not ever come for the entire human race but surely awaits us one at a time. Can’t we learn to live our lives together as decently as possible without spending what time and energy we have fighting and demeaning one another?
Or is that (dirty word alert) naïve?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Reality Break for Tea Party and Palin
In these Alice-in-Wonderland days, occasional signs of sanity emerge, such as the Democratic victory in a traditionally Republican upstate New York House district, fueled by voter worries about Medicare and a Tea Party candidate on the ballot drawing just enough votes to make the difference.
This used to be known as shooting yourself in the foot, but that won’t deter John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and other House GOP leaders, who contributed to the loser’s campaign, from pressing their hopelessly ideological agenda on the national stage.
Posturing has become all--reality seems beside the point. Never mind that three Senate Republicans—Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins—are not supporting the House zealots, eliminating any possible chance of victory on the House budget manifesto. Politics has morphed from the art of the possible to proclamations of purity.
This same kind of loony disconnection from what most Americans call reality can be seen in a new Sarah Palin movie, intended to “catapult her from the presidential afterthought she has become in the eyes of many pundits directly to the front lines of the 2012 GOP conversation.”
The film’s thesis is that Palin drove the Republican Congressional victory in 2010, when a sober analysis shows that, if the GOP had nominated more plausible Senate candidates than Palin-backed Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Linda McMahon in Connecticut, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Carly Fiorina in California, they might have swept both houses of Congress. Even in Alaska, Lisa Murkowski overcame a Palin vendetta with a write-in effort to beat Joe Miller.
But crazy and clueless are still the specials on the Republican menu, and what voters want only occasionally appears as a side dish. Until the Tea Party is over, they are going to have to find ways of ordering a la carte.
This used to be known as shooting yourself in the foot, but that won’t deter John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and other House GOP leaders, who contributed to the loser’s campaign, from pressing their hopelessly ideological agenda on the national stage.
Posturing has become all--reality seems beside the point. Never mind that three Senate Republicans—Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins—are not supporting the House zealots, eliminating any possible chance of victory on the House budget manifesto. Politics has morphed from the art of the possible to proclamations of purity.
This same kind of loony disconnection from what most Americans call reality can be seen in a new Sarah Palin movie, intended to “catapult her from the presidential afterthought she has become in the eyes of many pundits directly to the front lines of the 2012 GOP conversation.”
The film’s thesis is that Palin drove the Republican Congressional victory in 2010, when a sober analysis shows that, if the GOP had nominated more plausible Senate candidates than Palin-backed Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Linda McMahon in Connecticut, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Carly Fiorina in California, they might have swept both houses of Congress. Even in Alaska, Lisa Murkowski overcame a Palin vendetta with a write-in effort to beat Joe Miller.
But crazy and clueless are still the specials on the Republican menu, and what voters want only occasionally appears as a side dish. Until the Tea Party is over, they are going to have to find ways of ordering a la carte.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Beating Bushes for a President
Even as GOP hopefuls make pilgrimages for a blessing by President 41, the sound of a distant groundswell can be heard for a possible Bush 45.
“His credentials,” says a throbbing pundit about the failure of Jeb Bush to step up, “are so good and his political abilities so acute compared to the others that his decision may well result in four more years of President Obama.”
Could eight disastrous years of Bush 43 disappear down the Memory Hole so quickly? Would Independents who deserted McCain in 2008 come back so quickly to a dynasty whose legacy then was a pointless war in Iraq, a faltering economy and infringement of Americans’ traditional rights to privacy?
In this era of Anybody Can Run (pace Trump, Cain et al), 58-year-old John Ellis Bush would bring to the GOP race (1) 100% name recognition (2) two terms as a popular governor of Florida and (3) an opportunity to break the Democratic stranglehold on the national Latino vote as the Spanish-speaking, Catholic convert husband of an Hispanic American.
The conventional wisdom, supported by his own declarations, has been that Jeb Bush would wait out the nation’s Bush Fatigue until at least 2016 before running for anything. But the degradation of political dialogue may have changed the timetable, creating an urgency for him to step forward as the Republican Great White Hope next year.
Granted, a Bush candidacy would offer Barack Obama a chance to saddle Republicans with the past that led to the present chaos, but voters have short memories, as 2010 showed.
If Jeb Bush does run, the only consolation is that there won’t be any Dick Cheney with him. But then again, we could be faced with a Jeb Bush-Paul Ryan ticket, and if that isn’t Back to the Future, what would be?
“His credentials,” says a throbbing pundit about the failure of Jeb Bush to step up, “are so good and his political abilities so acute compared to the others that his decision may well result in four more years of President Obama.”
Could eight disastrous years of Bush 43 disappear down the Memory Hole so quickly? Would Independents who deserted McCain in 2008 come back so quickly to a dynasty whose legacy then was a pointless war in Iraq, a faltering economy and infringement of Americans’ traditional rights to privacy?
In this era of Anybody Can Run (pace Trump, Cain et al), 58-year-old John Ellis Bush would bring to the GOP race (1) 100% name recognition (2) two terms as a popular governor of Florida and (3) an opportunity to break the Democratic stranglehold on the national Latino vote as the Spanish-speaking, Catholic convert husband of an Hispanic American.
The conventional wisdom, supported by his own declarations, has been that Jeb Bush would wait out the nation’s Bush Fatigue until at least 2016 before running for anything. But the degradation of political dialogue may have changed the timetable, creating an urgency for him to step forward as the Republican Great White Hope next year.
Granted, a Bush candidacy would offer Barack Obama a chance to saddle Republicans with the past that led to the present chaos, but voters have short memories, as 2010 showed.
If Jeb Bush does run, the only consolation is that there won’t be any Dick Cheney with him. But then again, we could be faced with a Jeb Bush-Paul Ryan ticket, and if that isn’t Back to the Future, what would be?
The Wrong Strauss-Kahn Movie
It’s getting harder to coopt reality for entertainment. Columnist Ross Douthat proposes a Dominique Strauss-Kahn epic—“one of those sprawling, complex, kaleidoscope-of-globalization movies that aspire to Oscar glory. Think ‘Traffic’ or ‘Syriana,’ ‘Crash’ or ‘Babel’”—but he has the wrong genre.
The boffo box office gold may be in a remake of low comedy.
Imagine the poster for the 1988 flick “Twins”--identically dressed Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito leaning against each other, and then put in the head of Strauss-Kahn for DeVito’s.
The script practically writes itself: Two disparate self-made Europeans in their early 60s suddenly find, in the words of the old Spy Magazine, they were “separated at birth” and are dramatically reunited by revelations that they share DNA to make headline dicks of themselves at the height of fame and wealth.
The parallels are remarkable. Both marry women journalists from rich and aristocratic families—a Kennedy TV newswoman and the daughter of a wealthy French family described as “a combination of Charlie Rose and Barbara Walters” by Elie Wiesel, for whom one of the Strauss-Kahn children is named.
Both come a cropper in encounters with housemaids, albeit years apart, and in the climatic scenes embrace the inevitability of the inborn hubris waiting to take them down at the height of their careers. (Strauss-Kahn was ready to run for president of France and, were it not for the U.S. native-born thing, Arnold would have been up there for the 2012 Republican nod ).
But unbridled lust is destiny, and one is caught out by the existence of a teen-age son while the other is entrapped by a Monica Lewinskyish semen stain for which not even the most ardent Right-to-Lifer would claim human status.
Sad endings for a farce. Maybe better to stick with the Danny DeVito version.
Update: Arianna Huffington weighs in, noting that “the competitor who ultimately did Strauss-Kahn in wasn't one of his political rivals, it was himself.
“Likewise in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has made a career of defeating opponents--including me!--both on-screen and off. But, in the final reel, he was undermined by an opponent much closer to home.”
If they remake “Twins,” she could serve as the Greek chorus.
The boffo box office gold may be in a remake of low comedy.
Imagine the poster for the 1988 flick “Twins”--identically dressed Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito leaning against each other, and then put in the head of Strauss-Kahn for DeVito’s.
The script practically writes itself: Two disparate self-made Europeans in their early 60s suddenly find, in the words of the old Spy Magazine, they were “separated at birth” and are dramatically reunited by revelations that they share DNA to make headline dicks of themselves at the height of fame and wealth.
The parallels are remarkable. Both marry women journalists from rich and aristocratic families—a Kennedy TV newswoman and the daughter of a wealthy French family described as “a combination of Charlie Rose and Barbara Walters” by Elie Wiesel, for whom one of the Strauss-Kahn children is named.
Both come a cropper in encounters with housemaids, albeit years apart, and in the climatic scenes embrace the inevitability of the inborn hubris waiting to take them down at the height of their careers. (Strauss-Kahn was ready to run for president of France and, were it not for the U.S. native-born thing, Arnold would have been up there for the 2012 Republican nod ).
But unbridled lust is destiny, and one is caught out by the existence of a teen-age son while the other is entrapped by a Monica Lewinskyish semen stain for which not even the most ardent Right-to-Lifer would claim human status.
Sad endings for a farce. Maybe better to stick with the Danny DeVito version.
Update: Arianna Huffington weighs in, noting that “the competitor who ultimately did Strauss-Kahn in wasn't one of his political rivals, it was himself.
“Likewise in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has made a career of defeating opponents--including me!--both on-screen and off. But, in the final reel, he was undermined by an opponent much closer to home.”
If they remake “Twins,” she could serve as the Greek chorus.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Defining Macho Down
Never mind men in outer space or those slogging in Middle East mud, media attention is on a horny old Frenchman in Manhattan detention, a former body builder with no procreative self-control and a preening pack of politicians playing Chicken with the national debt limit.
In the Age of Viagra, masculinity is being downgraded everywhere. Even 60 Minutes is obsessed with strength cheating by Lance Armstrong and other cycling idols.
The Bogart-Eastwood days of strong, silent men are long gone, replaced by caricatures on the national stage, flexing fake muscles and abandoning all the responsibilities that used to be associated with responsible manhood.
A nation still composed more of families headed by breadwinners and Little League fathers than cases of arrested development watches survivor and “reality” shows featuring selfishness and low cunning as well as “news” about creatures with no sense of what’s involved in taking care of dependent people at home or in the public arena.
When moments of old-fashioned heroism, such as Seal Team Six’s takeout of Osama bin Laden, jolt us into awareness of reality, Disney is right there to trademark the name in order to convert it into toys, games and other distractions.
All this is happening against an almost complete takeover of the mental health profession by women, who comprise 90 percent of counselors now as compared to 70 in 1982.
A study finds that a man’s willingness to seek therapy is directly related to how strongly he agreed with traditionally male assumptions, like “I can usually handle whatever comes my way” and that men undecided about treatment may be discouraged by the prospect of talking to a woman.
The coming election year will only inflate male bluster about leadership and strength in the effort to unseat a President more prone to professorial lecturing about national problems than playing dressup to land on an airplane carrier bedecked with “Mission Accomplished” signs.
But then again, Bogie is long gone and Eastwood is a very senior citizen in an era of noisy blowhards and sexual sneaks.
In the Age of Viagra, masculinity is being downgraded everywhere. Even 60 Minutes is obsessed with strength cheating by Lance Armstrong and other cycling idols.
The Bogart-Eastwood days of strong, silent men are long gone, replaced by caricatures on the national stage, flexing fake muscles and abandoning all the responsibilities that used to be associated with responsible manhood.
A nation still composed more of families headed by breadwinners and Little League fathers than cases of arrested development watches survivor and “reality” shows featuring selfishness and low cunning as well as “news” about creatures with no sense of what’s involved in taking care of dependent people at home or in the public arena.
When moments of old-fashioned heroism, such as Seal Team Six’s takeout of Osama bin Laden, jolt us into awareness of reality, Disney is right there to trademark the name in order to convert it into toys, games and other distractions.
All this is happening against an almost complete takeover of the mental health profession by women, who comprise 90 percent of counselors now as compared to 70 in 1982.
A study finds that a man’s willingness to seek therapy is directly related to how strongly he agreed with traditionally male assumptions, like “I can usually handle whatever comes my way” and that men undecided about treatment may be discouraged by the prospect of talking to a woman.
The coming election year will only inflate male bluster about leadership and strength in the effort to unseat a President more prone to professorial lecturing about national problems than playing dressup to land on an airplane carrier bedecked with “Mission Accomplished” signs.
But then again, Bogie is long gone and Eastwood is a very senior citizen in an era of noisy blowhards and sexual sneaks.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
President Wanted, No Experience Necessary
Tea Party Republican primaries are headed toward their logical conclusion. With Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana bowing out and Pizza Man Herman Cain stepping in, political experience is becoming a liability for GOP candidates.
Cain won the first Fox debate boasting that he was unencumbered by government service, a political virgin whose purity would enable him to solve all the nation’s problems just as he had successfully marketed a cheese pie named for a Mafia head and gone on to talk radio prominence.
Unlike Romney, Pawlenty et al, Cain would present a clean slate to voters, not having to explain away previous positions on health care reform, cap-and-trade and other troublesome issues down to their records as governors issuing pardons, reviving the Willie Horton issue that helped sink Dukakis in 1988.
With Donald Trump exiting as the prime ignorance-is-bliss candidate, Cain will have to worry only about competition from half-term Gov. Sarah Palin and possibly Michele Bachmann, if political experience on another planet counts.
Gov. Daniels, whose possibly entry into the race had professional GOP pulses pounding, now declines with a remarkably personal explanation: “On matters affecting us all, our family constitution gives a veto to the women’s caucus, and there is no override provision. Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more.”
The Republican leftovers have no such qualms, leaving the nomination contest a race to the bottom. If Cain turns out to be the choice, Democrats can revive the Hillary Clinton commercial against Barack Obama in 2008.
If the red phone rings at 3 A.M. in the White House, President Cain will be ready on Day One to respond with a barrage of pizza deliveries.
Cain won the first Fox debate boasting that he was unencumbered by government service, a political virgin whose purity would enable him to solve all the nation’s problems just as he had successfully marketed a cheese pie named for a Mafia head and gone on to talk radio prominence.
Unlike Romney, Pawlenty et al, Cain would present a clean slate to voters, not having to explain away previous positions on health care reform, cap-and-trade and other troublesome issues down to their records as governors issuing pardons, reviving the Willie Horton issue that helped sink Dukakis in 1988.
With Donald Trump exiting as the prime ignorance-is-bliss candidate, Cain will have to worry only about competition from half-term Gov. Sarah Palin and possibly Michele Bachmann, if political experience on another planet counts.
Gov. Daniels, whose possibly entry into the race had professional GOP pulses pounding, now declines with a remarkably personal explanation: “On matters affecting us all, our family constitution gives a veto to the women’s caucus, and there is no override provision. Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more.”
The Republican leftovers have no such qualms, leaving the nomination contest a race to the bottom. If Cain turns out to be the choice, Democrats can revive the Hillary Clinton commercial against Barack Obama in 2008.
If the red phone rings at 3 A.M. in the White House, President Cain will be ready on Day One to respond with a barrage of pizza deliveries.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Yes But, Maybe, I Don't Know
When did certainty become the air we breathe? Where did ambivalence and ambiguity go? Why is everybody so sure of everything in an era that keeps surprising us with the unexpected and unforeseen?
Such thoughts arise with the expected arrival of Judgment Day by many believers, an event that would make obsolete the billions of passionate words that wash over us daily on every conceivable subject.
If the Biblical prophecy does not come to pass, it should at least leave us reflecting on the nature of the world we all inhabit so briefly.
As passengers on a cosmic life raft, why do we spend so much time bickering about who sits where and who gets how much of what’s available?
It may be deep in human nature to act this way but, for someone in old age, it seems to get more so as time goes on. The more we know, the more opinionated we get and the surer that everyone else has it all wrong.
Long ago, I wrote a book about the media that over-inform this modern world, with a first chapter titled “The World Ends Tomorrow, Details After This Message.”
If those who are sure about the Rapture turn out to be right, we won’t get any analysis from cable TV and blogs.
If they are wrong, can their mistake leave us with a little humility about what we do and don’t know about everything?
Repeat after me: It’s only my opinion, but I could be wrong... You may be right... Nobody knows for sure...
Update: No Apocalypse today. We'll have to struggle on.
Such thoughts arise with the expected arrival of Judgment Day by many believers, an event that would make obsolete the billions of passionate words that wash over us daily on every conceivable subject.
If the Biblical prophecy does not come to pass, it should at least leave us reflecting on the nature of the world we all inhabit so briefly.
As passengers on a cosmic life raft, why do we spend so much time bickering about who sits where and who gets how much of what’s available?
It may be deep in human nature to act this way but, for someone in old age, it seems to get more so as time goes on. The more we know, the more opinionated we get and the surer that everyone else has it all wrong.
Long ago, I wrote a book about the media that over-inform this modern world, with a first chapter titled “The World Ends Tomorrow, Details After This Message.”
If those who are sure about the Rapture turn out to be right, we won’t get any analysis from cable TV and blogs.
If they are wrong, can their mistake leave us with a little humility about what we do and don’t know about everything?
Repeat after me: It’s only my opinion, but I could be wrong... You may be right... Nobody knows for sure...
Update: No Apocalypse today. We'll have to struggle on.
Notes on GOP Groupthink
Score one more for the Law of Unintended Consequences. In 2008, voters hungry for new ideas chose Hope and Change. What they have now is an extreme example of the ancient phenomenon of closed-mindedness.
What Newt Gingrich is encountering fits perfectly the sociological definition of Groupthink “that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”
Republican opposition to the Obama Administration has morphed from wall-to-wall resistance to every proposal to a quasi-religious fervor that punishes even talk of apostasy as harshly as the Spanish Inquisition ever did.
Appearing before the head of the Tribunal Rush Limbaugh, the sinner Gingrich pleads that his Meet the Press reference to “right-wing social engineering” was misunderstood:
"It was not a reference to Paul Ryan. There was no reference to Paul Ryan in that answer."
When Limbaugh demands to know why then he called Ryan to apologize, Gingrich grovels further: "It was interpreted in a way which was causing trouble which he doesn't need or deserve. My answer wasn't about the budget, and I promptly went back to say publicly that I would have voted for the Ryan budget."
As a preview of the 2012 primaries, such self-flagellation removes any suspense from the campaign since no one but Ron Paul will be saying anything to offend Tea Party theology.
One sure sign of how toxic deviation from the party line has become is that sly Democrats have taken to praising Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels and other moderate Republicans to stir up doubts among the GOP faithful. Just the kind of thing that used to go on in Salem.
What Newt Gingrich is encountering fits perfectly the sociological definition of Groupthink “that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”
Republican opposition to the Obama Administration has morphed from wall-to-wall resistance to every proposal to a quasi-religious fervor that punishes even talk of apostasy as harshly as the Spanish Inquisition ever did.
Appearing before the head of the Tribunal Rush Limbaugh, the sinner Gingrich pleads that his Meet the Press reference to “right-wing social engineering” was misunderstood:
"It was not a reference to Paul Ryan. There was no reference to Paul Ryan in that answer."
When Limbaugh demands to know why then he called Ryan to apologize, Gingrich grovels further: "It was interpreted in a way which was causing trouble which he doesn't need or deserve. My answer wasn't about the budget, and I promptly went back to say publicly that I would have voted for the Ryan budget."
As a preview of the 2012 primaries, such self-flagellation removes any suspense from the campaign since no one but Ron Paul will be saying anything to offend Tea Party theology.
One sure sign of how toxic deviation from the party line has become is that sly Democrats have taken to praising Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels and other moderate Republicans to stir up doubts among the GOP faithful. Just the kind of thing that used to go on in Salem.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Republican Submarine Campaign
In World War II, U boats would send up wreckage to the surface to make pursuers think they had been sunk. The GOP presidential campaign is at that stage now.
Huckabee, Trump, Barbour, (gulp) Gingrich...the flotsam and jetsam keep coming, but down below in the engine room, are real missiles being loaded? (Apologies to Sarah Palin for the war image.)
A Gallup poll shows name recognition is still the game with only Romney reaching 20 percent as the preferred candidate. Most GOP voters seem to want something, but they won’t know what it is until they see it.
“Top Republicans,” reports Politico, “are increasingly convinced that President Barack Obama will be easily reelected if stronger GOP contenders do not emerge, and some are virtually begging Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to add some excitement...
“It’s a sign of the GOP’s straits that the party is depending on the bland, wonkish Daniels for an adrenaline boost.”
There is talk of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has declined, as well as any other Republican governor or senator untainted by scandal or blatant stupidity.
Is John M. Huntsman Jr. the man? Who? A former Utah governor who has been serving as Ambassador to China is opening campaign headquarters in Florida and heading to New Hampshire.
Compared to him, Barack Obama was a celebrity at this stage in 2007, but who knows how far a moderate billionaire can go in this climate of desperation?
The way things are, Republican pros are working and praying for their apparatus to surface next year with someone who can hold on to Tea Party marauders and get enough Independents on board to win.
Maybe they can find a modern-day pilot for the Beatles’ Yellow Submarine and conquer the Blue Meanies, but time is passing without any distant sound of real music.
Update: Voices for party sanity are being heard as Ross Douthat warns that "Gingrich’s more enthusiastic critics are...behaving as if the Ryan budget represents some kind of sacred right-wing writ. Unless American politics changes beyond recognition, Ryan’s plan cannot and will not become the law of the land in its current form.
"And while it has many virtues, it has many flaws as well. Its example should call Republican presidential candidates to a greater seriousness about Medicare reform than most conservative politicians have manifested to date. But it cannot, and must not, become a rigid litmus test: That way lies intellectual sclerosis, and political disaster."
And groupthink for those who represent half of American voters.
Huckabee, Trump, Barbour, (gulp) Gingrich...the flotsam and jetsam keep coming, but down below in the engine room, are real missiles being loaded? (Apologies to Sarah Palin for the war image.)
A Gallup poll shows name recognition is still the game with only Romney reaching 20 percent as the preferred candidate. Most GOP voters seem to want something, but they won’t know what it is until they see it.
“Top Republicans,” reports Politico, “are increasingly convinced that President Barack Obama will be easily reelected if stronger GOP contenders do not emerge, and some are virtually begging Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to add some excitement...
“It’s a sign of the GOP’s straits that the party is depending on the bland, wonkish Daniels for an adrenaline boost.”
There is talk of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has declined, as well as any other Republican governor or senator untainted by scandal or blatant stupidity.
Is John M. Huntsman Jr. the man? Who? A former Utah governor who has been serving as Ambassador to China is opening campaign headquarters in Florida and heading to New Hampshire.
Compared to him, Barack Obama was a celebrity at this stage in 2007, but who knows how far a moderate billionaire can go in this climate of desperation?
The way things are, Republican pros are working and praying for their apparatus to surface next year with someone who can hold on to Tea Party marauders and get enough Independents on board to win.
Maybe they can find a modern-day pilot for the Beatles’ Yellow Submarine and conquer the Blue Meanies, but time is passing without any distant sound of real music.
Update: Voices for party sanity are being heard as Ross Douthat warns that "Gingrich’s more enthusiastic critics are...behaving as if the Ryan budget represents some kind of sacred right-wing writ. Unless American politics changes beyond recognition, Ryan’s plan cannot and will not become the law of the land in its current form.
"And while it has many virtues, it has many flaws as well. Its example should call Republican presidential candidates to a greater seriousness about Medicare reform than most conservative politicians have manifested to date. But it cannot, and must not, become a rigid litmus test: That way lies intellectual sclerosis, and political disaster."
And groupthink for those who represent half of American voters.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
No New Newt
With Trump out, the GOP Blowhard title goes to Newt Gingrich hands down.
Already this week he has “slammed the Republican Medicare proposals in Congress, declared the city of Detroit ‘destroyed’ by food stamps and implied that he supported the individual mandates at the heart of President Obama’s health care overhaul.
“What was supposed to be the beginning of a conversation with the American people about Mr. Gingrich’s big ideas became a nightmare of political damage control. And on Tuesday the week got worse, with reports that Mr. Gingrich--who urges fiscal discipline for the country--owed as much as $500,000 to Tiffany’s.”
And that’s only the beginning. A day later, the Newtster was the on the phone apologizing to Paul Ryan and with Tea Party members to reassure them he shares their aims to take down the government.
Gingrich started his campaign a month ago claiming his adultery (in two marriages) more excusable than Bill Clinton's because he was aroused by patriotic fervor and isn't a lawyer while urging voters to elect him to save their grandchildren from living in "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists."
Now that Trump and Huckabee are gone, pundits and late-night comics have only Newt to save them from Romney and Pawlenty snorefests.
But at the rate he is going, Gingrich will soon use up all his media oxygen and go back to being just the goofy old guy who shut down the government in the 1990s and then impeached Bill Clinton for unzipping his pants.
No Twitters and Facebooks will update him from that.
Update: Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin holds out some hope for Newt, saying it takes toughness and resilience to keep on going even when everyone seems to think you are roadkill. Well. at this rate, roadkill may not look so bad to GOP voters who are losing candidates at the speed of light.
Already this week he has “slammed the Republican Medicare proposals in Congress, declared the city of Detroit ‘destroyed’ by food stamps and implied that he supported the individual mandates at the heart of President Obama’s health care overhaul.
“What was supposed to be the beginning of a conversation with the American people about Mr. Gingrich’s big ideas became a nightmare of political damage control. And on Tuesday the week got worse, with reports that Mr. Gingrich--who urges fiscal discipline for the country--owed as much as $500,000 to Tiffany’s.”
And that’s only the beginning. A day later, the Newtster was the on the phone apologizing to Paul Ryan and with Tea Party members to reassure them he shares their aims to take down the government.
Gingrich started his campaign a month ago claiming his adultery (in two marriages) more excusable than Bill Clinton's because he was aroused by patriotic fervor and isn't a lawyer while urging voters to elect him to save their grandchildren from living in "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists."
Now that Trump and Huckabee are gone, pundits and late-night comics have only Newt to save them from Romney and Pawlenty snorefests.
But at the rate he is going, Gingrich will soon use up all his media oxygen and go back to being just the goofy old guy who shut down the government in the 1990s and then impeached Bill Clinton for unzipping his pants.
No Twitters and Facebooks will update him from that.
Update: Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin holds out some hope for Newt, saying it takes toughness and resilience to keep on going even when everyone seems to think you are roadkill. Well. at this rate, roadkill may not look so bad to GOP voters who are losing candidates at the speed of light.
The Aggrieved Wives Syndrome
With all the Schwarzegger gabble about why powerful men cheat, their wives are dismissed with clucking sympathy and respectful silence.
Maria Shriver says, “This is a painful and heartbreaking time. As a mother, my concern is for the children. I ask for compassion, respect and privacy as my children and I try to rebuild our lives and heal. I will have no further comment."
Understandable, but her retreat into silence should be seen in context of what other political wives such as Hillary Clinton and the late Elizabeth Edwards said and did not say when their husbands were seeking power—-and their complicity in deceiving voters.
Eight years ago, when he was running for governor of California, Ms. Shriver dismissed reports by 11 women of her husband’s groping as rumors, even though she must have known about the illegitimate child by then.
Coming from a family of tomcatting Kennedy men, such forbearance may have come naturally but, in an era when “the public’s right to know” about private lives of public people has escalated, questions arise.
Her protective behavior has to be seen against a background of Hillary Clinton, who also knew better, dismissing charges that led to an impeachment trial, as “a vast right-wing conspiracy.” It may well have been that, but Bill Clinton’s behavior was not.
Flash forward to Elizabeth Edwards, who allowed her sleazy husband to use her terminal illness in his campaigning, defending him against charges of infidelity and finally admitting in her last book that she knew about his “love child” a year earlier than she had said.
There is no denying the unspeakable treatment of Shriver, Clinton and Edwards in their marriages, but to acknowledge their enablement of public deception in their husbands’ careers is not “blaming the victim.”
Far from it. It is to raise the question of why society puts estimable women in the position of having to be involved in such behavior.
In the days of Maria Shriver’s uncles, there was much philandering but her aunts did not have to be complicit in covering it up.
Maria Shriver says, “This is a painful and heartbreaking time. As a mother, my concern is for the children. I ask for compassion, respect and privacy as my children and I try to rebuild our lives and heal. I will have no further comment."
Understandable, but her retreat into silence should be seen in context of what other political wives such as Hillary Clinton and the late Elizabeth Edwards said and did not say when their husbands were seeking power—-and their complicity in deceiving voters.
Eight years ago, when he was running for governor of California, Ms. Shriver dismissed reports by 11 women of her husband’s groping as rumors, even though she must have known about the illegitimate child by then.
Coming from a family of tomcatting Kennedy men, such forbearance may have come naturally but, in an era when “the public’s right to know” about private lives of public people has escalated, questions arise.
Her protective behavior has to be seen against a background of Hillary Clinton, who also knew better, dismissing charges that led to an impeachment trial, as “a vast right-wing conspiracy.” It may well have been that, but Bill Clinton’s behavior was not.
Flash forward to Elizabeth Edwards, who allowed her sleazy husband to use her terminal illness in his campaigning, defending him against charges of infidelity and finally admitting in her last book that she knew about his “love child” a year earlier than she had said.
There is no denying the unspeakable treatment of Shriver, Clinton and Edwards in their marriages, but to acknowledge their enablement of public deception in their husbands’ careers is not “blaming the victim.”
Far from it. It is to raise the question of why society puts estimable women in the position of having to be involved in such behavior.
In the days of Maria Shriver’s uncles, there was much philandering but her aunts did not have to be complicit in covering it up.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
End Runs: Trump Bluff, French Kissoff
Two presidential campaigns crash in one day and, ho hum, what else is new?
The Donald folds a flirtation with the 2012 Republican nomination after weeks of pasting his name over the news, as always leaving onlookers wondering what it was all about beyond enhancing the brand.
In a nearby posh Manhattan hotel, a contender for next year’s French presidency flames out in more traditional fashion, with a bedroom scandal out of classic farce as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, is ordered held without bail for sexually assaulting a housekeeper.
On cable TV and blogs, both figures--the renowned economist and the American media hustler—-are fodder for straight-faced speculation with no distinction whatever between a scandal that could affect the economic bailout of Europe and the end of an American sideshow of no importance whatsoever.
In the era of celebrities who are, in Daniel Boorstin’s phrase “well-known for their well-knowness,” Big Names exist in a world apart from their achievements or social significance.
If anything, the Trump saga, aside from its lack of prurience, rates more attention than that of a Bernie Madoff lookalike who seems to be a less suave sufferer from what we have all come to know as Bill Clinton Sex Syndrome.
“Celebrity Apprentice” will no doubt go on to higher ratings than ever next season, but who knows--or cares—-what happens to European economies or in French elections now?
On to today’s names in the news...
Update: Another day, another scandal. Former Gov. Arnold is being terminated as a Kennedy in-law for having fathered a child years ago by a woman who worked for his family. One thing about the Kennedys--they keep these things in historical perspective.
The Donald folds a flirtation with the 2012 Republican nomination after weeks of pasting his name over the news, as always leaving onlookers wondering what it was all about beyond enhancing the brand.
In a nearby posh Manhattan hotel, a contender for next year’s French presidency flames out in more traditional fashion, with a bedroom scandal out of classic farce as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, is ordered held without bail for sexually assaulting a housekeeper.
On cable TV and blogs, both figures--the renowned economist and the American media hustler—-are fodder for straight-faced speculation with no distinction whatever between a scandal that could affect the economic bailout of Europe and the end of an American sideshow of no importance whatsoever.
In the era of celebrities who are, in Daniel Boorstin’s phrase “well-known for their well-knowness,” Big Names exist in a world apart from their achievements or social significance.
If anything, the Trump saga, aside from its lack of prurience, rates more attention than that of a Bernie Madoff lookalike who seems to be a less suave sufferer from what we have all come to know as Bill Clinton Sex Syndrome.
“Celebrity Apprentice” will no doubt go on to higher ratings than ever next season, but who knows--or cares—-what happens to European economies or in French elections now?
On to today’s names in the news...
Update: Another day, another scandal. Former Gov. Arnold is being terminated as a Kennedy in-law for having fathered a child years ago by a woman who worked for his family. One thing about the Kennedys--they keep these things in historical perspective.
Monday, May 16, 2011
News in the Drudge Age
An editor, goes an old journalism bromide, separates wheat from chaff and prints the chaff.
The biggest chaff-maker on the Internet, according to a new study, is Matt Drudge who still outdoes Facebook and Twitter in telling millions what they should know.
“He can look into a huge stream of news,” says an admirer, “find the hot story and put an irresistible headline on it.”
This Internet skill recalls Henry Luce, who founded Time Magazine in the last century to save readers from being confused by “the million little chaoses of raw news” and give them a Voice from Above to explain what it all means.
From Luce to Drudge, American journalism has gone downhill from fake omniscience to injecting a 24/7 stream of "news" on steroids into the public bloodstream.
Luce, like Drudge, pursued his own political agenda but had to recognize some bounds in pushing it.
“Isn’t good editing,” he once asked me, “figuring out what’s going to happen and then advocating it before it does?”
I wish I could report that there was a mischievous gleam in his eye when he said it, but there wasn’t.
What Luce called the American century has now morphed into an age of division and mistrust, and it seems somehow fitting that a man who filled our heads with fantasies of superiority and safety has been replaced by one who peddles the cheapest fears and suspicions.
News is still the biggest loser in all this.
The biggest chaff-maker on the Internet, according to a new study, is Matt Drudge who still outdoes Facebook and Twitter in telling millions what they should know.
“He can look into a huge stream of news,” says an admirer, “find the hot story and put an irresistible headline on it.”
This Internet skill recalls Henry Luce, who founded Time Magazine in the last century to save readers from being confused by “the million little chaoses of raw news” and give them a Voice from Above to explain what it all means.
From Luce to Drudge, American journalism has gone downhill from fake omniscience to injecting a 24/7 stream of "news" on steroids into the public bloodstream.
Luce, like Drudge, pursued his own political agenda but had to recognize some bounds in pushing it.
“Isn’t good editing,” he once asked me, “figuring out what’s going to happen and then advocating it before it does?”
I wish I could report that there was a mischievous gleam in his eye when he said it, but there wasn’t.
What Luce called the American century has now morphed into an age of division and mistrust, and it seems somehow fitting that a man who filled our heads with fantasies of superiority and safety has been replaced by one who peddles the cheapest fears and suspicions.
News is still the biggest loser in all this.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Air Force One on eBay
Mike Huckabee’s decision not to run clarifies the career choice picture between Fox News and the White House.
“All the factors say go,” Huckabee explains (on Fox, of course), “but my heart says no.”
Perhaps his finances do as well. Unlike Romney and Trump, for example, the ex-minister is not a wealthy man who, in making the race, would have had to go off the Fox payroll, as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum did recently.
As Sarah Palin ponders a potential run, the choice between trying to go to work for taxpayers or staying with Rupert Murdoch becomes harder to make.
Murdoch pays better, of course, but being President has perks—-public housing, transportation and all that. If Palin goes for it, she could promise to put Air Force One on eBay, as she claimed to have done with the Alaska state plane.
Be that as it may, this is the first presidential race in history where potential contenders are asking themselves not only what they can do for their country but what Rupert Murdoch can continue doing for them.
Donald Trump, who welcomes Huckabee’s decision, has no Fox dilemma but would have to give up far more in ratings and income on NBC.
It was simpler in Lincoln's time when all you had to sacrifice was a log cabin.
Update: Huckabee says "It really came down for me to a very personal, a very intimate, and... spiritual decision...But I just somehow believed deep within me that it wasn't the right time, it wasn't meant to be."
Anything spiritual on Fox News should be welcomed by all.
“All the factors say go,” Huckabee explains (on Fox, of course), “but my heart says no.”
Perhaps his finances do as well. Unlike Romney and Trump, for example, the ex-minister is not a wealthy man who, in making the race, would have had to go off the Fox payroll, as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum did recently.
As Sarah Palin ponders a potential run, the choice between trying to go to work for taxpayers or staying with Rupert Murdoch becomes harder to make.
Murdoch pays better, of course, but being President has perks—-public housing, transportation and all that. If Palin goes for it, she could promise to put Air Force One on eBay, as she claimed to have done with the Alaska state plane.
Be that as it may, this is the first presidential race in history where potential contenders are asking themselves not only what they can do for their country but what Rupert Murdoch can continue doing for them.
Donald Trump, who welcomes Huckabee’s decision, has no Fox dilemma but would have to give up far more in ratings and income on NBC.
It was simpler in Lincoln's time when all you had to sacrifice was a log cabin.
Update: Huckabee says "It really came down for me to a very personal, a very intimate, and... spiritual decision...But I just somehow believed deep within me that it wasn't the right time, it wasn't meant to be."
Anything spiritual on Fox News should be welcomed by all.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
In Electronic Limbo
The computer gods have been frowning here, subjecting an ancient, temporarily one-eyed blogger to the wrath of Microsoft, Dell, the Geek Squad and the like.
Linkless and lost in cyberspace, the opinion producer here will be less active until the computers of those who determine the faith of other users get their act together to figure out how to restore the viability of what used to be called a customer.
If bin Laden had had the same luck with his now captured devices, he wouldn't have lasted as long as he did.
Linkless and lost in cyberspace, the opinion producer here will be less active until the computers of those who determine the faith of other users get their act together to figure out how to restore the viability of what used to be called a customer.
If bin Laden had had the same luck with his now captured devices, he wouldn't have lasted as long as he did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)