Monday, November 28, 2011
The Cases of Michele B. & Michelle O.
Michele Bachmann will be going on an all-out radio run today, perhaps capitalizing on the momentum of a not-too-bad debate performance last week, coupled with the fallout of what might be called "Rootsgate." Bachmann got a surprising amount of cross-party sympathy when Jimmy Fallon's house band, The Roots, chose a rather rude song with which to introduce Bachmann on her appearance last Monday -- the '80s ska-funk group Fishbone's "Lyin' Ass Bitch."
After the taping, but before the broadcast, bandleader ?uestlove (pronounced "Questlove") tweeted that they had chosen something with "snark" for Bachmann and then showed followers the list of the five songs off of Fishbone's debut EP. The "la la la" opening bars of the "L.A.B" then told the tale. (Ironically, had ?uestlove said nothing, few people would have likely recognized a relatively obscure 26 year-old song).
Anyway, Twitter exploded. Conservatives found the song an example of what mainstream media (and major networks) do to those on the right. But even some liberals thought it was a case of the easy sexism with which major institutions can be comfortable. Regardless, Fallon first made a cute apology by declaring that
?uestlove was "grounded." When it was obvious that wouldn't suffice, he (again, on Twitter) fully apologized to Bachmann, adding that he was "honored" to have her on and "I'm so sorry about the intro mess."
That, however, wasn't enough for Bachmann. She demanded an apology from NBC -- which she finally got Thanksgiving night: Don Vaughn, an NBC senior vice president called the episode "not only unfortunate but also unacceptable." Did that (and a follow-up personal call from Fallon) satisfy Bachmann? Um, not quite. "If that song had been played for Michelle Obama I have no doubt that NBC would've apologized to her and likely they could've fired the drummer or at least suspended him. None of that happened from NBC and this is clearly a form of the bias on the part of the Hollywood entertainment elite," observed Bachmann.
So, after gaining multiple apologies from the star of a late night show and a network executive, Bachmann raises the question of how the First Lady of the United States would be treated in similar circumstances. Well, fortunately, one doesn't have to go too far to find out: The same day the Roots were calling Bachmann the B-word, a media individual of far more reach was going after her near-namesake. In an odd defense of NASCAR fans right to boo Michelle Obama and Joe Biden's appearance at the end of season race, Rush Limbaugh -- host of a program with a reported audience of some 20 million -- declared the first lady guilty of "uppity-ism."
Let's be clear here: "Uppity" is a word that, in the 21st century, is archaic for good reason: It was a handy racial insult of a bygone era, though it had happily faded from common use. Indeed, the most public use of the word in a political context before Limbaugh was 20 years ago -- by Clarence Thomas in his infamous pushback against sexual harassment charges in his Supreme Court nomination process. (However, check baseball great Bill White's memoir, Uppity: My Untold Story of The Games People Play for another provocative exploration of the word.)
The irony -- and hypocrisy -- in Limbaugh's attack on Mrs. Obama is that, just one month ago, he was reprising the Thomas line to defend Herman Cain! Limbaugh summarily declared that the sexual harassment story was exemplary of the mainstream media "going for the ugliest racial stereotypes they can." Limbaugh, it should be noted, was the leader (along with Ann Coulter) in this "explanation" for explaining the Cain controversy -- even before the candidate himself decided to use the race card (who then backtracked to point the figure at other GOP candidates and double/triple-backed to blaming the generic "liberal" media, while minimizing the racial element). So, we're supposed to believe that, one minute Rush is Mr. Sympathetic on how the media indulges "the ugliest racial stereotypes" for a black conservative -- but he is unaware of what "uppity" means in reference to blacks in general? It strains credulity.
Sure, some media talking heads have engaged in racial stereotyping with respect to Cain -- thought the sexual harassment charges aren't indicative of that. And yes, liberals have hardly been reticent to declare that calling the president arrogant is a racial "dog-whistle" for "uppity." But that's not the case here.
Rush Limbaugh is smart man. After more than twenty years atop talk-radio and having authored multiple best-sellers, he knows what words to use where. Again, stipulating that Michelle Obama's anti-child obesity might be too intrusive (arguable, at best), there are any number of words he could have used to describe what he thought was "intrusive", "pushy" or "haughty" behavior on the part of this White House by lecturing the country on parental skills. But, he opted for the odd cognate "uppity-ism" to describe how sports fans at a Southern-based event felt about a black First Lady. (Frankly, I'm not sure NASCAR fans should feel that Limbaugh was doing them any favors with his choice of words to describe Mrs. Obama).
This is ugly stuff. And serious.
Unfortunately, unlike the bipartisan anger at the Fallon debacle, criticism seemed fairly one-sided. Limbaugh's regular foes on the Left went after him. Things were relatively quiet on the other side -- except for the support Limbaugh got that, ho-hum, there's nothing to see here; move along. Newsbusters slammed ABC for reporting on the incident (or picking up Media Matters' report of it). Glenn Beck actually agreed with Limbaugh, in fact adding that "uppity" was the right description for both Obamas.
Great. So much for the effort to counter the liberal meme that "Tea Party=racist." How much easier it is when one of the leading voices in the conservative movement decides to use an intentionally loaded word against the first lady. Where on earth would the mainstream media come up with the wacky idea that there's an element of racial resentment in criticism of the Obama president. On the other hand, Limbaugh's early (i.e. 2009) claim that "Obama's America" gave license to black kids beating up white kids on school buses wasn't exactly helpful in that regard.
Of course, not only wasn't there any apology forthcoming from Limbaugh (as if), he went further in his Michelle O put downs: In the midst of the Bachmann kerfuffle, Limbaugh suggested playing "Baby Got Back" (AKA, "I Like Big Butts") when introducing Mrs. Obama. Ha. Ha. In another context that might actually have been funny. Not this time.
So, to be clear: In one week, we have an example of a mainstream media entertainment show's band insulting a female conservative woman with a song with a title using a universally derogatory word for a woman; the host and an executive of his network apologize. Then we have the case of a conservative media host (with a daily audience roughly ten times larger) dipping into a different Roots playbook (think Alex Haley's miniseries) to direct an insult at a black First Lady. And the disapprobation comes largely from one side?
Very sad.
|
After the taping, but before the broadcast, bandleader ?uestlove (pronounced "Questlove") tweeted that they had chosen something with "snark" for Bachmann and then showed followers the list of the five songs off of Fishbone's debut EP. The "la la la" opening bars of the "L.A.B" then told the tale. (Ironically, had ?uestlove said nothing, few people would have likely recognized a relatively obscure 26 year-old song).
Anyway, Twitter exploded. Conservatives found the song an example of what mainstream media (and major networks) do to those on the right. But even some liberals thought it was a case of the easy sexism with which major institutions can be comfortable. Regardless, Fallon first made a cute apology by declaring that
?uestlove was "grounded." When it was obvious that wouldn't suffice, he (again, on Twitter) fully apologized to Bachmann, adding that he was "honored" to have her on and "I'm so sorry about the intro mess."
That, however, wasn't enough for Bachmann. She demanded an apology from NBC -- which she finally got Thanksgiving night: Don Vaughn, an NBC senior vice president called the episode "not only unfortunate but also unacceptable." Did that (and a follow-up personal call from Fallon) satisfy Bachmann? Um, not quite. "If that song had been played for Michelle Obama I have no doubt that NBC would've apologized to her and likely they could've fired the drummer or at least suspended him. None of that happened from NBC and this is clearly a form of the bias on the part of the Hollywood entertainment elite," observed Bachmann.
So, after gaining multiple apologies from the star of a late night show and a network executive, Bachmann raises the question of how the First Lady of the United States would be treated in similar circumstances. Well, fortunately, one doesn't have to go too far to find out: The same day the Roots were calling Bachmann the B-word, a media individual of far more reach was going after her near-namesake. In an odd defense of NASCAR fans right to boo Michelle Obama and Joe Biden's appearance at the end of season race, Rush Limbaugh -- host of a program with a reported audience of some 20 million -- declared the first lady guilty of "uppity-ism."
Let's be clear here: "Uppity" is a word that, in the 21st century, is archaic for good reason: It was a handy racial insult of a bygone era, though it had happily faded from common use. Indeed, the most public use of the word in a political context before Limbaugh was 20 years ago -- by Clarence Thomas in his infamous pushback against sexual harassment charges in his Supreme Court nomination process. (However, check baseball great Bill White's memoir, Uppity: My Untold Story of The Games People Play for another provocative exploration of the word.)
The irony -- and hypocrisy -- in Limbaugh's attack on Mrs. Obama is that, just one month ago, he was reprising the Thomas line to defend Herman Cain! Limbaugh summarily declared that the sexual harassment story was exemplary of the mainstream media "going for the ugliest racial stereotypes they can." Limbaugh, it should be noted, was the leader (along with Ann Coulter) in this "explanation" for explaining the Cain controversy -- even before the candidate himself decided to use the race card (who then backtracked to point the figure at other GOP candidates and double/triple-backed to blaming the generic "liberal" media, while minimizing the racial element). So, we're supposed to believe that, one minute Rush is Mr. Sympathetic on how the media indulges "the ugliest racial stereotypes" for a black conservative -- but he is unaware of what "uppity" means in reference to blacks in general? It strains credulity.
Sure, some media talking heads have engaged in racial stereotyping with respect to Cain -- thought the sexual harassment charges aren't indicative of that. And yes, liberals have hardly been reticent to declare that calling the president arrogant is a racial "dog-whistle" for "uppity." But that's not the case here.
Rush Limbaugh is smart man. After more than twenty years atop talk-radio and having authored multiple best-sellers, he knows what words to use where. Again, stipulating that Michelle Obama's anti-child obesity might be too intrusive (arguable, at best), there are any number of words he could have used to describe what he thought was "intrusive", "pushy" or "haughty" behavior on the part of this White House by lecturing the country on parental skills. But, he opted for the odd cognate "uppity-ism" to describe how sports fans at a Southern-based event felt about a black First Lady. (Frankly, I'm not sure NASCAR fans should feel that Limbaugh was doing them any favors with his choice of words to describe Mrs. Obama).
This is ugly stuff. And serious.
Unfortunately, unlike the bipartisan anger at the Fallon debacle, criticism seemed fairly one-sided. Limbaugh's regular foes on the Left went after him. Things were relatively quiet on the other side -- except for the support Limbaugh got that, ho-hum, there's nothing to see here; move along. Newsbusters slammed ABC for reporting on the incident (or picking up Media Matters' report of it). Glenn Beck actually agreed with Limbaugh, in fact adding that "uppity" was the right description for both Obamas.
Great. So much for the effort to counter the liberal meme that "Tea Party=racist." How much easier it is when one of the leading voices in the conservative movement decides to use an intentionally loaded word against the first lady. Where on earth would the mainstream media come up with the wacky idea that there's an element of racial resentment in criticism of the Obama president. On the other hand, Limbaugh's early (i.e. 2009) claim that "Obama's America" gave license to black kids beating up white kids on school buses wasn't exactly helpful in that regard.
Of course, not only wasn't there any apology forthcoming from Limbaugh (as if), he went further in his Michelle O put downs: In the midst of the Bachmann kerfuffle, Limbaugh suggested playing "Baby Got Back" (AKA, "I Like Big Butts") when introducing Mrs. Obama. Ha. Ha. In another context that might actually have been funny. Not this time.
So, to be clear: In one week, we have an example of a mainstream media entertainment show's band insulting a female conservative woman with a song with a title using a universally derogatory word for a woman; the host and an executive of his network apologize. Then we have the case of a conservative media host (with a daily audience roughly ten times larger) dipping into a different Roots playbook (think Alex Haley's miniseries) to direct an insult at a black First Lady. And the disapprobation comes largely from one side?
Very sad.
Labels: michele bachmann, michelle obama, Rush Limbaugh
Thursday, November 10, 2011
"The Shame Of College Sports"
Say it ain't so, Joe.
The winningest coach in college football history is out, following the exposure of what amounted to a 13-year institutional cover-up at Penn State of alleged serial pedophile, defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. (Gory grand jury details can be read here. And FAIR WARNING: This is truly ugly stuff.) So, students end up rioting in Happy Valley because of Paterno's instant dismissal. Really, kids? You planning on purchasing "Rioters 4 Pederasts"?
And, oh yeah, the whole thing could end up even worse. How, well, there's a former district attorney -- who didn't prosecute Sanduskey when allegations were first raised in 1998; a few years later, he disappeared and had his laptop hard drive destroyed. Odd coincidence or, God help us, a suggestion that this cover-up might even go there?
The title of this post was borrowed from a recent cover article in The Atlantic magazine, written by Pulitzer-prize winning historian Taylor Branch. He, of course, is famous for his trilogy of books looking at the civil rights era.
Branch's article focuses more on the NCAA's role in big-time college athletics, the impact of television contracts and raises the question of whether student athletes should get more compensation for their on-field exploits.
But it is germane to the current Penn State saga because it zeroes in on how huge and, arguably, corrupt an industry college sports has become -- and football in particular (not gainsaying the NCAA billion-dollar "March Madness" contract). It so huge that it is understandable why a giant football program like Penn State would engage in a 14-year coverup of heinous crimes committed by a member of its football staff.
How times have changed. Just two years ago, the debate going on was whether Paterno's closest rival in victories -- Bobby Bowden -- should have 12 wins vacated because of a cheating scandal. If that were to happen, Bowden would have had no chance to retire with the victory prize. As it happened, Bowden was forced out -- because the team started underperfoming on the field (those wins were vacated) and the point became moot.
This story, however, is on a whole other level. It's not about recruitment violations or kids getting cars from boosters or trading game shirts for tattoos. This is about at least nine young boys being abused -- raped -- by a defensive coordinator of the football team. And it seems clear that people at the top knew -- not in 2002 when graduate assistant Mike McQueary walked in on by-then-former coach Sandusky raping a kid in the showers -- but in 1998. That was when, it appears, Sandusky was forced out of his job -- but still allowed access to the college's athletic facilities!
As others have noted, the much-ballyhooed Big Ten Network -- bringing in millions in revenue and giving the conference even more pull with the NCAA -- has avoided this story like the plague. That's the problem with today's college athletics: The institutions want the money, influence and the benefits that come with a large athletics department -- a volatile brew that is sowing chaos and multiple conference hopping (ya thought, Boise, Idaho, was out west? Ha! Turns out it's in -- or will be -- the Big East!) But what about the responsibility? That's something quite different.
As Branch shows, the institutions have no qualms taking advantage of young student athletes (a phrase, Branch notes, created to help indemnify schools against worker's compensation claims brought by injured players). Now, it seems, that same CYA mentality seemingly extends even to not caring about the lives of really young people who not only aren't athletes -- but are actual pre-adolescent victims of a sexual predator who was allowed to use his current and former workplace as his own "playing field" (or, dare I say it, "happy valley").
Shame indeed.
***UPDATED AND EDITED SINCE INITIAL POSTING
|
The winningest coach in college football history is out, following the exposure of what amounted to a 13-year institutional cover-up at Penn State of alleged serial pedophile, defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. (Gory grand jury details can be read here. And FAIR WARNING: This is truly ugly stuff.) So, students end up rioting in Happy Valley because of Paterno's instant dismissal. Really, kids? You planning on purchasing "Rioters 4 Pederasts"?
And, oh yeah, the whole thing could end up even worse. How, well, there's a former district attorney -- who didn't prosecute Sanduskey when allegations were first raised in 1998; a few years later, he disappeared and had his laptop hard drive destroyed. Odd coincidence or, God help us, a suggestion that this cover-up might even go there?
The title of this post was borrowed from a recent cover article in The Atlantic magazine, written by Pulitzer-prize winning historian Taylor Branch. He, of course, is famous for his trilogy of books looking at the civil rights era.
Branch's article focuses more on the NCAA's role in big-time college athletics, the impact of television contracts and raises the question of whether student athletes should get more compensation for their on-field exploits.
But it is germane to the current Penn State saga because it zeroes in on how huge and, arguably, corrupt an industry college sports has become -- and football in particular (not gainsaying the NCAA billion-dollar "March Madness" contract). It so huge that it is understandable why a giant football program like Penn State would engage in a 14-year coverup of heinous crimes committed by a member of its football staff.
How times have changed. Just two years ago, the debate going on was whether Paterno's closest rival in victories -- Bobby Bowden -- should have 12 wins vacated because of a cheating scandal. If that were to happen, Bowden would have had no chance to retire with the victory prize. As it happened, Bowden was forced out -- because the team started underperfoming on the field (those wins were vacated) and the point became moot.
This story, however, is on a whole other level. It's not about recruitment violations or kids getting cars from boosters or trading game shirts for tattoos. This is about at least nine young boys being abused -- raped -- by a defensive coordinator of the football team. And it seems clear that people at the top knew -- not in 2002 when graduate assistant Mike McQueary walked in on by-then-former coach Sandusky raping a kid in the showers -- but in 1998. That was when, it appears, Sandusky was forced out of his job -- but still allowed access to the college's athletic facilities!
As others have noted, the much-ballyhooed Big Ten Network -- bringing in millions in revenue and giving the conference even more pull with the NCAA -- has avoided this story like the plague. That's the problem with today's college athletics: The institutions want the money, influence and the benefits that come with a large athletics department -- a volatile brew that is sowing chaos and multiple conference hopping (ya thought, Boise, Idaho, was out west? Ha! Turns out it's in -- or will be -- the Big East!) But what about the responsibility? That's something quite different.
As Branch shows, the institutions have no qualms taking advantage of young student athletes (a phrase, Branch notes, created to help indemnify schools against worker's compensation claims brought by injured players). Now, it seems, that same CYA mentality seemingly extends even to not caring about the lives of really young people who not only aren't athletes -- but are actual pre-adolescent victims of a sexual predator who was allowed to use his current and former workplace as his own "playing field" (or, dare I say it, "happy valley").
Shame indeed.
***UPDATED AND EDITED SINCE INITIAL POSTING
Labels: Joe Paterno, NCAA, Penn State, Taylor Branch
Sunday, November 06, 2011
RAG on Red Eye
Your humble bloghost made his return to Fox News Channel's overnight sensation, "Red Eye" on Friday night (Saturday morning). The following clip is the opener and first segment. Surprise, surprise! Herman Cain continued to be a topic of major media interest:
Here is Andy Levy's hilarious "halftime show".
And be sure to catch yours truly geeking out at the very end.
|
Here is Andy Levy's hilarious "halftime show".
And be sure to catch yours truly geeking out at the very end.
Labels: Fox News Channel
Thursday, October 06, 2011
A Jobs Well Done
Ragged Thots takes a hiatus from its non-announced hiatus of the last few months to note the passing of the remarkable technological and cultural visionary Steve Jobs.
How the Grim Reaper's specter can give one words to live by.
|
Let's note that this blogpost -- like probably all of the several thousand that have been produced since the blog's 2005 inception -- has been created on a PC. (To be exact, there might have been a handful drafted on a Mac while I was visiting a college campus or perchance borrowing someone else's PC.) As much as my friends in the '90s would tell me how much Apple/Mac computers were "intuitively" and aesthetically better than PCs, I never bought.
However, as it happened the way to my technological soul was through the entertainment love of my life -- pop music. Starting in college and for a good ten years after, I was a DJ. And I still get to dabble "spinning" (as it was known when the items of choice were records and CDs) every now and then (such as my college Homecoming two weekends back). So, the creation of the iPod lured me in as it did millions of others. And, as these things progress, after being seduced by the music device, it would follow that the iPhone would tear me away permanently from the earlier "magic phone" family to which I had previously fallen in love with -- the Palm series (from III through the Treo).
And this summer, I got my iPad. And realized that, despite what Jobs thought he invented back in 1976 (and later in 1984), this was the true "personal computer." Indeed, it is so "personal" that it doesn't seem like a "computer." Instead, the technological became an extension of the discrete diverse tastes and interests of the individual. It's not about buttons anymore; it's about a most intimate of human activities -- touch. And you can carry your entire life -- books, music, work, etc. in a slim, sleek device.
While most Jobs' eulogies focus on the first (the creation of the Apple II and Mac in the late-70s/early-80s) and last (the iPod/iPhone/iPad troika) decades of his career, perhaps it was that middle period -- his exiled-from-Apple years -- that helped make him a true paradigm-shifting icon. Jobs departure from Apple allowed him to find and purchase a small computer graphics firm that became Pixar -- an animation studio that so far surpassed what Disney was doing in the field that Disney could do nothing more than buy it from Jobs!
But the experience of making entertainment content was the true missing link in the Jobs portfolio. It's what made it possible -- after he returned to Apple -- to take the company in a direction that made the whole PC vs. Mac debate obsolete. It's what enabled Jobs to leave longtime rival Bill Gates's Microsoft in the dust and battle Google for the title of technology king of the 21st century.
The interesting lesson there: Losing/getting fired (albeit from your own company) can sometimes set one up for a transformative comeback.
And this summer, I got my iPad. And realized that, despite what Jobs thought he invented back in 1976 (and later in 1984), this was the true "personal computer." Indeed, it is so "personal" that it doesn't seem like a "computer." Instead, the technological became an extension of the discrete diverse tastes and interests of the individual. It's not about buttons anymore; it's about a most intimate of human activities -- touch. And you can carry your entire life -- books, music, work, etc. in a slim, sleek device.
While most Jobs' eulogies focus on the first (the creation of the Apple II and Mac in the late-70s/early-80s) and last (the iPod/iPhone/iPad troika) decades of his career, perhaps it was that middle period -- his exiled-from-Apple years -- that helped make him a true paradigm-shifting icon. Jobs departure from Apple allowed him to find and purchase a small computer graphics firm that became Pixar -- an animation studio that so far surpassed what Disney was doing in the field that Disney could do nothing more than buy it from Jobs!
But the experience of making entertainment content was the true missing link in the Jobs portfolio. It's what made it possible -- after he returned to Apple -- to take the company in a direction that made the whole PC vs. Mac debate obsolete. It's what enabled Jobs to leave longtime rival Bill Gates's Microsoft in the dust and battle Google for the title of technology king of the 21st century.
The interesting lesson there: Losing/getting fired (albeit from your own company) can sometimes set one up for a transformative comeback.
In addition to his amazing inventions that truly bonded the technological with the personal (and produced some 317 patents), Steve Jobs left a rather stunning commencement speech in 2005 at Stanford that is required reading -- and viewing -- for everyone, the heart of which is this beautiful passage:
No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary. [Emphasis added.]
And, yes, read/watch the entire piece:
How the Grim Reaper's specter can give one words to live by.
Steve Jobs, 1955-2011, R.I.P.
Labels: Apple, Steve Jobs
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Return Of The Newt
Newt Gingrich, an old boss of mine from a galaxy far away, officially launched his campaign for the presidency yesterday.
His announcement video:
Andrew Sullivan calls it a "doomed" effort. Former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon takes a balanced, nuanced view, but doesn't think he's the answer to the GOP's prayers.
But MSNBC's First Read doesn't completely dismiss Newt's chances. Indeed, their take is that, yes, the former Speaker has much "personal baggage." However,
I don't know -- and it would be inappropriate for me to "endorse" or dismiss his campaign now. I'd prefer to at least try and maintain my objectivity in the Republican nomination. I wish him "luck" -- as I would any candidate about to embark on a lengthy, expensive quest. I will try to judge and assess him as I do the other candidates as the field develops.
He's certainly one of the smartest guys in the contest. We'll see how well that asset helps him in the months ahead.
|
His announcement video:
Andrew Sullivan calls it a "doomed" effort. Former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon takes a balanced, nuanced view, but doesn't think he's the answer to the GOP's prayers.
But MSNBC's First Read doesn't completely dismiss Newt's chances. Indeed, their take is that, yes, the former Speaker has much "personal baggage." However,
flawed candidates always have gone on to win the White House. The winner in 1992 (Bill Clinton) was the governor of a small state who had a, well, colorful past. The winner in 2000 (George W. Bush) overcame doubts about his knowledge of world affairs, as well as booming economy under a Democratic administration. And the winner in 2008 (Barack Obama) triumphed despite questions about his experience and his worldview. What matters in presidential campaigns -- and we’ll witness this over the next year and a half -- is how the candidates conquer, exploit, or side-step their flaws. Nobody is perfect, especially in politics. But what counts is how they take a punch and respond. In many ways, a presidential primary campaign is a test to see who can BEST overcome obstacles.Can Newt overcome his obstacles -- which include a tendency to step on his own message?
I don't know -- and it would be inappropriate for me to "endorse" or dismiss his campaign now. I'd prefer to at least try and maintain my objectivity in the Republican nomination. I wish him "luck" -- as I would any candidate about to embark on a lengthy, expensive quest. I will try to judge and assess him as I do the other candidates as the field develops.
He's certainly one of the smartest guys in the contest. We'll see how well that asset helps him in the months ahead.
Labels: 2012 GOP nomination, Newt Gingrich
Monday, May 02, 2011
Killing On Stage -- And Off
What a difference a day can make.
A world in which Osama bin Laden is no longer alive is a very different one than 24, 48 or 72 hours before. However, the change felt today because of the news delivered yesterday evening should force a rapid re-think of what occurred over the last few days.
On Saturday evening, like many other journalists, I was in Washington, DC, at the White House Correspondents Dinner. As several people recalled last night, comedian Seth Meyers made an Osama bin Laden joke (the last in a series about not many people watching C-SPAN: "We're still looking for Osama bin Laden; but how many people know that every day he hosts a show at 4 PM on C-SPAN"). The (yes) C-SPAN camera caught President Obama reacting to the joke. This was one day after he had approved the operation to take out bin Laden.
Seeing that picture reminded me of something. As I mentioned to a couple friends post-dinner, the president seemed a little "off" in his comedic remarks. Not that they weren't funny; they were (his take out of Donald Trump was done quite well, but the "Lion King" "live video of my birth" killed). However, I've seen Obama several times do these kind of stand-up gigs and, previously, there was always an endearing "tic" in his performances: After a particularly amusing line, he would pause and laugh at his own joke -- almost as if he were hearing it for the first time (which might have been the case). In fact, I've mentioned this before. In any event, that tic wasn't there Saturday. He was just locked in to deliver his jokes with a surgical efficiency. I just put it down to the fact that he was still pissed off over the whole birth certificate issue from the previous few days. He had looked more than a bit petulant at the "birth" presser on Thursday (the 28th).
Of course, now everyone knows that that the OBL mission was coming to a head throughout last week. The ultimate meeting of the national security council OBL team was that same Thursday -- presumably right before the birther-presser, because he headed off to Chicago for a seeming awkwardly-timed Oprah appearance. Yeah, that one, right after he said, "We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do. We’ve got big problems to solve. And I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them — not on this."
Again, now we know that it wasn't the economy and the budget and awful weather down South that were the "big problems" Obama was thinking about while lashing "carnival barkers" and the media. It was bin Laden. And, yeah, he knew he had to "perform" in front of the press on Saturday, but he couldn't let anything slip as to what was really going on. So, his focus caused his comedic "tell" to disappear. It's quite possible he concentrated on the "performance" a bit more this year, just because there were so many weighty matters on his mind.
And that weight carries on from here.
Getting Osama bin Laden is a great military and intelligence achievement. As the spontaneous celebrations that emerged at Ground Zero, outside the White House and around the country show, this was also a much-needed emotional catharsis for the entire country (but, darn it, did we have to bury the body at sea so quick? Cue mics for those who now think bin Laden wasn't really killed). One is tempted to use Gerald Ford's line, delivered in a very different context: "Our long national nightmare is over," though the 9/11 hangover has lasted twice the time Watergate did. However, the president disabused Americans of that temptations in his address Sunday night: "Yet [bin Laden's] death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad."
But the dynamics of the effort are changed. Al Qaeda Prime is now leaderless and there will be inevitably a struggle for who gets to run the terror network -- and those wouldbe bin Ladens may try to outdo one another in producing the most impressive strike against the West. However, is it merely coincidence that OBL was taken out one day after NATO targeted Moammar Khadafy's Tripoli compound (and reportedly killed members of his family)? What message does the OBL takeout send to Khadafy? Is he more likely to sue for peace -- and forced retirement? On the other hand, what are the Libyan rebel forces -- who are believed to have strong connections to al Qaeda's North African franchise -- thinking? Will they get the lesson that -- even if they evict Khadafy -- it might be beneficial to have good relations with the United States. At least for a while.
Does this mean that Obama can now actually fulfill his promise of beginning the Afghanistan drawdown this summer? Everyone presumed that the July deadline was going to be "honored" in the breach. Now, does the US cut a deal with the Taliban and then actually start moving out. If so, wither Hamid Karzai?
Lots of questions to resolve. But this is a real "game changer, that puts President Obama in an enviable position. It does not guarantee his reelection, contrary to what some in Twitterland proclaimed. George H.W. Bush hovered around 90 percent approval after the end of Gulf War I. He was turned out of office with 38 percent 18 months later. That said, Obama undoubtedly gets a few days new honeymoon after this great "get." He further buys himself more time to look like a unifying non-political figure -- regardless where gas prices might be. He can then try praying that the economy and jobs market start picking up. If they don't, he'll be toast -- just like the elder Bush.
But, those concerns aside, if Republicans weren't worrying before, they should now -- not for policy reasons, but for political ones. The first GOP debate is just days away. The field is still unsettled -- and now the debate will be held in the wake of this great accomplishment in the war on terror (or whatever it has now been renamed). The optics don't look good for the GOP. But more importantly -- drawing the exact opposite conclusion I did a couple days ago -- it's the Republican base that should worry about its political arm. In barely three days, Barack Obama has gone from seeming to be on the defensive in releasing his birth certificate to looking like he has the deadliest poker face outside of Las Vegas. Not only did Obama school Donald Trump -- at both the press conference and the Correspondents Dinner -- but it's so obvious now that he was juggling some very serious things while appearing to look dithering and superficial.
Leading from behind, anyone?
The GOP is dealing with a man who has pure ice in his veins. Someone who gives neither media nor opposition any hint at the cards he has yet to play. Oh, and he may raise $1 billion for his re-election campaign. This combination should make Republican partisans very nervous.
What a difference a few days can make.
|
A world in which Osama bin Laden is no longer alive is a very different one than 24, 48 or 72 hours before. However, the change felt today because of the news delivered yesterday evening should force a rapid re-think of what occurred over the last few days.
On Saturday evening, like many other journalists, I was in Washington, DC, at the White House Correspondents Dinner. As several people recalled last night, comedian Seth Meyers made an Osama bin Laden joke (the last in a series about not many people watching C-SPAN: "We're still looking for Osama bin Laden; but how many people know that every day he hosts a show at 4 PM on C-SPAN"). The (yes) C-SPAN camera caught President Obama reacting to the joke. This was one day after he had approved the operation to take out bin Laden.
Seeing that picture reminded me of something. As I mentioned to a couple friends post-dinner, the president seemed a little "off" in his comedic remarks. Not that they weren't funny; they were (his take out of Donald Trump was done quite well, but the "Lion King" "live video of my birth" killed). However, I've seen Obama several times do these kind of stand-up gigs and, previously, there was always an endearing "tic" in his performances: After a particularly amusing line, he would pause and laugh at his own joke -- almost as if he were hearing it for the first time (which might have been the case). In fact, I've mentioned this before. In any event, that tic wasn't there Saturday. He was just locked in to deliver his jokes with a surgical efficiency. I just put it down to the fact that he was still pissed off over the whole birth certificate issue from the previous few days. He had looked more than a bit petulant at the "birth" presser on Thursday (the 28th).
Of course, now everyone knows that that the OBL mission was coming to a head throughout last week. The ultimate meeting of the national security council OBL team was that same Thursday -- presumably right before the birther-presser, because he headed off to Chicago for a seeming awkwardly-timed Oprah appearance. Yeah, that one, right after he said, "We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do. We’ve got big problems to solve. And I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them — not on this."
Again, now we know that it wasn't the economy and the budget and awful weather down South that were the "big problems" Obama was thinking about while lashing "carnival barkers" and the media. It was bin Laden. And, yeah, he knew he had to "perform" in front of the press on Saturday, but he couldn't let anything slip as to what was really going on. So, his focus caused his comedic "tell" to disappear. It's quite possible he concentrated on the "performance" a bit more this year, just because there were so many weighty matters on his mind.
And that weight carries on from here.
Getting Osama bin Laden is a great military and intelligence achievement. As the spontaneous celebrations that emerged at Ground Zero, outside the White House and around the country show, this was also a much-needed emotional catharsis for the entire country (but, darn it, did we have to bury the body at sea so quick? Cue mics for those who now think bin Laden wasn't really killed). One is tempted to use Gerald Ford's line, delivered in a very different context: "Our long national nightmare is over," though the 9/11 hangover has lasted twice the time Watergate did. However, the president disabused Americans of that temptations in his address Sunday night: "Yet [bin Laden's] death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad."
But the dynamics of the effort are changed. Al Qaeda Prime is now leaderless and there will be inevitably a struggle for who gets to run the terror network -- and those wouldbe bin Ladens may try to outdo one another in producing the most impressive strike against the West. However, is it merely coincidence that OBL was taken out one day after NATO targeted Moammar Khadafy's Tripoli compound (and reportedly killed members of his family)? What message does the OBL takeout send to Khadafy? Is he more likely to sue for peace -- and forced retirement? On the other hand, what are the Libyan rebel forces -- who are believed to have strong connections to al Qaeda's North African franchise -- thinking? Will they get the lesson that -- even if they evict Khadafy -- it might be beneficial to have good relations with the United States. At least for a while.
Does this mean that Obama can now actually fulfill his promise of beginning the Afghanistan drawdown this summer? Everyone presumed that the July deadline was going to be "honored" in the breach. Now, does the US cut a deal with the Taliban and then actually start moving out. If so, wither Hamid Karzai?
Lots of questions to resolve. But this is a real "game changer, that puts President Obama in an enviable position. It does not guarantee his reelection, contrary to what some in Twitterland proclaimed. George H.W. Bush hovered around 90 percent approval after the end of Gulf War I. He was turned out of office with 38 percent 18 months later. That said, Obama undoubtedly gets a few days new honeymoon after this great "get." He further buys himself more time to look like a unifying non-political figure -- regardless where gas prices might be. He can then try praying that the economy and jobs market start picking up. If they don't, he'll be toast -- just like the elder Bush.
But, those concerns aside, if Republicans weren't worrying before, they should now -- not for policy reasons, but for political ones. The first GOP debate is just days away. The field is still unsettled -- and now the debate will be held in the wake of this great accomplishment in the war on terror (or whatever it has now been renamed). The optics don't look good for the GOP. But more importantly -- drawing the exact opposite conclusion I did a couple days ago -- it's the Republican base that should worry about its political arm. In barely three days, Barack Obama has gone from seeming to be on the defensive in releasing his birth certificate to looking like he has the deadliest poker face outside of Las Vegas. Not only did Obama school Donald Trump -- at both the press conference and the Correspondents Dinner -- but it's so obvious now that he was juggling some very serious things while appearing to look dithering and superficial.
Leading from behind, anyone?
The GOP is dealing with a man who has pure ice in his veins. Someone who gives neither media nor opposition any hint at the cards he has yet to play. Oh, and he may raise $1 billion for his re-election campaign. This combination should make Republican partisans very nervous.
What a difference a few days can make.
Labels: Barack Obama, nerdprom, Osama bin Laden, White House Correspondents Association Dinner
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Trumping Truth: Real Questions For The President
President Obama launched his re-election campaign two weeks ago. If one is a Democrat, should you begin to get concerned about those re-election prospects? Not because of the actual objective policy issues and economic factors (gas prices, anyone?) that are in play. But because whether the Obama political operation -- which was so ruthlessly smooth during the 2008 presidential campaign -- is rather, well, less so now.
Mediate's Tommy Christopher has, in my view, the best political take on yesterday's big "long-form" birth certificate story: Why address a completely stupid conspiracy theory that was doing more damage -- in my view -- to Republicans than to the president? Maybe the Obama team had private polling showing that the story was bleeding from the GOP base into the independent bloc, and so they had to respond to the story. But why essentially engage with a loudmouth buffoon like Donald Trump whose been promoting (in basic subtext) the idea that Obama not only isn't a real American, but that he's done nothing to deserve the office he holds? Why allow Trump a victory lap (yeah, I get the idea that this could help Obama by elevating Trump to the detriment of others in the GOP, but it still strikes me as too clever by half)? And, releasing the long-form obviously puts an end to the story, right? As if. Either some still doubt the veracity of the document -- or criticize Obama for not releasing it beforehand. If it's a no-win, why engage at all -- when the legal, recognized short-form had been released three years ago?
Why release the documents personally (as opposed to having a White House flunky do the job)? Why step all over the big story of the day -- the shaking up of the national security team? And, if you're going to say that the birth certificate controversy is taking you away from "bigger issues," why immediately jet off to be interviewed by Oprah in Chicago and attend three fundraisers in New York?
Does the president's political team really not understand these optics? If it doesn't that suggests big problems over the next 18 months in dealing with a ramped-up presidential campaign environment.
|
Mediate's Tommy Christopher has, in my view, the best political take on yesterday's big "long-form" birth certificate story: Why address a completely stupid conspiracy theory that was doing more damage -- in my view -- to Republicans than to the president? Maybe the Obama team had private polling showing that the story was bleeding from the GOP base into the independent bloc, and so they had to respond to the story. But why essentially engage with a loudmouth buffoon like Donald Trump whose been promoting (in basic subtext) the idea that Obama not only isn't a real American, but that he's done nothing to deserve the office he holds? Why allow Trump a victory lap (yeah, I get the idea that this could help Obama by elevating Trump to the detriment of others in the GOP, but it still strikes me as too clever by half)? And, releasing the long-form obviously puts an end to the story, right? As if. Either some still doubt the veracity of the document -- or criticize Obama for not releasing it beforehand. If it's a no-win, why engage at all -- when the legal, recognized short-form had been released three years ago?
Why release the documents personally (as opposed to having a White House flunky do the job)? Why step all over the big story of the day -- the shaking up of the national security team? And, if you're going to say that the birth certificate controversy is taking you away from "bigger issues," why immediately jet off to be interviewed by Oprah in Chicago and attend three fundraisers in New York?
Does the president's political team really not understand these optics? If it doesn't that suggests big problems over the next 18 months in dealing with a ramped-up presidential campaign environment.
Labels: Barack Obama, birther
