Never mind what was said here about LinkedIn earlier today. LinkedIn brought this to my attention, and this is pretty cool…
Do you have YOUR ‘Google Maps pose’ yet?
2 Replies
Category Archives: Popular culture
Almost ran for office; it happened just the other day…
Speak out, you got to speak out
against the madness,
you got to speak your mind,
if you dare.
But don’t no don’t try to
get yourself elected
If you do you had better cut your hair.
— Crosby, Stills and Nash
Pursuant to our previous discussion of ponytails and their relationship to credibility (in a specific context, not in general), Kathryn Fenner shares this article:
Hair style and dress sense are the only issues where politicians present a narrower range of options for voters than policies. Their political conservatism is reflected, and possibly shaped by, their follicular safeness. If you like, you can research this yourself. But you will find, after inspecting candidates’ heads at the local, state and federal level, there are very few afros, perms, ducktails, beehives, streaks, mop-tops, hi-top fades, curtains, asymmetrical fringes, Mohicans, pony-tails, dreadlocks, cornrows, Jheri curls, devilocks, liberty spikes, rat tails, bowl-cuts, under-cuts or mullets.
Tony Blair BEFORE thinking up New Labour.
If you are one of the thousands or millions of men with one of these things on your head, voting can be a lonely and frustrating process.
Today’s politicians don’t actually have a thing against long hair per se, since a lot of them are deserters from the long-haired community. Look at old pictures of Barack Obama with an afro, Bill Clinton’s shaggy mop and Tony Blair in his Mick Jagger phase. But they visited the barber before they ran for office because politics is an annex of the banking, legal, military and other notoriously short-haired professions.
The political establishment and its associated industries simply use a candidate’s appearance as a means of weeding out people who don’t act in their interests. So we end up with phrases like “presidential hair,” which means, on a more subtextual level, that the man underneath it won’t be out of place pressing flesh at a Wall Street dinner or engaging in bonhomie with military personnel. In short, these industries want to make sure the candidate is one of their guys, and in their antiquated world of alpha masculinity, something approaching a buzz cut is essential. Considering their election campaigns — especially the fundraising part — are essentially a series of job interviews with a panel of generals, bankers and super-rich lawyers, it’s not surprising that candidates scissor themselves as soon as their name gets near a ballot paper.
Mercifully, I had forgotten this incident
Talking to Kara Gormley Meador yesterday, I momentarily drew a blank when she mentioned her run-in with John Graham Altman some years ago. She reminded me of the details, which made me go, “Oh, yeah.” Here’s a summary of the incident:
Excerpts from the exchange between WIS-TV reporter Kara Gormley and Rep. John Graham Altman, R-Charleston, over a S.C. House committee’s vote to make cockfighting a felony while tabling a bill that would toughen criminal domestic violence laws
Gormley: “Does that show that we are valuing a gamecock’s life over a woman’s life?”
Altman: “You’re really not very bright, and I realize you are not accustomed to this, but I’m accustomed to reporters having a better sense of depth of things, and your asking this question to me would indicate you can’t understand the answer. To ask the question is to demonstrate an enormous amount of ignorance. I’m not trying to be rude or hostile, I’m telling you.”
Gormley: “It’s rude when you tell someone they are not very bright.”
Altman: “You’re not very bright, and you’ll just have to live with that.”
So basically, when she talks about the lack of civility in politics, she’s speaking from personal experience.
Davy Jones, 66, catches last train to Clarksville
Yeah, that’s a pretty cheesy headline, but it was the first thing I thought of. I guess I could have said, “Davy Jones heads for the locker,” but that would have been worse:
Davy Jones — forever young and forever beloved by fans the last 50 years — has died, according to Reuters. Age: 66. The cause of death was apparently a heart attack.
Jones and his band the Monkees were in a brief moment and time very nearly as popular as the Beatles — whom they so gently satirized and idolized in that long ago NBC hit. (“The Monkees,” by the way, bowed Sept. 13, 1966 — five days after “Star Trek” launched.)…
Anyway, it’s sad. Especially for those of us who were in junior high (the perfect demographic target) when the Monkees came on the scene. Because we mourn for our youth, and how easy it was to get excited over the smallest things, even a pre-Fab Four. And I suppose it’s particularly sad for those who were girls at the time, since Jones had the faux “Paul McCartney” role in the quartet.
How strange that just yesterday, we were talking about Michael Nesmith and Peter Tork. I suppose that at this point, just to round things out, I should mention Mickey Dolenz.
You know, it’s just impossible that this much time has passed…
A video from the days before videos
This was brought to my attention this afternoon via iTunes. I’d never seen it before, so I share it with you. (iTunes didn’t provide me with a way to embed it; but fortunately I quickly found it at YouTube.)
My memory is that the first thing I recall seeing that was anything like a “music video,” defined as what we came to know and love in the early ’80s (an art form that sadly faded as MTV turned to other, far less appealing kinds of programming) was the one that John Lennon used to promote “Imagine” during his appearance on the Dick Cavett Show — the day before I ran out and bought the album.
Of course, we could count the manic musical sequences in Richard Lester’s “A Hard Days Night,” but those were not intended to stand alone.
And now that we have YouTube, all sorts of old clips have been pared to old music, or forgotten television appearances revived, to create sort of after-the-fact music videos.
I don’t pretend to know where it started. But real Beatles fans should enjoy this one. Even though it’s got Yoko in it.
Colbert proves he’s a good South Carolina boy; drops everything to care for his sick Mama
Colbert, seen in this file photo with another South Carolina boy.
If anyone doubted that Stephen Colbert was really one of us, this should settle it:
Episodes of “The Colbert Report” were canceled this week, reportedly because of the serious illness of Colbert’s 91-year-old mother, and fans have been showing their support for “a deeply decent guy.”
Several news outlets reported Friday on the illness of Colbert’s mother, Lorna, who incidentally is a resident of South Carolina — the state where her comedian son was running for office as “President of the United States of America of South Carolina.”
The comedian comes from a large Irish Catholic family, with 11 children. His father and two brothers were killed in a plane crash in 1974.
The Wednesday and Thursday tapings of the series were canceled at the last minute, with Comedy Central releasing only a short statement that cancellations were because of “unforseen circumstances.” Although sources close to the show say they anticipate returning to new episodes soon, there’s been no official statement from the comedian or his family.
Fans have been tweeting their words of support on Twitter; none are upset about the missed shows. “Stephen Colbert… is a deeply decent guy,” wrote one fan. “Hope everything is going well with our Mom. Your fans are all thinking about you,” wrote another….
He’s a good Southern boy after all; in spite of his funny way of talking.
The state of political argument today
Tim brought up this hilarious classic in an earlier comment. I grabbed it and edited it down in order to share this one thought with you without your having to watch the whole thing. (If you DO want to watch the whole thing, here it is.)
I was particularly struck by this line of Michael Palin’s:
An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition.
But of course, our national politics today consist entirely of contradiction. If the fellow in the other party says it, it must be contradicted — and never, never engaged. Because polarization is the end it itself. No one is trying to achieve a new understanding by setting competing positions alongside each other and advancing a synthesis. It’s about saying “no, it isn’t” back and forth.
That’s the sort of thing I was on about back here. And on the Kulturkampf post as well.
The Pelosi assault on Colbert
Just in case you hadn’t seen it.
I have nothing to say about it, beyond the fact that occasionally, I think people try to be just a bit too cute…
‘The Ides of March’ fails to meet expectations
In politics, particularly during the presidential primary season, when each step determines your momentum for the next, expectations can be everything. If you’re expected to win big, and you win modestly, then you lose. And so forth. Silly, but that’s the way it works.
By that standard, “The Ides of March” was for me a dud.
In fairness, I must cite the hyperbolic buildup. At dinner on the night that E.J. Dionne was here for the Bernardin lecture, there was a lot of buzz about the movie at my table. My good friend Moss Blachman made it sound like it was the greatest movie he’d seen in years. So I was eager to see it. Not eager enough to pay today’s exorbitant ticket prices to view it in a multiplex, but eager. I finally got it from Netflix this weekend.
And was disappointed. I had expected a cross between Robert Redford’s standard-setting “The Candidate” and some of George Clooney’s best recent work. Something with the depth of “Michael Clayton,” and the perception of “Up in the Air.” I felt like politics was due for that sort of treatment.
But I didn’t get that. Instead, I got a rather facile “ripped from today’s headlines” middling drama about… what was it about? Lost innocence? A descent into cynicism? Maybe. But it wasn’t a very deep descent. Or at least, the protagonist didn’t have far to descend from where he started.
What was missing? Well, first of all, any sense of why the campaign strategist played by Ryan Gosling thought the candidate played by Clooney was special. There are references to the fact that he does — that he has to believe in a candidate, and this is one he believes in (thereby making any disillusionment painful). But nothing happens or is said to make me believe it. The candidate seems pretty facile to me, nowhere near the kind of subtly redeemable character that I’ve seen Clooney play.
As for the protagonist — well, he seems pretty garden-variety, really. When his moment of shocked discovery comes, I simply don’t believe that he’s shocked. Nothing I’ve seen has persuaded me that he possesses enough of a moral sense to be shaken on a profound level. The character I’ve come to know by this point wouldn’t have a stunned look on his face; he would simply say, “OK, here’s a problem; let’s deal with it.”
Of course, by the end, what at the moment of revelation was indeed a garden-variety, way-of-the-world scandal has become something truly horrific, mainly because of the way our vapid antihero has mucked everything up.
Anyway, at the end of it all, there’s no one left standing that I can possibly care about — Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s character was the only admirable one we met along the way (the guy just refuses to turn in a bad, or even mediocre, performance, doesn’t he?). And we have learned nothing about politics, or human nature, or anything.
The thing is, we could really use a movie today that asks, and genuinely tries to answer, difficult questions about the state of politics in this country today. We’re still waiting for that film.
All that said, it was probably a B-minus or C-plus movie, an absolute score that doesn’t sound too bad. But I had expected an A-plus. So that means it failed.
How can anyone so together go so wrong?
Have you heard the news about Don Cornelius? Of “Soul Train” fame?
“Soul Train” creator Don Cornelius was found dead at his Sherman Oaks on home Wednesday morning.
Law enforcement sources said police arrived at Cornelius’ home around 4 a.m. He apparently died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, according to sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case was ongoing.
The sources said there was no sign of foul play, but the Los Angeles Police Department was investigating…
Such occurrences cause me to have a thought that may seem trivial and superficial under the circumstances, but it occurs to me anyway: How does anyone that cool and collected — in terms of his public persona — go off the tracks to this extent? First the domestic violence thing four years ago, and now this?
OK, so that was a stage pose — the unflappable, calmly hip host. I get that. And no, people aren’t always the same off-stage. I mean, we once though Ike Turner was cool, too. But I wonder anyway.
I’ve often had a related, though slightly different, thought with regard to James Taylor — only I think I’m on firmer ground with that one. I look at him, and listen to him, and think, How could a guy have all those mental and drug problems over the years, when he is capable of making such amazingly mellow and soothing sounds any time? If I could do that, I find it hard to imagine that I would ever be uptight.
But what do I know about what it’s like to be these people? Not much.
Grow up and put your clothes on
Two weeks ago, when I arrived back at CAE from my trip to Key West, I saw an unusual sight in the baggage claim area. A woman had brought two children to greet an arriving man — husband and father probably, but I have no way of knowing — and the kids were in their pajamas. Fine. Made sense, I suppose, being a little before 9 p.m.
But here’s the thing — the woman I took to be the Mom was in her bathrobe and slippers. Presumably, also pajama-clad beneath the robe.
This seemed a bit much. It’s not like the arrival was not scheduled, and/or was taking place at 3 a.m.
Then, I ran across this on the Web:
Pajamas are on the rise. Across the land, according to the Wall Street Journal, teenagers have taken to wearing PJs all day, even in public—even to school! Apparel companies like Abercrombie & Fitch and American Eagle are cashing in on the trend, stocking their stores with leggings and sweatpants and other comfortable, flowy, elastic waistbanded apparel. Pajamas are even popping up in high fashion: Here’s Sofia Coppola happily, gorgeously stepping outside during the day in Louis Vuitton pajamas, and here’s designer Rachel Roy attending a movie premiere in her own brand of jammies. Last week Shopbop.com, a women’s clothing site that tracks new “looks,” exhorted its customers to “get comfortable with pajama dressing.” Among its wares were several silk blouses selling for more than $200 each; a pair of silk drawstring plaid pants with elastic cuffs for $495; and these $845 (!) wide-leg print pants constructed out of sateen, a fabric that I think is mostly used to make bed sheets.
As you might expect, a whole lot of silly and just-plain-mean people aren’t happy about this nascent pajama craze. A number of school districts have banned sleeping clothes on the theory that they somehow inhibit students’ motivation. The idea, I guess, is that taking the time to dress up for school makes you ready to learn—which sounds plausible until you think about it for five seconds. Isn’t spending time worrying about what you’ll wear an even bigger distraction from academics?
Some people are so upset with pajamas they want to bring in the law. Michael Williams, a commissioner in Louisiana’s Caddo Parish, won national headlines a few weeks ago by calling for a ban on pajamas in public. Under Williams’ proposed ordinance, people caught wearing pajamas—which he defines as clothes sold in the sleepwear section of department stores—would be forced to perform community service. (I wonder if they would be required to wear orange jumpsuits—which look like very comfortable pajamas—while serving their sentences.) Williams told the Journal that the daytime pajama trend signaled America’s dwindling “moral fiber,” and then added a nutty slippery-slope argument to bolster his point: “It’s pajamas today; what is it going to be tomorrow? Walking around in your underwear?”
Precisely. And there’s nothing nutty about it, given that that’s precisely what I wear to bed, and I’m guessing a lot of guys are with me on that. I have only this to say about the PJ trend: I don’t hold with it. I mean, come on, people — make an effort. Count me among the “silly and just-plain-mean people.” Somebody’s gotta draw a line somewhere.
There are related phenomena which I will also decry. Saturday night, I saw an SNL rerun from just before Christmas. The musical guest was someone unfamiliar to me, a Michael Bublé. He is apparently a crooner who aspires to the Sinatra-to-Tony Bennett spectrum. Although I’m thinking Andy Williams-Wayne Newton is more like his speed.
Anyway, he was perched on a barstool with a microphone, dressed in black tie. Which was appropriate, this being well after 6 p.m. But here’s the thing: He hadn’t shaved in a day or two. And if his close-cropped hair had ever known a comb, it was not obvious. He kept smiling at the audience in this particularly smarmy manner, and all I could think was, Hey, you want to ingratiate yourself? Take a minute to shave. It’s not that freaking hard. It takes less time than putting on a tux. Give it a try.
I really don’t know what is supposed to be achieved with the “I can’t be bothered to shave” look. It wasn’t even careful, Sonny Crockett can’t be bothered to shave. It was actually like he got up that morning and looked in the mirror and said, Nah. Not gonna do it. I’m just going on live national TV, and my thing is to look like somebody from the 40s, when men were carefully barbered, but nah…
Back to the PJ thing. Ladies, if that’s what you want to do, go for it. But be advised — full-length PJs are not a good look, for anybody.
As for guys, I’ve gotta ask — how many guys even wear pajamas to sleep? I’m thinking, not that many. I mean, what’s underwear for? I know that nobody wants to see me in public in what I wear in the sack, and I respect that. So should everybody else.
There goes my Hollywood career
OK, uh, somebody hipped me to the news that this is NOT a movie teaser, but has to do with an upcoming Super Bowl ad. Good. This is good… it means somebody out there is thinking about it, and maybe the folks who own the rights would like to do a deal with somebody who has the right idea. Which would be me. So Hollywood, if you’re calling, here I am… In the meantime, here’s the post I wrote when I thought that was a for-real mini-preview…
I’m not being facetious. I think my project might have had a chance — with the right connections, and with cooperation from those holding the rights to the first movie — and now it’s gone for good. I’m actually sort of depressed about this.
For several years, I’ve been kicking around an idea for a movie. It’s a really good idea. Good enough that my daughter gave me a “Scriptwriting for Dummies” book about four years ago to encourage me to go ahead and write it. But I was so busy then at the paper, and then I was unemployed (which is really, really time-consuming) and since then I’ve been trying to learn to be a Mad Man and develop my blog into a paying concern and occasionally doing freelance gigs, and, basically, it didn’t get written.
So now Hollywood has gone ahead with the project without me. And I’m pretty sure it’s not going to be nearly as good as if they’d heard my pitch.
My pitch would have been this…
Title: “Ferris Bueller’s Off Day.” Which is better than “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off 2.” Way better.
Mine was to be a political satire. For the simple reason that I can only think of one thing Ferris would have done with his peculiar talents. He was made for it. Like Tom Sawyer. Don’t you assume Tom would have gone into politics? Of course he would have. Same with Ferris — a preternaturally gifted politician. The kind who drives his opponents insane because he has this uncanny rapport with voters, everything slides off of him, and he always comes back — kind of like Bill Clinton.
In my script, Ferris would be a member of Congress. Not a senator. That would be too grand. Just another member of Congress, enjoying the perks of office, saying what he wants, voting how he wants, and getting repeatedly re-elected no matter what he does. Which, as I say, infuriates his political opponents. Such as Edward R. Rooney.
Mr. Rooney, having abandoned education as unsuitable to his talents, is an assistant chief of staff (actually, political director) for the incumbent president. He has a wonderful office in the West Wing. Great view. Grace has accompanied him on his career, and is still his secretary. All would be right with his world, except for one thing: Ferris Bueller. Still. Ferris, through no effort or merit of his own, is talked about constantly as a potential challenger to the president in the upcoming election. He doesn’t encourage this talk, but he enjoys it. And everything he does seems to boost him in the polls, and make the president — or at least, his assistant chief of staff — look foolish.
Mr. Rooney has collected some major dirt on Ferris. I haven’t decided what Ferris has done (and he HAS done it; our boy is not innocent), but whatever it is, he’s done it “nine times.” Instead of to Ferris’ mom, Ed rehearses saying “nine times” to the media. At some point, he says it to Ferris’ administrative assistant, Cameron, relishing the threat. (I’m toying with the idea of the scandal having something to do with contributions to Ferris’ campaign fund from Abe Froman, the Sausage King of Chicago.)
OK, I’ve set the background. Here’s what’s happening as the movie opens… Ferris is lying in bed, glassy-eyed. Only this time, he’s not faking. Some of the scandal has broken over him at a time when he’s vulnerable. His marriage to Sloan appears to finally be over, due to his proclivity for — remember how, after asking Sloane to marry him, even at the moment when his world is about to come crashing down on him, as he’s racing to get home ahead of everybody, he stops and turns and introduces himself to the sunbathing girls? Well, that sort of thing has caught up with him.
He’s convinced that all his mojo is gone. Finally, at a critical moment in his career as the incomparable Ferris, he’s having an off day. An off day when all sorts of things he got away with in the past is catching up with him. Hence the title.
Meanwhile, Cameron — who straightened himself out and become a (relative) bundle of confidence after having that little chat with his Dad about the Ferrari — is the one calling Ferris and trying to get him to stop moping and take advantage of the opportunities that lie before him. Sure, there’s a scandal to deal with, but Cameron knows Ferris can deal with it — if he’ll just snap out of this funk.
Oh, yeah — Jeannie is an investigative reporter on The Hill. Something in her childhood instilled in her a deep-seated need to catch other people doing things that they shouldn’t. And she’s not partial. Investigating Ferris is fine with her, even though they made up at the end of the last movie.
Spoiler alert: At some point in the film, Jeannie starts to look into some irregularities involving Mr. Rooney. Also, at some point, Ferris does snap out of it and find a way out of the jam he’s in. Because, you know, off day or not, he’s Ferris Bueller.
Along the way, there’s a lot of fun with cameos from real-life Washington people talking about how awesome Ferris is, plus some regular man-in-the-street interviews. For instance, there’s an interview with a guy who works in the congressional parking garage, and the first question is, “Do you speak English?,” to which he replies, “What country do you think this is?” Simone, too, will be interviewed, and her reply will be something like her “31 flavors” line from the first movie.
Remember the kid who woke up with his face in a puddle of drool on his desk? He’ll do the same in this movie, only his desk is on the floor of the House.
Ben Stein will be in it. Charlie Sheen will do a cameo…
Look at me. I keep saying “will,” when I should say, “would have.” Because my chance has passed me by.
I know I’m going to see this movie, and I’m probably going to hate it. Because I’ll know what it could have been…
This is a job for… SEAL Team Six, the closest thing to superheroes that real life offers
They’re not the Justice League of America, or even the Avengers (although the name sometimes fits). They don’t wear colorful tights. But SEAL Team Six is the closest thing we’re likely to see in real life to a band of superheroes.
First bin Laden, now this:
KHARTOUM, Sudan — American Navy Seals swooped into Somalia early on Wednesday and rescued two aid workers, an American woman and a Danish man, after a shootout with Somali gunmen who had been holding them captive in a sweltering desert hide-out for months.
Under a cloak of darkness, the Seals parachuted in, stormed the hide-out, killed nine gunmen and then whisked the aid workers into waiting helicopters, Pentagon officials said. The Seals were from the same elite Navy commando unit — Seal Team Six — that secretly entered Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden in May, senior American officials said, though the rescue mission in Somalia was carried out by a different assault team within the unit…
I'm pretty sure this is NOT what SEAL Team Six looks like...
They just keep doing these amazing things that no one else seems able to do anymore, outside of the IDF and Mossad, and what have they done that seemed quasi-superhuman since the raid on Entebbe?
You know what else? We don’t know their identities. They could be named Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, for all we know.
OK, I’ll stop with the riffing on the superhero thing. But I like that we don’t know who they are. It allows us to see them as an extensions of all of us, however unheroic most of us may be.
The fact that they’re out there, doing this stuff without any personal fame, makes us think that The Onion was wrong: Steve Jobs was NOT “The Last American Who Knew What the F___ He Was Doing.”
Very good to know.
Only one dark lining in this silver cloud: Ron Paul might get the notion that with these guys active, we can just do away with the rest of our military, and still be fine. And the idea could catch on…
Mitt defends media from Newt. So I guess it’s true: Romney IS a RINO
What other explanation could there be for siding with the godless news media against a fellow Republican. Oh, Mitt… I’m glad Spiro Agnew isn’t alive to see this…
Now you see, that was mockery — what I just did, in my headline and lede. The Politico item I’m about to quote is headlined, “Mitt Romney mocks Newt Gingrich’s attacks on media.” But what follows doesn’t support that. It’s more like “criticizes” or “corrects” or, perhaps most accurately, “takes exception to.” At least going by the words. Maybe he said them in a snarky way. Maybe I need to see the video…
In any case, here’s what he said:
“It’s very easy to talk down a moderator. The moderator asks a question and has to sit by and take whatever you send to them,” Romney said on Fox News. “And Speaker Gingrich has been wonderful at attacking the moderators and attacking the media. That’s always a very favorite response for the home crowd.”…
But the former Massachusetts suggested that being on the offense against the media doesn’t equate to the more important skill of being able to take on other rivals in the presidential field.
“It’s very different to have candidates go against candidates, and that’s something I’ll be doing against President [Barack] Obama if I get the chance to be our nominee, that this guy has been a failure for the American people, he has not gotten people back to work, internationally he shrunk the power of our military. He has to be a guy who we replace from the White House,” he said.
‘Are you not entertained?’ The increasing futility of the GOP nomination process this year
Bret Stephens really sliced and diced the Republican presidential field in today’s Wall Street Journal, in a piece with a headline that does not equivocate: “The GOP Deserves to Lose.” After predicting, as have I, that Barack Obama will win re-election, he goes on to excoriate the challengers:
As for the current GOP field, it’s like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.
That’s my theory for why South Carolina gave Newt Gingrich his big primary win on Saturday: Voters instinctively prefer the idea of an entertaining Newt-Obama contest—the aspiring Caesar versus the failed Redeemer—over a dreary Mitt-Obama one. The problem is that voters also know that Gaius Gingrich is liable to deliver his prime-time speeches in purple toga while holding tight to darling Messalina’s—sorry, Callista’s—bejeweled fingers. A primary ballot for Mr. Gingrich is a vote for an entertaining election, not a Republican in the White House.
Newt reminds me less of Claudius than of the fictional Maximus in “Gladiator.” Are you not, indeed, entertained?
And last night, we didn’t even get that. Mitt Romney, looking every inch the sap gladiator whose role in the ring is to approach the headliner hesitantly and poke at him before getting killed (could he have seemed MORE desperate?), dutifully played his part. But Newt, now in the position of front-runner, wouldn’t fight. He didn’t do what he had done in South Carolina, where he recklessly drove the mob wild.
So I have to ask, if there are to be no more circuses, where’s our bread?
A final word, from Gingrich spokesman Daffy Duck
First, I must confess my deep embarrassment. In a comment yesterday, I mistakenly suggested that Newt Gingrich was channeling Sylvester, he of “Thuffering Thuccotash!” fame, when he said “despicable.”
Obviously, I meant Daffy Duck, who does a much better job of representing the former Speaker’s demeanor and attitude.
I hate it when I get pop culture references wrong.
Forgive me, Sylvester.
But can either Mitt or Newt match THIS?
Bob McAlister and other Republicans may be eager to see their particular candidate debate President Obama.
But I ask you, how would Newt Gingrich or any of the others answer the above?
Well, they couldn’t. I was pretty speechless myself. First Bill Clinton and the saxophone, now this.
All Newt could do under such circumstances would be to denounce the president as a blasphemer for imitating the Rev. Al…
Of course, this performance automatically makes my Top Five Soul Covers by a Sitting President list. I just don’t know where I’m going to find the other four to round it out…
Well, there’s ONE Republican woman out there who’s crossed Newt off her list: Jenny Sanford
OK, I pretty much said my intro in the headline. Here’s an excerpt from the story:
Former S.C. First Lady Jenny Sanford is not a Newt Gingrich fan…
(Mrs.) Sanford said voters need to consider at Gingrich’s personal history that includes three marriages with his last one ending after he was having an affair with his current wife, Callista. Gingrich’s poll numbers have spiked after a strong showing in Monday’s debate in Myrtle Beach.
“It does call into question his character on a personal side,” (Mrs.) Sanford said. “As a voter, I encourage people to look at both sides, the personal side, and if you’re going to overcome somebody’s moral failings or infidelities, you also have to see where they fit ideologically, and how much their rhetoric meets their reality and in my mind, Gingrich falls short on both fronts. So he wouldn’t get my vote.”
She said a candidates personal history has an impact on the job they can do in office.
“I think it comes down to the simple question of character,” she said.
And that’s something she knows about. Hear her.
How do you think the debate went?
I think that if people were waiting to make up their minds tonight, Newt just won the primary.
What do y’all think?
And why do you think Romney can’t just go ahead and release his stupid tax returns? All his responses on that are so lame.
Mind you, I don’t think Gingrich should win this. It’s just looking more like he might…
And now, for a little communitarian paranoia
My last post was about the epidemic of paranoia that is libertarianism.
Now, as a treat to the other side, I give you an example of communitarian neurosis. It’s a funny op-ed piece from The Wall Street Journal today by Rick Moranis (of “Great White North,” “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids,” “Ghostbusters” fame):
This morning, while I was grinding my blend of French, Colombian and Italian coffee beans, it occurred to me that I could be doing harm to the coffee shop and diner businesses in my neighborhood by making my own coffee at home. Might I have a responsibility and obligation to consume their product, either within their premises or brought right to my door by one of their speedy, undocumented-alien delivery men?
I also wondered whether still using my old, reliable German-brand coffee grinder, manufactured in China, might be an unpatriotic betrayal of American kitchen-appliance makers by choosing not to buy their Chinese-made grinder.
As I poured some house-brand almond milk into my homemade granola, I thought about the depressed demand and earnings on the higher-priced product manufacturers that I wasn’t patronizing, their resulting order and production declines, and the backlogged inventories and possible layoffs at their factories.
How much of this country’s economy am I personally destroying by my consumption preferences? I honestly never intended to do so much harm…
Yes, Rick, I’ve been there, brother! Now take off, you hoser…