Minuet in Gee

Why the most recent poll is bad news for Huckabee

2007-12-04T10:49:00.000-05:00

Political blogs, Washington talk shows and Des Moines coffee shops were abuzz this weekend with the news that a new Rasmussen poll has Mike Huckabee with the lead in Iowa. Most of the "Meet the Press" round table on Sunday was devoted to why the Arkansas Governor is resonating with the Iowa Republican base.

I have been bullish on Mike Huckabee for a long time; I have been a fan ever since I first saw him on the Colbert Report (I know, I know, how Millennial) talking about his diet book and the earliest stages of his candidacy. I want to add a few reasons why I think he is resonating, what I think this means for his campaign and what his next moves could and should be.

The most common explanation for Huckabee's success is that he resonates with Iowa Republican base of evangelical Christian voters because of his conservative credentials. He is a Baptist minister, staunchly pro life and far more creationist than I can deal with. Meanwhile, candidates like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani claim "evolving" positions on a wide array of social issues--something which would not reassure me if I were an Iowa caucusgoer raising my child on a steady diet of Veggie Tales. The counterpart to this argument is that his brand of conservatism doesn't play with New Hampshire Primary voters and that he won't do well there. I disagree, arguing that his appeal extends beyond Christian evangelicals.

My father has argued to me that elections are defined by "ins" or "outs." 2006 was an "out" year; 2008 will remain an "out" year. Huckabee is the only candidate in the Republican party whose "out" credentials seem to ring true. He is a Governor rather than part of the Washington establishment, He hasn't had a hand in the Iraq War, and he is building a come-from-behind political narrative; All of these facts contribute to an outsider narrative. And New Hampshire Primary voters love outsiders. Mitt Romney shares a lot of these traits, but he is too rich, successful and good-looking for me to credibly believe that he is an "out" candidate. He spent his entire life at the cool kids' table.

Another reason for Huckabee's success, the one that I find most compelling, is that Huckabee is a generally nice, likeable, and appealing guy. Even the most jaded political observer will admit the importance of being likable. As voters tune in more and more, the appeal of the candidate who seems most human gets stronger. That especially comes through in his most recent commercial (most of you have seen it, but linking to it gave me an excuse to watch it again). In trying to find Youtube clips of Huckabee saying crazy conservative things, I found dozens of him explaining views I disagree with 100% in a persuasive and thoughtful way. That is powerful.

So the question becomes what should Huckabee do next. One pundit I saw argued that he should try to parlay this newfound publicity into money. Target the Bush/Cheney Pioneers who have not yet backed a candidate so that he can get the money to build a New Hampshire campaign. That is a good advice, so is telling the Miami Dolphins that their next move should be to win a few games. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how campaigns work. EVERY campaign is trying to raise money. EVERY campaign has a large fund raising staff targeting the Bush/Cheney Pioneers (who are all giving to Democrats anyway). And EVERY surge in the polls is reflected in a increase a campaign donations. Raising money is not a strategy.

So what should his strategy be? He should downplay this news. Every single member of the Huckabee campaign from the Governor down to to the intern in charge of the Albion, Iowa office should be saying that the poll is certainly good news but we are focused on getting the Governor's message out and talking to the voters about taxes, the war in Iraq, pickup truck subsidies, freedom, and whatever else they talk about in Republican primaries. If a reporter asks about the poll, make an aw-shucks joke about how much different the questions were back when you were at 11% in the polls.

Momentum is one of the most powerful things in politics. But the flipside of momentum is high expectations. If I were working for Governor Huckabee I would be nervous. Soon there will be nowhere to go but down and nothing to do but slow down. Additionally, this is only one poll, and even the poll says that it is too close to call due to the difficulty of polling among potential Iowa caucus goers and the uncertainly or polling general. The state is still a statistical dead heat and Mitt Romney still has the money to fill Iowa with so many staffers that he will end up a bigger employer in Iowa than corn. Additionally, Romney has been on the air longer and has a more established campaign infrastructure. Money and manpower have a big effect in caucuses. I still like Romney's chances.

Imagine headlines like "Romney comes out on top, Huckabee falls short" trailing Huckabee to New Hampshire--where he is still far behind in the polls. There, he places 3rd or 4th. All of a sudden, "Is the Huckabee campaign losing steam?" trails him to South Carolina where he is forced to compete against Romney, who has already won two caucuses, and Fred Thompson, who is surprisingly strong there (not really surprising, he is white, has a drawl, and is on the teevee).

So Governor Huckabee needs manage the expectations and hope that the momentum lasts through the Holidays. A first place finish in Iowa followed by a strong 2nd in New Hampshire could set him up as a Juggernaut in South Carolina and make him the second man from Hope to wear the title "Comeback Kid."

Detour

2007-06-13T12:29:00.000-05:00

Since I have started a new job on a campaign (www.nikitsongas.com) I feel less than comfortable with commenting on politics in a public forum. So the blog will be on hiatus for a while. I know, I know, where will you get your (roughly) bimonthly posts on things that arn't very interesting?

I suggest that you check out my tumblelog. It is basically just a collection of quotes, pictures, videos and links of things that I find interesting or amusing. So far I have been updating it several times per day and I expect that trend to continue. It is a little more Boing Boing than Dailykos, but I dig it and I think you will too. Check it out:

http://joshgee.tumblr.com/

2007-05-11T10:48:00.000-05:00

So just like that it ends. With me throwing down a stack of blue books filled with some drivel about the Suez crisis and the Israeli/Arab Wars and then walking home while it starts to rain.

4 years later. Around $100,000 later. Apparently I will be receiving pieces of paper that mark me as an expert in Public Relations and American Studies.

What's next?

How to tie a tie

2007-05-08T15:53:00.000-05:00

I always try to help out the sartorially challenged by pointing the way to helpful Web sites on fashion and style.

Fashion is a lot like basketball. It's all about the fundamentals. If you don't have the basics of color and proportion down than don't even bother investing $3000 in a custom-made suit.

To that end, here is a great post on how to tie a tie. It is something not a lot of people do right and is worth reviewing even if you have done it a hundred times before.

Best Walk of Shame Ever...

2007-04-30T16:21:00.000-05:00

via The Daily Free Press:

Freshman returns after missing for almost 30 hours

Was seen at nightclub with unidentified white male, friends say

By Angela Marie Latona

College of General Studies freshman Sara Vasquez returned to her Warren Towers residence unharmed this morning after she was missing for nearly 30 hours, according to her friends. "[Vasquez is] completely safe. Everything was completely fine," said CGS freshman Rissa Freedman. Vasquez returned to Warren at approximately 7:30 a.m., Freedman said, and was wearing the same outfit she had last been seen in Saturday evening.

Complete Story

A Debate? Already?

2007-04-26T22:50:00.001-05:00

The first Democratic Primary debate was tonight. I know. Already. We as a nation are risking our soul by this amped up campaign cycle. My Dad says that by the time we get to the election half the country will think it was months ago and the other half will think there is still another six months. However, it makes me happy because it reflects an eagerness at all levels by people to get rid of President George W. Bush. Woohoo for that.

Executive Summary: No real winners or losers. The papers will mention length of some of the answers, Biden's joke, and Gravel will be called colorful.

Biden was funny, showed some passion, and managed to plug himself without sounding preachy. Overall he reminded me why I liked him (net plus).

Basing on his comments tonight, Richardson has apparently decided to plug his resume and run to the right. I'll leave off discussing that as a strategy. This might not play nationally, but remember this debate was also broadcast on all the televisions stations in South Carolina. This might help him (net plus).

Gravel was... astounding. He was a touch crazy but had a real "last angry man" vibe which always has a constituency. I predict hearing some calls to drop him from debates but I hope he stays with it. Possibly the most honest moment of the debate was taking Obama to task for the phrase "all options on the table." That being said, he kinda scared me (net negative).

Edwards was... kinda blah? Apparently he took Sens Clinton and Obama to task for a lack of details in their health care plans, but I missed it since I was lost in his eyes. In all honesty he presented himself very well. He managed to come off as outsidery, a feat for the party's last Vice-Presidential candidate (net plus).

Obama answers were long; very long and sometimes a little rambly. I think his overall "thoughtful" message is not the best fit for him, but that is another issue. I was not that impressed. However, he is at a level where his support won't be touched by one debate performance. Additionally, newspapers will talk about how he mentioned increasing black infant mortality rates (no net change).

Clinton was most prepared. A rule of thumb at debates is "Don't answer the question they asked, answer the question you wish they had asked." I would guess she has heard it. She smoothly transitioned into her stump a lot. Not my favorite technique, but it works. She was the most professional politician up there. I want to give her a net negative, but she will stay static or drop an imperceptible amount (no net change).

Dodd. Early int he debate Brian Williams called him the most Washington candidate. If you Tivoed the debate, rewind it to that moment. You can actually see his chances evaporating. He did OK in the debate, but not as good as he would need to do to break from the pack. Since Biden did well and he did mediocre, he loses support (net negative).

I love Kucinich. He is an honest guy who is trying to save the world. He did well tonight. He raised his issues and had rational explanations. He was the only candidate to truthfully answer the question about his worst mistake of the past four years. Also, I love the use of props in debates and he did it will to explain his impeachment. I think I am hoping for a net positive, but he will get a net negative (net negative).

People I hate

2007-04-24T21:51:00.000-05:00

And Rudy McI-wear-a-dress-on-SNL has been added to my list of Republicans I would work 20 hours a day to defeat were he nominated.

Silber Op-Ed

2007-04-24T11:57:00.000-05:00

Great Op-Ed on Virginia Tech from Former BU President John Silber.

For all one can say about Silber, and I could say plenty, I have never seen him take a position that he didn't have a though-out rational for.

4/19 Top Stories, Part 1

2007-04-19T12:12:00.000-05:00

Today's two top news stories are Sanjaya getting kicked off of American idol and NBC deciding to air the video and pictures sent to them by Cho Seung-Hui. That says something about America--good, bad, I don't know.

I plan to offer my thoughts on both of these issues but I don't have time right now, I will start with Sanjaya since that is the one least likely to make me start crying.

I preface these remarks by saying that I have never watched American Idol. I may have seen one or two, but I know I haven't seen any this season so I have never actually heard Mr. Malakar sing.

All I know is that apparently he is completely untalented but has managed to stay afloat in the competition by sheer personality. And his hair.

Some have been saying that it is horrible that more talented singers have been voted off while he has endured. I can't fathom that logic. I have always loved American Idol as a concept because it is the most complete vessel of American popular culture to come along...well ever. A TV show that is essentially a season long commercial for a CD. It is Horatio Alger by text message!

The very idea that it is purely a musical talent show is laughably naive. The music industry stopped rewarding raw talent a long time ago. If a second rate singer could have won because of his hairstyles, that would have been the epitome of the show as a face for American popular culture and the current state of the music industry. The show is called American Idol, it is not America's Next Top Crooner. The fact that it is getting to the point where personalities and media pundits (like Howard Stern and the blogging community) are playing a bigger role than the actual talent of the contestants is the logical conclusion of the idea, even if it is totally snakes on a plane. Some argue that Richard Hatch changed the concept of Survivor in the first season by "playing the game" and manipulating his fellow islanders. Mr. Malakar is the first reality TV contestant to "play the game" in real time. I am impressed, and firmly believe that his talent for generating popularity are every bit as valid as the singing skills of the other contestants. I will put $20 on the line that says whatever Sanjaya's next venture is--album, hair products, self-affirmation tapes--he will be more successful than the nobody that wins.

I will get to the decidedly more grim story later on. Or possibly this weekend.

Josh wishes he was smarter #2232

2007-04-17T22:26:00.000-05:00

Like Jarhead, Mystery Men was greeted by a culture-wide sigh of mild disappointment.

I don't know if this happens to anyone else, but sometimes I read something that perfectly crystallizes something I was feeling. This sentence does that about Jarhead, and it is just a fucking throwaway in a larger article about Mystery Men!!!

Local Politics: Najaf edition

2007-04-08T17:18:00.000-05:00

This article bears some explaining.

Tip O'Neil said, "All politics is local."

And if you think about it, Boston politician and Iraqi Mullah are not very far apart on the old sliding scale of political realities.

Al-Sadr has been getting flack for working with the United States. He has a lot of angry guys with guns who follow him because it gives them a chance to ensure a little bit of their own safety and it gives them a place to vent aggression. I read the other day (can't find the link) that a lot of the Shiite death squads you hear about are those followers essentially doing freelance work because they don't have anything else to do since Al-Sadr has been cooperating with the United States. If he doesn't give them something or someone to fight he will face more defections. Eventually, he will face a grisly end arranged by some young lieutenant who sees an opening. Even if Al-Sadr thinks that working with the United States is the best policy, it is not one that will keep him in power with his own people. Fighting the great Satan is a red meat line in Iraq and it will keep his followers pacified. It also means that more US troops are going to die.

The interesting thing will be how much he actual push this policy forward. Letting your troops off the leash and organizing them into a cohesive offensive are two different things.

If we could create jobs in Iraq, a lot of these militias would begin to dissipate. In Boston we have the Mass Pike toll booths for the supporters of hack pols. Over there...

every modern musician is a wuss

2007-04-03T17:28:00.000-05:00

Sure, 50 cent was shot like 9 time. But he didn't have the balls to do this.

Bunch of pussies

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of You

2007-03-25T16:38:00.000-05:00

While I was thinking about my “300” review, I was reminded of another meta-review I had meant to write, a review of “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.”

Reviews for this movie were overwhelmingly favorable. It got about a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes and many reviews were glowing. Also, I am not the first person who was inspired to wax philosophic on the American Character, many reviewers felt the need to chip in their own insights, with mixed results.

A sampling of reviews are here, here, and here. Ty Burr’s is the best by a long shot, mostly for a reason I will explain later.

A lot of reviewers focused on the negative aspects of the American character that the film so adroitly exposed. Bigotry, jingoism, sexism, and crass commercialism were all thrown into stark relief. I think that this was the intent of Cohen’s film. He has made a career out of deconstruction people’s social facades on camera and nothing is funnier than seeing people expose their inner bigot.

I think, however, that there are two sides to many of the people Borat encounters. Ty Burr hinted at it in his review, but didn’t pursue it.

I think my favorite scene is the one where a disconsolate Borat -- temporarily separated from Azamat and their bear (don't ask) -- hitches a ride with a group of University of South Carolina frat brothers in an RV. They could be the three faces of American male youth, drunk on beer, bravado, and stupidity. One inveighs against the "bitches" that let men down, a second goes even deeper into misogyny (you can count his future divorces using both hands), and the third -- the chubby one who the other two probably make fun of behind his back -- cheers this strange little foreigner with heartfelt words of emotional support. There it is: Everything that makes this country ugly and great in one Winnebago.

Everything that makes this country ugly and great in one Winnebago--I think that you could apply that test to a lot of scenes in the movie. In fact, many of the scenes that critics most often cite as examples of the wasteland of red state America show shockingly decent sides to the people there. Sure, there is a preacher screaming that America is a Christian nation and inveighing against evolution, but then a foreign man with no money and a smelly suit needs help and everyone in the building prays for him, gives him a ride to his destination, and presumably give him some food and money.

Same thing with the Winnebago, say what you will about those guys, but they pick up a stranger in need of help and then honestly try to consol him when he has his heart broken. And frankly, last time I tried to consol a friend after a breakup the word bitch might have gotten thrown around.

There are a few problems with my argument that I will admit off the bat. Many of the scenes are extremely problematic in an attempt to find a positive side, I am thinking specifically of the gun store clerk advising him what the best gun to hunt Jews with and the Rodeo guy talking about hanging gays. Another problem is that I tend to be an American apologist. I love America and believe the people in it are all essentially good. So this theory could be my attempt to reconcile my love of America with my love of this movie.

I couldn’t find where I read it, but one review described this movie as a chance for the coasts to laugh at Middle America. Claiming that ignores that solid chunk of the movie that takes place in New York and California and shows the people there being just as horrible as anyone else. What is more telling about America? Is it that in middle of the country there is an undercurrent of bigotry or is it that given the chance people on the coast are obsessed with that undercurrent to the point of ignoring all other aspects?

Cohen wanted to hold up a mirror to the American public. I think he succeeded more than he intended to. He created a movie that is a mirror to those that watch it. Each exchange in the movie is incredibly loaded with meaning and cultural context. Because of that, maybe it is like a Rorschach test and what you see in “Borat” is based on what you think of the American Character.

In a world where Josh hasn't seen 300...

2007-03-25T16:22:00.000-05:00

Anyway, I was working on a sort of meta review of “300.” I was inspired by a New York Times Op-Ed from last weekend by Neal Stephenson, which you can find here. What I found incredibly intriguing was his assertion that Xerxes might represent President Bush. Anyway, I got all excited, read all the reviews, set up my links, had my thesaurus out, and then realized that I should probably see the movie before I tried to write a review—meta or otherwise. So that post is on hold until I see “300.” When I do, you will find out what Josh thinks this iconic and mythological tale represents in our current international cultural context. Coming April 2006.

Yeah, that’s right. A blog post about movies is a TRAILER for a full-length blog post about movies. I will give you a second to pick up the pieces since I just BLEW YOUR MIND.

Check out the Stephenson piece and I encourage you to leave comments about the film.

I fought the law...

2007-03-18T22:06:00.000-05:00

God Bless America, Land that I love.....

Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.

Feinstein, D-Calif., said the timing of the e-mail suggested that Lam’s dismissal may have been connected to the corruption probe.

For those that don't go all the way into the article, the e-mail stating that they may have to get rid of Lam came one day after she notified the Justice Department.

See you again soon Marty

2007-03-15T10:38:00.000-05:00

Congressman Meehan stepped down last week to become Chancellor at UMass Lowell, leaving a vacuum in Massachusetts politics. I don't know the details exactly, but Governor Patrick has 125 days to declare a date for the special election. It think that this means that the election will take place in June or July.

First of all, a new election, WOOHOO!

The papers coverage of the announcement was decent. Adam Reilly, who is kicking ass in his new roll as media critic at the Phoenix, has a great summary of the coverage here.

However, for me the best pundit on this matter is Howie Carr. I can't find the article, but he wrote a piece a few weeks ago about the whole thing. Carr's basic argument was that Meehan now has $5 million in his campaign war chest that he doesn't have to spend and is free to coast, earning interest, until Kennedy decides to step down. At that point, he would still have the name recognition to be a serious contender for the seat. This will also be a chance for him to network with even more big donors. As I said, these are all things I read in Carr's column. Since I read the column, I have learned this is a pretty common narrative floating around.

That, I think, is one of the key roles of a columnist. You are an insider sent to the smoke filled rooms to teach us all more about what is going on.

Send Lawyers, Guns, and Aloe - blogging from Florida

2007-03-14T11:18:00.000-05:00

What does a Bostonian do when he is on vacation? Get a wicked sunburn the first day and spend the rest of the week doing his best Dracula impression of course. Honest to god, it was a race between my Irish side and my WASP side to see which could burn first. The Irish side won, but didn't cover the spread. Because of my sunburn, I am spending more time in the hotel.

Fearing the harsh glare of the all-seeing eye does, however, have its benefits. If I didn't, I would have missed seeing my first commercial of the 2008 cycle. For those who arn't aware, Governor Romney has gone on air early with an ad buy that may total $1 billion before it is done. More details on the whole thing here.

I am a major advocate of early advertising, and if the Romney team thinks that they can find the money for an ad buy of this size (maybe in the Governor's sofa cushions?) then more power to'em. It should be a good chance for Governor Romney to increase his name recognition. If you look at recent polls, you see that he is gaining ground, which is exactly the narrative they want to establish.

However, if I wasn't obsessed with politics (hereafter referred to as having "the sickness"), I would probably think along the lines of "who is this shmuck on TV?" So this will be an interesting test case for early advertising. Will Romney's negatives slowly start to rise? Do people get sick of a candidate, or do they just like the guy they saw on the teevee?

As for the ad itself, I give it a B+. Nothing special, but a good introduction ad. You can check it out here. It seems like Romney is taking a very similar approach that Deval Patrick did last year; his best product is himself, so put his face in front of as many people as possible. It worked for Patrick, but I would be worried that Romney might be a little too slick. He has more of a used-car salesmen vibe than Patrick did. If you see too much of him and his perfect haircut... and read some of the coverage of his *cough* evolving viewpoints... a picture starts to form. We'll see.

*Update*: I was talking to my Dad about this and apparently Governor Romney is also running ads in the Boston market because of its massive overlap with southern New Hampshire. So he is paying for TV ads that will most greatly influence the one place where he is already well known. GOD I love politics.

PSA

2007-02-19T11:07:00.000-05:00

An Urgent Public Service Announcement

For those readers who might be in the Boston area, for the love of all that is holy don't turn on sports talk radio today.

That is all.

Lights, Camera, Commentary

2006-11-26T11:54:00.000-05:00

I don't know how many people saw me on CNN this weekend. I was on Saturday at around 6 pm to comment on the College Republicans' Caucasian achievement (whites only) scholarship. The merits of the argument for or against the scholarship are a whole other post., Being a whore for process, I would rather post about that.

It started Friday when a perky CNN producer (also a BU alum) called my house to ask if I could be on the show. My mom, who is much smarter than me, told her I wasn't there and took a message.

As a side note, I used to not understand why people would lie like that to avoid calls. After my time on the Deval Patrick Campaign, I get it.

Now the question was should I go on the show or not. The College Democrats' strategy (of which I was a principle supporter/architect) was to ignore the whole thing. However, once it hits drudge and CNN is calling, I believe that you have lost the position of power and now YOU look weaker by ignoring them. Feel free to dispute me there. Also, I got to be on the teevee.

So after consulting with the powers that be, I decided to go on. Now, both Joe and I were going to be on the same segment. Rather than put us in the same studio, CNN drove us to two different studios in order to have us both via satellite.

At the studio, I sat around for an hour in the green room waiting for the lone technician to be ready for me. Right before I was supposed to go on, the Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty was signed.

Seriously guys? Thousands of years of conflict and you couldn't wait 15 more minutes? Luckily, there wasn't much news besides the headline and I only got bumped back 20 minutes.

Actually doing the interview is a disorienting experience. I sat in a small black room hooked up with a mic and an ear piece through which I received directions and heard the interview questions. It was sort of like a sensory deprivation tank. I started to get dizzy at one point. I elected to not see the feed of the interview, which I think was the right call, because I didn't obsess over how I looked nor did I have a delay in my responses. One great thing was that the ear piece was hooked into the whole audio system. It put my segment in perspective when I heard the Israeli government spokeswoman was doing her mic check.

For those of you who saw the interview, it became readily apparent that my job was to get the hell out of the way. The anchor was not amused by the scholarship and spent most of the time tearing into Joe. Joe, I assure you, is not a huge racist. My job became agree with the anchorwoman, who made most of the points I would have. Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to but out my killer Michael Richards joke. Next time.

Then, like a eager young couple on prom night, it was over minutes after it had started. I collected my stuff from the green room, stole some candy from the dish, and got back in the town car they had hired for me.

The nagging question on my mind was how much the whole segment cost. Renting studio time for Joe and me, hiring a car and driver, satellite time, none of these things are cheap. I would guess it cost at least four figures. I guess it was worth it for my devastating insights like, "yes, you could call it a publicity stunt." Though I am not sure how.

Also, I got a piece of fan mail.

One final note, highlight of the whole experience was my driver. His name is Ben and he is an Algerian immigrant who came to the US as a world Judo champion and liked it so much he went to school and got a job here. He is the man and a huge Deval Patrick fan. He was going back home over the Christmas lull so that he could intimidate his little sister's fiancé and make sure he is a good guy. I wish him luck.

Thankful

2006-11-23T20:50:00.000-05:00

Well, I am sitting here, full beyond belief. Reflecting on what I am thankful for, I feel like I should mention a few things.

-my family, which is in a rough patch, but will make it though and has given me so much.

-my friends (if you are reading this, chances are that is you), for whom I am grateful every time I see them. They challenge and inspire me to be a better person.

-my country, also going through a rough patch, but the Republic endures.

-the experience of working on the Deval Patrick Campaign. I can't imagine a more inspiring campaign and I was glad to be a part of it. I met amazing people, working for an amazing candidate, and saw Massachusetts voters check back in to civic life.

-the midterm elections. People rebuked a politics of fear and smear and voted to move this country forward at home and abroad. That was great.

Just remember what you are thankful for and never be afraid to tell someone that you are thankful for them.

Protest Songs

2006-11-23T14:50:00.000-05:00

I am watching the Detroit-Miami game and the halftime performer was John Fogarty. One of the songs her performed was Fortunate Son, a classic protest song. If he didn't perform the song as a statement, then Mr. Fogarty is too lame for words. However, if he did, then he performed a subversive antiwar song for the halftime show of a a Thanksgiving Day NFL game. Very cool.

The performance got me thinking though, do we have any current protest songs? I couldn't thing of any. What songs will play over the montages of angry youths and protests in the movies 30 years from now. Here are a few I found. None of them appear to be an anthem for our generation, though a few are great songs. Also, Burt Bacharach has a protest album? Cool!

Burt Bacharach - at this time (album)

Dixie Chicks - Taking the Long Way (album)

Green Day - American Idiot (album)

Pink - Dear Mr. President (song)

Pearl Jam - Pearl Jam (a few songs on the album)

Neil Young - Living with War

Also there are two "Rock against Bush" albums, but I don't count those. They seem more based on selling albums to an anti-administration crowd rather than making an anti-administration statement.

So did I miss anything?

UPDATE: hat tip to Jeff, who came up with half of the list. Good work. Too bad no one likes you.

What's the deal with John Murtha?

2006-11-21T15:22:00.000-05:00

I mean, it seems to me that this guy is a veteran of one thing, whining!

*rim shot*

Fox News is taping two 30-minute pilots for a news satire show with a conservative slant. Producer Joel Surnow (of 24 fame, no word on how many terrorists will be shot in the first episode yet) is putting the whole thing together because he feels that Colbert and Stewart are left-wing water-carriers who are gleefully looking to toady for the new Congress. Full article on the show is here.

The Daily Show and the Colbert Report arn't popular because they are liberal, they are popular because they are funny. I don't watch them to get my liberal talking points for the day, I watch them because they are funny. Their hosts don't set out to attack the right wing of America, they set out to be... wait for it... funny.

I really don't get why Hollywood doesn't understand comedians. Isn't Hollywood full of them? Couldn't they just go observe them in their natural habitat (eating Chinese food and doing blow)? From my own experience with comedy writers, they are not earnest liberals who come to work every day to excoriate the Christian right (you hear that Sorkin). Comedians are anarchists. They are artists and performers who come to the office and undertake one of the hardest things for anyone to do on demands: be funny. Writers will grab any lifeline to help them crank out another 30 seconds of material be the time they go on. The right just happens to be throwing ropes with both hands right now.

The President does a lot of funny stuff. Saying you are going to have a political comedy show that won't make fun of the President is like saying you are going to open up a restaurant that doesn't have forks.

I am definitely going to check out the show at least once. But I will lay out $100 that the jokes the Daily Show makes about Nancy Pelosi will be better than the ones this new show makes.

2008 straight-line projection

2006-11-19T18:10:00.000-05:00

So 2006 election is over. The first presidential PAC was opened the DAY AFTER the election. Way to go Gov. Vilsack! Here is the first of an ongoing series on the chances of various candidates for President. Many call these kinds of predictions stupid, and they are by and large right. However, gotta fill those column inches. Just the Democrats for now, the Republicans later.

Governor Tom Vilsack - Governor of Iowa. A Democrat who was Governor of a Republican state. Made big strides in health care and job creating in Iowa. His chances on a national scene... tough to say. A lot of primary voters see the previous election as a vindication of the Democratic message. They arn't looking for Republican lite. Also, he is currently polling very low in the Iowa caucuses. If he can't win his own state, why should anyone else vote for him?

Governor Mark Warner - Former Governor of Virginia. The insiders front-runner. The Hillary killer. The man who announced in October (September?) that he was not going to run. That takes balls. He said he was out because he wanted to be there for his children who are going to college. Very admirable, this is a time in his kids lives were they don't need their father never being there. However, eventually they will be gone and he will be bored. He may jump back in, but it is unlikely. Also, don't be shocked when his name pops up for a possible VP candidate.

Senator Russ Feingold - Senator from Wisconsin. One of the few relentlessly honest and principled Senators. So he never really had a chance. He was the only person to vote against the Patriot Act, he has been a long time opponent of the Iraq War, and he thought his own campaign finance reform bill wasn't tough enough so he holds his staff to a higher standard. He was the darling of the farthest left branch of the Democratic Party, but recently announced he can do more as a Senator in the majority (also note that he has a position in the Democratic Senate Leadership, even though he is not the most popular guy. A deal of some sort?). He is out, which is too bad. He would have added to the debate.

Senator Chris Dodd - Senator from Connecticut. AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHH. Enough said.

John Edwards - Former Senator from North Carolina and 2004 VP Candidate. Most of the blame for 2004 has fallen on Kerry; Edwards came out with a lot of people wishing they had voted for him. Tough to say, call but a lot of insidery people think he has a really good chance. I am not so sure. He is charismatic and the only candidate talking seriously about poverty, which is good. He has also been living in Iowa for the last few months and dominates polls there. If he can get momentum, if, then he could be very tough to beat.

Governor Bill Richardson - Governor of New Mexico. He has experience in all of the current hot button areas and has the most impressive resume of any of the candidates. He was, at various times, a Congressman, Ambassador to the UN, and the Secretary of Energy. He has several handicaps. Rumored personal scandals could kill his campaign (imagine Clinton 92 except it is all sorta true) and New Mexico doesn't have a lot of voters. However, if the new "Western Democrats" rally around him, watch out.

Senator John Kerry - Senator from Massachusetts and 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee. He will have to do something very impressive if he wants another shot. The Democratic Party doesn't like politicians who have lost before. However, he was counted out in 2004 and has a lot of very smart people on his side.

Senator Joe Biden - Senator from Delaware. Personal favorite of mine who probably doesn't have much of a chance. Slated to become head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Also one of the few people to come up with a serious plan for a political solution to Iraq. If there is major traction on that front in the next few years, watch his stock rise.

Vice President Al Gore - Former Vice President and 2000 Democratic Candidate for President. Doesn't suffer from the Democrats' distaste for losers because... well... he probably won. He is also a hero for his work on global warming. He also worked for Google, so probably has the ability to shut down the internet if he loses. He has said no before, but I heard recently on NPR that he is starting to give cagey answers when asked if he is running.

Senator Evan Bayh - Former Governor and Senator from Indiana. I almost forgot to put him on the list, which I think speaks to his chances. He is another one of the insiders' front-runners. Also campaigned for an epic number of candidates this cycle, man of whom won. A few years ago he set up a campaign school which has graduates all over the country. That impresses me immensely and his organization could propel him to victory.

I saved the elephants for last:
Senator Hillary Clinton - Senator from New York, Former First Lady. She can raise money like no one else. She currently has $10 million on hand, but I don't doubt could double that in a year. She is also leading in every poll under the sun. However, I don't think she is going to run. There is a palpable sense of dread from a lot of Democrats over the prospect of their candidate being Hillary. That being said, she is incredibly knowledgeable and we are overdue for our first female President.

Senator Barack Obama - Senator from Illinois. Recently changed his mind about running for President. Has almost no record as a Senator, which could be a plus. Is an inexperienced and largely untried campaigner, but is a rock star. Just his announcement has made him the hottest thing in this race and the Democratic base is salivating over the possibility of his candidacy. I heard the best reason for his candidacy on Meet The Press last weekend: "When you are hot you are hot." If he runs, look to him to be on the ticket one way or another.

That is it. Any others anyone knows about? They are in no particular order, but my money is on either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton.

Must See TV

2006-08-24T11:29:00.000-05:00

NBC's newest season of survivor will divide its cast along racial lines. There will be Black, White, Asian, and Hispanic teams. Money quote from Jeff Probst:

“For that, it’s much safer to say, ‘No, let’s just stick with things the way they are. Let’s don’t be the network to rock the boat. Let’s not have “Survivor” try something new,”’ he said. “But the biases from home can’t affect you. This is an equal opportunity game.”

Thank you, Jeff Probst and last-in-the ratings war NBC. You are true pioneers. In related news, the ghost of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. appeared on the national mall in Washington D.C. to declare his dream fulfilled, Israel and Iran met to declare peace in the Middle East, and Kanye West hugged President George W. Bush.

Curses, foiled again!

2006-08-11T14:13:00.000-05:00

I am sure you have all by now read about the terrorist plot that was thwarted yesterday. My thoughts on it are pretty well summed up by my Dad's post on the matter.

I will add one or two more things. It would seem to me that the message of the day is that the system works. A terrible plan to kill a large number of innocent people was foiled, thanks to our intellgience agencies. A day for serious handshakes and somber congratulations all around and to reflect on how to make sure this is how all terrorist attacks end. Enough information for clear culpability but no real danger of an attack being carried out. A serious address to the nation from the President saying that this is a scary world, but the government is trying very hard to protect us and we have won this round.

Man, wouldn't it have been awesome if that is how it went?

Instead we had mass hysteria, and the President bandying about the new White House buzz world, "Islamofacists." A word that is wrong for so many reasons I don't want to get started in this post.

I'll just close by saying that our intelligence agencies did a great job and thank you to the brave agents that risked their lives infiltrating the cell. I hope that someday soon this will not be a serious concern.