Michael Tomasky's Blog, page 45
October 27, 2010
Me on Jon Stewart's rally | Michael Tomasky
Don't miss my column for tomorrow's formerly arboreal edition, just posted on the post-arboreal CIF main page. It's about Jon Stewart's (and Stephen Colbert's) upcoming rally and march in Washington this weekend, and what I anticipate certain other "media" outlets are going to try to do with it through election day. It's a heartbreaking work of staggering genius, or something to think about, anyway.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Jon Stewart still calls out to sensible America. Fox won't | Michael Tomasky
His 'rally for sanity' this weekend is a laudable enterprise. But Fox News and friends will make it look like a liberal hatefest
When conservatives turn to fury, liberals take solace in irony. And so it has come to pass that, in this political season of rightwing rage and thunder, the big, no-holds-barred liberal rally on this upcoming final weekend of the campaign season will be hosted not by Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or any other leading Democrat party politician, but the television host Jon Stewart.
The "Rally to Restore Sanity" will be held on Saturday on the National Mall in Washington – the hallowed greensward covering the 15 blocks from the Capitol building to the Washington Monument. Expectations are for vast crowds, the better to prove that the fabled "enthusiasm gap" of this election between liberals and conservatives has closed. Into the bargain, Stewart's Comedy Central doppelganger, Stephen Colbert, staying firmly in his character of plastic rightwing talkshow host, will sponsor a "March to Keep Fear Alive" the same day, also in Washington, appealing to the same world-weary demographic.
I appreciate Stewart and Colbert. The Democrats, by and large a stable of geldings, have no purchase on how to inform America about how extreme and loony the other party has become. When some fresh piece of madness is exploding across our landscape – Christine O'Donnell and witchcraft, the brain-crushing demagoguery in August about the proposed mosque in Manhattan – it needs someone like Stewart or Colbert to step in and introduce perspective, and to expose what's happening for the nuttiness it is, while Democrats simper in the corner in fear of Fox News. And in the absence – no, make that the utter absence of any coherent Democratic theme for this election, Stewart in particular has taken it on himself to try to provide one. And good for him.
But potential danger lurks here, because Stewart is trying to pitch his event to an audience that I don't think is really his. From the time he announced the rally in mid-September, Stewart has pegged it as being aimed at the sensible, busy Americans who simply want a non-ideological sanity to prevail in Washington. He spoke of the "seventy to eighty percenters" – the people in the great middle – who eschew both extremes. The night of the announcement he mocked both the rightwing Tea Party movement and the liberal antiwar group CodePink, whose members interrupt congressional hearings with various boisterous antics while dressed like drag-queen versions of Jackie Onassis. Playing off a phrase known instantly in America and dating back to Louis Farrakhan's 1995 Million Man March, Stewart wants a "Million Moderate March". To get his viewers into the intended spirit he offered some samples of the sort of placards he'd like to see at his rally. In this age, when Tea Partiers march carrying placards of Obama wearing a keffiyeh or sporting a Hitler moustache, people know they should pay particular attention to placards; Stewart suggested that an emblematic one for his event would read: "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler."
The conflict arises in the fact that this sober and earnest middle is not really Stewart's audience. Stewart's core audience is news-junkie liberals. As is Colbert's. It's people like National Public Radio host Terry Gross, who, in a recent live dialogue at Manhattan's venerable 92nd Street Y, thanked Stewart for being the last thing she sees at night, which permits her to "go to bed with a sense that there is sanity someplace in the world". It's young urbanites and students. It's the out-of-place blue fish swimming the waters of the vast, red, middle-American sea. The moderate married couple with a child or two who are too busy for politics – his ideal marcher – are for the most part probably also too busy for Stewart.
This points up one problem with the Stewart approach that liberals don't talk about much, which is his occasional and to me very awkward attempt to make Republicans laugh too. I used to watch the show more devotedly in the Bush years, and I thought I began to notice that Monday nights (the Daily Show runs Monday to Thursday) were make-fun-of-Democrats nights. His audience tried gamely to laugh at routines about John Kerry, but they wanted Dick Cheney jokes. Stewart evidently felt (and still feels) the need to have something vaguely resembling balance. Well, it's a noble impulse. But it always felt to me like he was straining for a neutrality that wasn't there in his heart. He seems to be pitching the rally toward that same notion of neutrality. But I doubt that's what will show up on Saturday, and that's what worries me.
Now, digress with me for a moment to the memorial service for Paul Wellstone, the crusading, proud-to-be-liberal Minnesota senator killed tragically in an plane crash while en route to a friend's funeral, a week or so before the 2002 election. The service, held in a large arena just days before the voting, was 90% positive and sincere. But one speaker inappropriately chided Republican senators who were present, and some stupid attendees booed when images of those senators appeared on the screen.
The rightwing media seized on those incidents and over the next few days turned what was mostly a fine event into a Nurembergesque hatefest. Al Franken, then a commentator and now a senator who holds Wellstone's seat, thoroughly debunked the lies told about that rally – but after the fact: at election time the conservative commentariat made sure their version of events dominated the media coverage of the last few days of the campaign.
So let's go back to this question of signs. I can guarantee you that many of the clever liberals planning on attending the rally are dreaming up very clever signs. You can
DemocratsUS politicsUS midterm elections 2010Jon StewartRepublicansTea Party movementFox NewsTV newsUS television industryUnited StatesMichael Tomaskyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
More nonpolitical fun | Michael Tomasky
Commenter Jabsco, in
United StatesMichael Tomaskyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
A break from politics: back to the oldies charts | Michael Tomasky
I thought we needed a little break from politics. My head hurts. So let's do something fun.
The date was March 11, 1972. You remember it. All in the Family was the number one television show. Apollo 12 was headed to the moon. The maxiskirt was in. And Sears was selling its very few microwaves. Actually, I just made all those things up, but they seem plausible. I'm sure you'll correct me, as you always do.
Ah, but what ruled the charts? Here, we have hard facts, culled from the Joel Whitburn book I keep handy for just such occasions. This was my wheelhouse. I was 11. I knew all 10 of these artists without looking. Ready? Go.
1. Without You
Hint: Written by Paul McCartney's proteges, and recorded by John Lennon's later drinking buddy
2. Heart of Gold
Hint: You really should not need one here, so I won't give one
3. The Lion Sleeps Tonight
Hint: Originally by the Tokens in the early 60s; here, an individual artist with two first names
4. Down by the Lazy River
Hint: Andy Williams' most famous discovery
5. Everything I Own
Hint: Schlocky group, but at the same time rather talented in their way; one-word name.
6. Precious and Few
Hint: Another one-word name, with innocent sexual overtones
7. A Horse with No Name
Hint: A trio of Neil Young manques with yet another one-word name
8. Hurting Each Other
Hint: very famous duo; not one of their better songs
9. The Way of Love
Hint: Maximo obscuro tune, but extremely famous female artist who by this time was part soloist, part part-time duo-ist, if you follow me
10. Bang a Gong (Get It On)
Hint: Think Jurassic
Answers below the fold.
Answers:
1. Nilsson. From Nilsson Schmilsson, a great record still
2. Neil Young, duh
3. Robert John; ya hadda be there
4. The Osmonds; they were chart monsters during this mercifully brief period
5. Bread; if you're a musician, try and figure out the chords to If. It totally holds up.
6. Climax; the slow-dance number of choice at my junior high
7. America; a very strong record from which they fairly quickly slid downhill, even, alas, under George Martin's tutelage
8. The Carpenters; did I mention that I saw them live around this time?
9. Cher. So there.
10. T. Rex, obviously.
How did you do? Swarty, you out there? Where've you been? Share your memories, please, especially the embarrassing ones. I just admitted I saw the Carpenters, after all.
United StatesMichael Tomaskyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
More false voter fraud allegations | Michael Tomasky
I wrote yesterday about the oleaginous Norm Coleman and GOP warnings about voter fraud in Minnesota. And lo and behold, today we have a story at TPM that brings us news of the resolution of a case involving allegations made by the GOP of large-scale voter fraud in the self-same Minnesota in 2008.
Bottom line: initially, the GOP sent to the prosecuting attorney of Hennepin County (Minneapolis) allegations about 1,250 voters. In the end, the prosecutor's office, after investigating each, found that evidence supported filing charges in - ready? - 47 of those cases. TPM:
They claimed in November 2009 to have 800 additional individuals who were illegal felon voters," [prosecutor] Freeman said. "When they summited names to us in late February 2010, it was down to 451. We have processed that 451, and more than half of them were either not felons or not on probation when they voted. The rest of them we investigated more fully, and today we reported that the remaining cases presented sufficient support to charge, so we charged them."
Freeman said he made a commitment to get the cases taken care of before the 2010 elections. He noted that .00006 percent -- six-one-thousandth of one percent -- of the voters in Hennepin County had been charged with improperly voting.
"I think we've had a reaction from the right and the far right that there was significant voter fraud, and the fact is the facts show that there's not," Freeman said. "The right thing to do is to review and investigate claims of illegalities, that's my job and we do that. But Minnesota has a proud history of clean elections.
Voter fraud is itself a fraud. How many times does Acorn need to be cleared by prosecutors before people will believe this? Well, some people never will. And there are certainly instances of fraud; of felons voting, say, that should be prosecuted, as it's the law. But they're few and far between, and this story is alas fairly typical.
Meanwhile, on the other side of this coin, mysterious fliers appear in black communities round about now "informing" voters that if they have an outstanding traffic ticket, or haven't paid this month's gas bill, they can't vote. I have trouble sometimes imagining who this works on, but then again, humans exist in nearly infinite variety.
We cannot of course measure the number of people who don't vote because of such intimidation, but the amount of money and time Republicans put into these schemes tells us that they think it's worth the effort. I guess if I were a Republican, I wouldn't want black people to vote in large numbers either. But lying to people about democracy's most sacred rite is another matter.
End note: I erred yesterday when I wrote that George Soros devoted a half million dollars a year to nonpolitical philanthropic causes. That of course should be a half billion with a b. And remember, he apparently gave only $10,000 to the secretary of state project. I'd imagine his maid finds $10,000 in his pants pockets over the course of a year.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Video | Tomasky Talk: US mid-terms 2010: The crucial senate races
Michael Tomasky begins his run of predictions for the 2 November midterms by picking four states that could sway the senate race
Michael TomaskySecond Obama schedule question | Michael Tomasky
The other day I wondered why in blazes Obama was spending precious time going to Rhode Island, a state where nothing was at stake politically, at a time when there are surely at least 10 or 15 Democrats who are locked in tight races in states and districts where Obama is still reasonably popular and where an appearance from him could help.
There was no good answer to my question, really; he was raising money, but surely he could have done that in August or September. And now today we learn that he's going to Charlottesville, Virginia to campaign for House member Tom Perriello.
Every liberal loves Perriello. He stuck his neck out by voting for healthcare and other measures while representing a tough district. I'd love to see him beat conservative Robert Hurt. But the odds are stacked against him. Right now, Nate Silver has the district, VA-5, as a 90.6% chance of a Republican win.
Those "chance of win" numbers on Silver's blog are a little deceptive. For example, when he says one side has a 75% chance of winning, that sounds like a done deal on its face, but by Silver's modeling, 75 is actually still a semi-close race that the 25-er could pull out.
But 90 is a different story. In two recent polls, Hurt has led by 11 and 6 points respectively. But a newer one shows a statistical tie. That poll, however, is by the president's pollster, Joel Benenson. So either Benenson knows something the other pollsters don't, or the president is putting political capital on the line for a lost cause.
We were down in that district the other weekend, not in Charlottesville itself but in the rural parts, and we were surprised at the number of Perriello signs we saw in what you'd think would be GOP territory. So maybe something is going on down there that's a little unexpected. And if Perriello should pull this out next Tuesday, it'll be a silver lining for the White House, that Obama still has enough juice to help a Dem in an R-leaning district in a state he won in 2008 and would be relying on again in 2012.
But it's fair to say that Perriello is a semi-long shot. A longer shot right now, it would appear, than: Patrick Murphy in Bucks County, Pa.; Bryan Lentz just south of Philly; as well as other Democrats in parts of California, Florida, Oregon and Illinois to name a few.
Rhode Island, no competitive races for House or Senate. Virginia, a race that's a real uphill climb. I do not get this scheduling at all. But I haven't gotten the whole strategy, a term, alas, that I am compelled to use loosely.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
October 26, 2010
What is controversial about George Soros? | Michael Tomasky
Norm Coleman, once famous for his suits, once a mediocre member of the US Senate, takes what he can get these days, so he sent out the following:
Yesterday, the Republican National Lawyers Association told Newsmax about the "epidemic" voter fraud they expected to occur in the upcoming midterm elections. Last night, they hit up Newsmax readers for donations to combat that alleged surge of voter fraud.
Former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman (R), who lost a close election to Sen. Al Franken (D), wrote to Newsmax readers that George Soros, a multibillionaire investor who frequently donates to liberal causes, "has determined to focus his efforts to elect individuals who have the power to overrule the will of voters."
"Who wins elections should be determined by who got the most legal votes, period! Unfortunately, the far left is trying to politicize even the counting of votes through George Soros' Secretary of State project, which seeks to have elections run by hyper-partisan liberal election officials," Coleman writes. "Donate here to the RNLA to help ensure that all legal votes in 2010 are counted."
Coleman has been a bottom-feeder for a long time, going back to his absurd attacks on Kofi Annan, is really scraping it now. The nefarious secretaries of state project is a secret socialistic scheme to have all Republican secretaries of state across the United States - secretaries of state, in the 50 states, have nothing to do with foreign policy, like the real secretary of state, but are typically the officials who oversee the administration of elections - die mysterious deaths two weeks before elections, resulting in either their replacement by a Democratic stooge or at the very least general havoc.
Oh, wait. That's in wingnuttia. On Earth, it's a project of the Democracy Alliance, a group of liberal donors, to try and elect Democratic secretaries of state. It arose as an idea in the wake of the 2004 Ohio election, when Ohio s.o.s. Ken Blackwell (staunch conservative and open Bush supporter) didn't permit the counting of certain legal provisional ballots. This was on top of Democrats watching Katherine Harris, s.o.s. of Florida in 2000, pull her stunts.
It isn't even a Soros creation or outfit. The most I can find is that he gave $10,000 to it in 2008. Here's the group's official web site.
So it's not Soros' project. And in real life, the "hyper-partisan" officials were Harris and Blackwell: campaign co-chairs for a presidential candidate at the same time that they were supposed to be neutrally overseeing the locations of polling places, adjudicating the counting of votes, serving as arbiter for intense partisan disputes, and so on. Can we come up with a new word that means beyond Orwellian? Because Orwellian just won't do anymore.
The only thing that's controversial about George Soros is...that the right says he's controversial. He's an American citizen (since 1961) who has made billions of dollars, the kind of person the right usually adores, and who puts a lot of money behind his political beliefs, as is his complete right. By the bye his philanthropy has done more to advance democracy in Eastern Europe than probably any government has. He spends a half million dollars on year on nonpolitical philanthropic efforts.
It's funny how when Karl Rove's Citizens-United-era donors are doing it, it's free speech. But when Soros does it...well, we've all seen this movie, alas. And Norm Coleman is just sleazy. This money is being raised in essence to try to keep black people from voting.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Remember Nikki Haley? She could lose | Michael Tomasky
When she won the GOP primary for governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley seemed a sure thing to win the governor's mansion. After all, it's South Carolina, right?
But she has stumbled badly and could possibly lose, reports Ed Kilgore at tnr.com. Interestingly, her Democratic opponent is (gasp!)...well, first of all, a Democrat, which is gaspy enough in South Carolina. But secondly, an Arab (Vincent Sheheen, of Lebanese extraction). Haley herself is Sikh, as you'll recall.
Anyway: it's about the sex. She has evidently refused lately to sign an affadavit swearing that she did not have sex with two men who say they had sex with her. She also says that if elected, she'll resign if it's ever proven that she had sex with either of these fellows. And the Charleston City Paper, in a lengthy article dissecting all this, notes that tea party Senator Jim DeMint has thus far stayed a millions miles away from Haley.
There's a web site, if you're interested, called Conservatives for Truth in Politics that's tracking all this. Boy, I thought when I read the name, that must be a lonely bunch. But it turns out that the only truth they're really concerned with is about Haley's amorous athletics.
Sheheen, I see, got the endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce, so it seems unlikely that he's some kid of liberal flamethrower. His victory would be more of an oddity than anything, but I guess it's always good to see Sarah P. lose one.
I'm still mad at her, by the way, for not knowing that West Virginia is a state. I mean I don't know why I'm surprised. Actually I wasn't surprised. We Mountaineers get this sort of thing all the time. "Oh, I have a cousin in Roanoke" goes the standard joke among West Virginians when discussing the experience of telling people where we're from.
Except that I'm now from Maryland. I voted yesterday, by the way. We had early voting, at the beautiful (I mean that) new downtown civic building in Silver Spring. It was a great relief to cast my ballot for Martin O'Malley, sure in the knowledge that he is going to beat Bob Erlich for governor by maybe double digits, and Barbara Mikulski, equally sure in the knowledge that she's going to drum some Republican by 20 points. None of this insanity let loose upon the land is happening in my state (even though one Democratic House incumbent seems likely to lose). Not bad for a state whose official song still speaks of spurning the northern scum.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Sharron Angle's latest ad | Michael Tomasky
Rachel Maddow has declared Sharron Angle's latest the most racist ad of the season, which in this season is saying something. It's been yanked from youtube but evidently shows three white high-school graduates, all asmiles, presumably heading off to higher education.
And then:
That image is followed by a photo of three scowling Hispanic men, whom the ad suggests are trying to seize preferred college tuition rates from the students. A banner proclaiming the men "illegal aliens" accompanies the photo.
You will recall that a couple of instances of undocumented immigrants getting in-state tuition rates rather than out-of-state rates became yet another immigration controversy this year.
Who knows what to be outraged about, or dismayed by, at this point? Everything I read every day: Ken Buck thinks separation of church and state is foolish, various state GOP operations are laying the groundwork for being able to scream that Acorn stole the election from them...It's kind of overwhelming. Also, in Angle's case, I have to admit that a silver lining of her beating Harry Reid is that the Senate Democrats will get a much, much better leader in Chuck Schumer.
But there's no denying that this is - well, I hope it is - a once-in-a-lifetime kind of election. It's taken a concatenation of circumstances that they don't even have an adjective for to make Pat Toomey seem like a completely normal and mainstream guy.
As I've said before, how some of these people are going to behave in Congress will really be something to see.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Michael Tomasky's Blog
- Michael Tomasky's profile
- 11 followers
