Half listening to the Sunday talk show clap trap, I thought I misheard Hillary Clinton when she said she had not yet met Sarah Palin, but wouldn't mind chatting with her over a cup of coffee. I couldn't believe these two pivotal political women weren’t personally acquainted, but then again, Sarah dissed Hil pretty hard for playing the gender card, or as Sarah called it: "whining." I guess it's not whining if you write it instead of say it.
I can't say that Hillary's coffee offer came off as completely disingenuous, but it did smack a bit of diplomacy. With Sarah Palin's literary tour de force, "Going Rogue," settling scores and naming names, maybe Hillary was just trying to keep her name out of the sequel, "Going Rogue: Part Deux."
Sunday also marked a full week since I'd given up coffee, and the mere mention of it made me wistful. I wondered where this coffee klatsch would take place: Alaska, New York, Washington D.C.? What kind of coffee would they have: Dunkin Donuts, Starbucks, Tim Horton's, or the oddly appropriate home brewed cup of Chock Full O’Nuts? How does each woman take her coffee? Straight black, decaf, caf, latte, cappuccino, espresso? Light and sweet, milk, cream, Half & Half? Real sugar, Equal or Splenda? As you can see, it's been a rough seven days.
I am also curious if anyone has bothered looking up the definition of the word rogue. According to Dictionary.com, it's a noun meaning "a dishonest, knavish person. A scoundrel." As a verb it means "to cheat." Its synonyms: "bad egg, charlatan, con artist." But no worries, we aren't big on looking up words. It's so much easier to figure them out from the way they sound. And rogue just sounds like uber-maverick doesn't it?
This reminds of me of when President Obama was asked his opinion about the African-American Harvard Professor who was arrested for breaking into his own home. He said, the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly" and The Beer Summit was born. There probably would have been no controversy if the President had chosen a different adjective: ludicrously, preposterously, obtusely. I imagine if he'd said the police acted "sophomorically," most people would have assumed the cop in question hadn't finished high school.
It's interesting that when men make plans to colloquy, it's over alcohol, hence the infamous Beer Summit. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, said coffee. So this meeting, should it ever happen, will be a cordial but very sober sit down. And please, Ladies, no whining.
There aren't many things we can be certain of these days, but here are a few.
There is a poll out there that will support every conceivable opinion on any issue. Just pick the one you like, and pretend that it actually holds any significance whatsoever. For example, I love the poll that says 100% of the people writing this column agree with everything in it. And why are polls treated as a news story, when in all probability, they aren't even accurate? And even if by some fluke, the poll is on the money, why should anyone care? If people and politicians base their opinions on polls that are wrong most of the time, that could lead to having positions that are wrong for the country. That's not my opinion, I got it from some poll.
Republicans Will Be Against Everything Democrats Want.
I'm not a betting man, but I wish there was money to be made in guessing how Republicans will vote in Congress. In fact, you just have to bet that they'll say "No" to everything Democrats propose and leave it at that. They're even against things they're for, if a Democrat wants it too. If the Democrats proposed a bill called "The Republicans Are Great Act of 2009", Republicans would still oppose it. I heard that to make it easier on themselves, Republicans had the "Yes" button removed from their voting consoles.
Foreign News Is Foreign to American TV News
When the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall was celebrated this week, you would think that would be a huge story here. World News with Charles Gibson ran the story last on its newscast the day of the anniversary. I guess the fall of Communism pales in comparison to a story about a dog who plays baseball. If it was a dog playing soccer they wouldn't cover it. Soccer is too foreign. Coverage like that is why Americans are so ignorant about other countries. The first time we've ever heard of some countries is when the U.S. goes to war with them. Maybe if the media and all of us followed world news a little more, the U.S. would do a better job of foreign policy. Instead of just being the most informed country about dogs playing baseball.
Not all dogs of course. Just 18%. Or 35%. Or none. Depending on which poll you read.
The day after the election, my Dad was mad. He said, "You know who lost the election for Mayor? Obama!" he said not waiting for an answer. I was worried that senility had come for my Dad in the night. Barack Obama wasn't running for Mayor of New York City. That pseudo contest was between incumbent Michael Bloomberg and challenger Bill Thompson.
It turns out, my Dad was convinced that if the President had spent as much time stumping for Thompson as he did for "everybody else" Thompson would've won. It's easy to believe that especially given how close the race was. Apparently $100 million doesn't buy as much of a margin as you'd think. But Obama campaigned for the governors of New Jersey and Virginia, and they both lost. Extrapolating that out, it’s conceivable that if Obama had endorsed Thompson more vigorously, he could have lost by an even wider margin.
Republicans are cooing that this is a big win for them. And quite frankly they needed it. The Grand Old Party just hasn't been itself since the last presidential election. They are going through an identity crisis of pubescent proportions. Like a desperate 30 something -- the cockiness of their 20s a distant memory -- signing up on E-Harmony, they've been looking for something real to hold onto. But is this the big chink in The Obama Mystique they've been so desperately looking for? It could be.
It's a gross miscalculation to think that everyone in the Democratic party can wrap themselves in the cloak of change and ride the wave to elected office. The losses in Virginia and New Jersey prove that charisma isn't always a tradeable asset. It's like that really cute guy who ambles over, chats you up, and then asks you to go out with his not so cute friend whom you didn't notice over at the bar drooling in your general direction. It's the Trojan Horse, Cyrano de Bergerac, bait and switch. And the voters responded in TLC fashion, "No, I don't want no scrubs!" (The grammar checker on my computer insists that this sentence should read, “any” scrubs, but I’ll risk the grammatical error to preserve the intent of the artist.)
I love Barack, but don't misconstrue that for total agreement. I'm still way burnt that the First Dog isn't a mutt and I'm getting tired of hitting the snooze button on health care. That said, I dig Obama, not the Democratic party. There's a reason why I'm still a registered Independent. It helps me keep a healthy level of skepticism of both parties, and not drink too deeply of the ever-changing flavors of called they're pedaling to whomever might be listening at the moment.
In the New York City Mayoral election I was neither delighted by nor interested in either of the candidates. Bloomberg's third term power grab with the help of the City Council was nothing short of disgusting. His money scared off all possible challengers except Thompson. I wondered more than once if Thompson was brave or just plain crazy. Perhaps it was all one big show for the Public’s benefit. The election results already predetermine, the slim margin of victory thrown in for dramatic effect. But that's a little too conspiracy-theory even for me.
The pervasive feeling among the people I talked to about Thompson was, "Is he the best the Democratic Party has to offer? Really? Seriously?" I'm sure he's a nice, hard-working man. Even Mayor Bloomberg had occasion to comment that he was excellent in his job as Comptroller, but you can't fake chemistry.
Maybe Barack didn't campaign harder for Thompson because, deep down he knew it wouldn't do any good. With 2010 looming, big political promises still to keep, and the Republicans feeling good after their election day make over, maybe President Obama needs to keep a little charisma in reserve for himself.
I don't understand why people are calling Tuesday an "off year election". Is 2009 not really a year? Is this Election Day not really an election? For a country that spends a lot of time promoting democracy around the world, our primary(and general election) concern should be about the voting process here in the U.S.
I did a show the other night for about 50 people and I told them there were more people in the audience than had voted in New York City's runoff election. Actually a whopping 8% of eligible voters bothered to exercise their democratic right last month. I was one of the select fee who voted. The bored election officials applauded when I entered the empty polling place.
I love voting. Sometimes I even wave when I leave the voting booth, just to confuse people. "Is that guy running for something?", they probably ask themselves.
In a recent primary in Virginia, the turnout was 3%. 3% is the margin of error in a poll. So it's actually possible no one voted.
I remember a few years ago when there were elections in Haiti, people voted as they were getting shot at. In New York, people don't vote when it's partly cloudy. They complain, "I have to put my coat on, walk two blocks. Do they deliver?"
The media doesn't help when they broadcast polls that tell us who would win if the election were held today. If the election were held today, nobody would vote, because it's not Election Day.
New York City Mayor Bloomberg is so rich he turned down living in the opulent Gracie Mansion. He probably thought, "I'd much rather live in my larger, more expensive home."
Bloomberg has spent more than $85 million in his reelection campaign so far and will probably top $100 million. That's more than the GNP of some developing countries. We would have been better off if Bloomberg just handed the money to us directly. His opponent Bill Thompson has only $6.6 million to spend. When $6.6 million is "only", there's a problem somewhere.
But that's no excuse not to vote. Not only do you have no right to complain if you don't bother to vote, but I propose that elected officials only listen to constituents who voted(for them or anyone else).
So on Tuesday go out there and vote. If past turnout is any indication, there won't be long lines. But it would be better for our country if there were.
There is growing chatter on Capitol Hill about the bombastic style of Democratic freshman, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL). He’s generated a lot of heat in recent weeks, Attention sparked when he took to the House floor September 29th and proclaimed, “If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly." More recently, Grayson expressed his feelings about former Vice President Dick Cheney on MSNBC’s Hardball:
"By the way, I have trouble listening to what [Cheney] says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he's talking, but my response is this: he's just angry because the president doesn't shoot old men in the face. But by the way, when he was done speaking, did he just then turn into a bat and fly away?"
As his comments grew more combative, Grayson continued to gain praise from the highest levels, including President Obama. At an event on Monday night, Obama recognized Grayson and asked the crowd to give him a round of applause. Then, a true bombshell landed. In a September 24th conversation on the Alex Jones radio show, Grayson referred to Linda Robertson as a “K Street whore.” Robertson is an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. K Street is commonly known in Washington, D.C., as the primary thoroughfare inhabited by prominent lobbyists. A number of top Democrats, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, publicly chastised Grayson, calling the remark “inappropriate and unfair.”
Grayson spokesman, Todd Jurkowski, initially tried to explain the “whore” remark by pointing to a secondary definition in the American Heritage Dictionary: 'A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.’ However, Grayson decided to go a step further and issued a formal apology:
"I offer my sincere apology to Linda Robertson, an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. I did not intend to use a term that is often, and correctly, seen as disrespectful of women. This characterization of Ms. Robertson, made during a radio interview last month in the context of the debate over whether the Federal Reserve should be independently audited, was inappropriate, and I apologize."
Though Grayson admits his Robertson remark crossed the line, his feisty personality seems to be doing a good job of fending off any Republican challengers as he faces a re-election run in Florida. A number of big-name contenders have declined to take him on, for various reasons. Political analyst Stu Rothenberg understands the caution, “Well he's certainly very forthright in saying that he plans to eviscerate his … so it wouldn't be surprising that some people who might otherwise look at this race say, 'Well not right now, not against him.'"
A major priority of President Obama has been to engage in diplomacy with adversaries like Iran and North Korea, and to pursue a vigorous diplomatic strategy between the Israelis and Palestinians. The militaristic tone of the Bush administration has been replaced (and Nobel Peace Prize rewarded)by one of engagement.
Which makes it all the more puzzling why the White House seems unwilling to talk to Fox News, and has accused it of not being a real news organization. The first salvo was fired by the White House Director of Communications, who apparently isn't very good at living up to her title. The Obama administration has reached out repeatedly to Republicans and conservative Democrats to achieve a consensus on healthcare reform and other issues. So why not talk to Fox News?
As a regular guest on The Strategy Room at foxnews.com, I have had the pleasure and privilege of engaging in spirited but respectful discourse with pundits from the left, right and center. Each show is hosted by a skilled reporter from Fox News, who I may sometimes vehemently disagree with, but always respect their journalistic integrity. To insinuate that these hard working journalists are not part of a real news organization is offensive and completely offbase. As a liberal political comedian, I can find comedic fodder with some of the opinion/entertainment hosts at the channel, but they are clearly not part of the news gathering and reporting operation at Fox News.
Even if one accepts The White House assertion that Fox News coverage is unfair to the President, what better way to counter that than to have Obama and other White House officials appear on Fox News to get their message across in their own words? If the Obama administration can talk to Iran and North Korea, they can surely sit down with Chris Wallace or Bill O'Reilly, as Obama did during the campaign.
And when President Obama appeared on Fox News during the campaign, he probably gained some votes from the many independents who view the channel. Which flies in the face of the comments by Robert Gibbs and others that there is no point in trying to reach out to Fox viewers. As a comedian, I know the importance of knowing your audience. You would think that the politically savvy White House would take the time to know the Fox News audience, and not completely write them off.
President Obama and his entire White House team should stop beating on Fox News, and start being on Fox News.
Barack Obama was president a mere 12 days before the Nobel Peace Prize nominations closed and he still won. I know, I know. “He showed early promise.” Talk about handing in an A paper at the beginning of the semester. Less than two weeks in office and he earns himself a Peace Prize. This guy is good. Of course, you got to remember, the potential recipient list for a Peace Prize is not what you call your deep field. Never has been. Hence: Kissinger, de Klerk and Arafat.
What worries me is, what kind of message are we sending kids? Bomb the Moon. Win a Peace Prize. You know what’s next. People are going to want to bomb Mars. Just to see what happens. Trigger an announcement from the Vatican? Causing a nuke to be tossed at Uranus. Detonative planetary creep.
You could say, this is a “most likely to succeed” sort of deal. Not so much a pro- Obama message as much as it is “thanks for rescuing the planet by changing administrations” message. An award that could have pretty much gone to any American not named George W. Bush. Then again, the tactical use of beer to arrange a diplomatic summit may have been a crowning achievement in the minds of the five Norwegians.
Or perhaps the intellectual community is so excited to be out of the doghouse and rejoining the conversation that they are banding together to encourage Obama. Expect the MacArthur Genius Grant people to come calling. Then he’ll win a Lefoulon-Delalande Foundation Grand Prize from France for reducing global stress and increasing cardiovascular efficacy. And finally, next spring, Neil Patrick Harris presents him with a Special Tony Award for the sensational fashion in which he tap- danced his way into our hearts.
As expected, the lunatic fringe finds all this further fodder to continue its harangue. Which I don’t understand. How can you criticize a Peace Prize? I don’t care if the Keebler Elves are excreting them like tear shaped lemon bars from a hollowed out tree stump. It’s a Peace Prize. Its not like he’s getting a bronzed bazooka from Warmongers Weekly.
“You know Hitler was nominated.” Yeah, once. By one guy. And Pat Paulsen was almost President. The same crowd who cheered losing in Copenhagen is now grumbling about winning in Oslo. Totally unfamiliar with the grand Scandinavian tradition of make- up calls. The toughest part has to be keeping a straight face when expressing concern over the Nobel Committee’s credibility.
Certain talk show hosts have worked themselves into such a tizzy I wouldn’t be surprised to see one of them pull a Kanye West, and crash the stage during the award presentation, yelling Dick Cheney was more deserving. Should the Prez actually attend the ceremonies, that is. On the off chance he doesn’t find himself too busy to personally accept the Peace Prize due to the time consuming nature of commandeering two wars.
Now might be a good time to abandon the high road and shove it in people’s faces by wearing the medal around his neck everywhere he goes. Like Flavor Flav. “What? This old thing?” And when he does donate to charity the 1.4 million dollars that accompanies the prize, I’m thinking ACORN. Stop your belly- aching. So Obama got an award. Bush got a shoe.
Will Durst is a San Francisco based political comic who writes sometimes. This is one of them.
Catch his new one man show “The Lieutenant Governor from the State of Confusion,” appearing at a performing arts center near you or at the Cinema Drafthouse on October 23 & 24 in Arlington, VA.
OSLO’S CALLING
Barack Obama was President a mere 12 days before the Nobel Peace Prize nominations closed and he still won. I know, I know. “He showed early promise.” Talk about handing in an A paper at the beginning of the semester. Less than two weeks in office and he earns himself a Peace Prize. This guy is good. Of course, you got to remember, the potential recipient list for a Peace Prize is not what you call your deep field. Never has been. Hence: Kissinger, de Klerk and Arafat.
What worries me is, what kind of message are we sending kids? Bomb the Moon. Win a Peace Prize. You know what’s next. People are going to want to bomb Mars. Just to see what happens. Trigger an announcement from the Vatican? Causing a nuke to be tossed at Uranus. Detonative planetary creep.
You could say, this is a “most likely to succeed” sort of deal. Not so much a pro- Obama message as much as it is “thanks for rescuing the planet by changing administrations” message. An award that could have pretty much gone to any American not named George W. Bush. Then again, the tactical use of beer to arrange a diplomatic summit may have been a crowning achievement in the minds of the five Norwegians.
Or perhaps the intellectual community is so excited to be out of the doghouse and rejoining the conversation that they are banding together to encourage Obama. Expect the MacArthur Genius Grant people to come calling. Then he’ll win a Lefoulon-Delalande Foundation Grand Prize from France for reducing global stress and increasing cardiovascular efficacy. And finally, next spring, Neil Patrick Harris presents him with a Special Tony Award for the sensational fashion in which he tap- danced his way into our hearts.
As expected, the lunatic fringe finds all this further fodder to continue its harangue. Which I don’t understand. How can you criticize a Peace Prize? I don’t care if the Keebler Elves are excreting them like tear shaped lemon bars from a hollowed out tree stump. It’s a Peace Prize. Its not like he’s getting a bronzed bazooka from Warmongers Weekly.
“You know Hitler was nominated.” Yeah, once. By one guy. And Pat Paulsen was almost President. The same crowd who cheered losing in Copenhagen is now grumbling about winning in Oslo. Totally unfamiliar with the grand Scandinavian tradition of make- up calls. The toughest part has to be keeping a straight face when expressing concern over the Nobel Committee’s credibility.
Certain talk show hosts have worked themselves into such a tizzy I wouldn’t be surprised to see one of them pull a Kanye West, and crash the stage during the award presentation, yelling Dick Cheney was more deserving. Should the Prez actually attend the ceremonies, that is. On the off chance he doesn’t find himself too busy to personally accept the Peace Prize due to the time consuming nature of commandeering two wars.
Now might be a good time to abandon the high road and shove it in people’s faces by wearing the medal around his neck everywhere he goes. Like Flavor Flav. “What? This old thing?” And when he does donate to charity the 1.4 million dollars that accompanies the prize, I’m thinking ACORN. Stop your belly- aching. So Obama got an award. Bush got a shoe.
Will Durst is a San Francisco based political comic who writes sometimes. This is one of them.
Catch his new one man show “The Lieutenant Governor from the State of Confusion,” appearing at a performing arts center near you.
Or at the Cinema Drafthouse October 23 & 24. 2903 Columbia Pike
Arlington, VA 22204/ 703.486.2345/ www.arlingtondrafthouse.com
will durst
wing commander
durstco
"you want the best, so do we"
2107 van ness ave
suite 402
san francisco 94109
877 SATIRIST service
415 441 3669 office
415 298 1874 cell
durst@willdurst.com
willdurst.com
I think it's outrageous that there's more outrage about the public option in health care reform, than there is about the military option in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Especially because the public option is a smart, practical idea that will make it cheaper for us to buy health insurance. And the military option to bomb Iran is stupid, impractical and would ultimately be bad for everyone's health in the U.S., Israel and around the world. The public option would save lives, the military option would cause many deaths.
And although most polls show more than 60% of Americans support the public option, those who oppose it are convinced it would lead to death panels, forced euthanasia, and the bankruptcy of the entire health insurance industry. The first two fears are based on completely wrong information. The third is based on the belief that protecting the billions in profits of insurance companies is more important than providing affordable, quality health care for all Americans. A public option will ideally force insurance companies to lower their premiums, and might also lead to CEO's taking a pay cut to only about $10 million a year. I know it's tough to get by on such a paltry annual salary, but maybe they can make do by selling one of their five houses.
But I'm even more outraged by a poll that said 56% of American Jews support military action against Iran. As a Jewish American, I'm embarrassed that my own people would believe in such a catastrophic and ridiculous notion. What's wrong with the U.S. or Israel bombing Iran? How about everything? All of Iran's nuclear facilities are either hidden underground or near civilian population centers. So it would be highly unlikely to actually knock out their facilities, while it would be highly likely many innocent Iranians would be killed. And Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who, unlike me, is an expert in these matters, believes an attack on Iran would maybe set back their program one to three years at best. But it would certainly invite retaliation against Israel, the US and Western interests around the world through terrorist attacks. And it would shut down any diplomatic relations with Iran and completely put Middle East peace prospects on an indefinite hold.
Is it too much to ask for Americans to be smart for a change when it comes to the Middle East? You would think that the utter failure of the unjust and unnecessary war in Iraq would have taught us just a little about dealing with a country that may or may not have WMD's.
Yes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made stupid, offensive comments about the Holocaust. And he has spoken out against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian people. But he knows that if Iran attacked Israel, there would be swift and massive retaliation. And since all he really cares about is staying in power, (as the recent fake election attests to), that is not something he would want to happen.
So let's drop all the Nazi analogies from the Iran debate, as well as from the health care debate too. Let's try, for a moment, to look at both options in a clear, non-emotional way.
Which sounds like a smart option to you? Lowering our health care costs with a public option, or raising the threat level with the military option against Iran?
The choice is yours.
Scott Blakeman appears regularly on The Strategy Room at foxnews.com.
FOX News Channel's "Team Washington" is about all things politics. Check back daily for web exclusives from Special Report's Bret Baier, quotes of the day, viewer votes and more.
