RSS

Monthly Archives: November 2011

Recurring Feature: Michele Bachmann says more things that don’t make sense…

Michele Bachmann at the recent 1,000th GOP debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH1dnrzRSuk&feature=youtu.be

What Obama actually said about Occupy Wall Street:

“The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded… And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”

I guess that’s “standing” with Occupy Wall Street. Is this what has happened in the past three years? Sarah Palin accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists” and now Bachmann is accusing him of palling around with… U.S. citizens asserting their first amendment rights? OK.

What would really make this weird is if Bachmann had a completely different opinion regarding another set of U.S. citizens asserting their first amendment rights. I’m sure she’d never allow herself to be videotaped being that disingenuous.

We have two angry grassroots groups in the country. One option is for our elected officials to work together to resolve the issues fueling their rage. The other is to marginalize them based on politics and essentially treat them like the Red Sox vs. the Yankees.

What will they do? What will they do?

Bachmann is probably right about Obama and Israel, though. Israel most likely does not view Obama as a friend because, as Mitt Romney recently pointed out, the president was critical of Israel’s prime minister.

“President Obama’s derisive remarks about Israel’s Prime Minister confirm what any observer would have gleaned from his public statements and actions toward our longstanding ally, Israel… At a moment when the Jewish state is isolated and under threat, we cannot have an American president who is disdainful of our special
relationship with Israel. We have here yet another reason why we need new leadership in the White House.”

It’s simple: If you make “derisive remarks” about a country’s leader, then you are no friend of that country. Bachmann and Romney are frequently critical of Obama, who is the U.S. leader, so they have basically confessed to hating the U.S. and all it represents. Wow — and they didn’t even think their mics were off.

 

 

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 13, 2011 in Political Theatre

 

Tags: , , ,

Snow White & The Huntsman Trailer…

It’s unfortunate that so much time and money was spent making the upcoming Snow White movie with Academy Award winner Charlize Theron and Academy Award show viewer Kristen Stewart when someone could have just told them about the existence of Walt Disney’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” from 1937.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crxW7H3-tEc

I’m not sure how this oversight occurred. There’s clearly video footage that proves conclusively that the film was made. They could have asked me. I would have gladly waived my normal consulting fee to spare them this embarrassment.

The Theron film is promoted as the “first in a planned trilogy.” The Disney film managed to tell the whole story in less than 90 minutes but George Lucas wasn’t alive in 1937.

Most likely the only thing the two films will have in common is that the Evil Queen in both makes the error of hiring a man to murder a woman who the talking mirror — apparently an expert on this sort of thing — says is the “fairest one of all.” One would think someone with her resources could find a female, non-lesbian to do the job.

Also — and I know this from experience — always confirm that the heart is actually human in case someone tries to pull the old “pig’s heart” scam on you. It’s regrettable to have to do business this way but you just can’t trust some people.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 12, 2011 in Pop Life

 

Tags: , , ,

The War Against Thanksgiving…

There is much complaint of late that the Christmas season seems to start the day after Halloween, effectively preempting Thanksgiving. The National Retail Federation (yes, that’s real) officially declares November 1 the beginning of all the “Santa Claus, ho-ho-ho and mistletoe, and presents to pretty girls” that Sally told Schroeder about in “A Charlie Brown Christmas.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie0lJ1QCHZ4

However, the Nordstrom store in Portland, Oregon is resisting the early call of the holidays and has declared Christmas music off-limits until the day after Thanksgiving, known as Black Friday because that was the day African-Americans got to celebrate after spending the actual holiday serving the guests at the Thanksgiving dinner scenes in Woody Allen’s “Hannah and Her Sisters.”

That’s somewhat unfortunate because there are no real Thanksgiving tunes — not even a “Monster Mash.” I can understand not wanting to hear the more overtly Christmas songs such as “Silent Night,” “Joy to the World,” or “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” until a half hour before midnight on December 25 (my preference), but we could all use more exposure to “Last Christmas” or “Do They Know It’s Christmas” or “Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)” — it’s been a Christmas ritual of mine since 1986 to watch Darlene Love perform the latter on David Letterman’s show each year.

Thanksgiving has also produced a paucity of seasonally themed movies or TV show episodes. Old men don’t suddenly see the error of their ways and start down a path of redemption on Thanksgiving. They just watch football and occasionally tell a racist joke before falling asleep on the couch.

The exceptions are few — I plan to download the 1986 Thanksgiving episode of “Cheers” — a classic half hour of comedy, and I preferred spending Thanksgiving with the cast of “Friends” than with anyone else from 1994 to 2003.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV-LsMhSbCE

Otherwise, much like the Charlie Brown specials, Thanksgiving on a cultural basis ranks behind Halloween and Christmas, and given the economy, there might be a lot of cold cereal and toast instead of turkey and stuffing on the menu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwkqAmLGDDE

The challenge for Thanksgiving is that there’s nothing really special about it — no crass commercialism of Christmas, which is what the U.S. does best, and no excuse to dress up and over-indulge on candy like Halloween. It’s basically a dinner party. You can do that any day of the year — especially if Woody Allen loaned you the black maids from “Hannah and Her Sisters” to help with the cooking and clean-up.

I think the problem is not that Christmas starts too early, it’s that it ends too soon. Is there anything more depressing than January with the decomposing tree in the corner, the discarded toys on the floor, and the stack of bills on the coffee table? It’s cold outside but not in the sexy way of “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” but in the “I can’t believe it’s snowing again. How am I going to get to work?” way.

So, I say push Christmas back to January 25th. This will allow Thanksgiving to embrace its fate in the natural order as the opening act to Christmas while still maintaining some of its dignity. It will add some much-needed juice to January. You can even do one better and make New Year’s Eve February 13. If you go the right party, your loved one will have such a hangover the next morning, you won’t have to worry about Valentine’s Day.

It might surprise people who know me to find me promoting Christmas in any way, but frankly, the religious aspect of it has long been abandoned. Santa Claus is Alec Baldwin’s character in “Glengarry Glen Ross” deriding Jesus’s Dave Moss: “Last year, I had a million guys dressed as me and twice as many TV specials. What did you have? See, that’s who I am. And you’re nothing.”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 12, 2011 in Social Commentary

 

Tags: , , ,

Clark Durant does not want to buy the world a Coke…

U.S. Senate candidate Clark Durant, during a fundraising event at Calvin College, said that the Occupy Wall Street protesters should “go find a job.” This is what frustrates me most about the opposition to the Occupy movement. If after 9/11, people had taken to the streets to express their fear and anger over their belief that the government could not keep them safe, any politician who had said they should stop whining and “go defend themselves” would have wound up on some celebrity boxing reality show. Yet, it’s OK for politicians to derisively dismiss the public’s lack of faith that the government is at all concerned for their financial, rather than physical, security.

But that wasn’t the worst thing Durant said to the group of College Conservatives. (I’ve always applauded College Conservative for not wasting their 20s and 30s having their compassion and sympathy stomped out them. Best to get it out of the way early — like chicken pox — and use that free time for something more constructive, such as perfecting your golf swing.)

In regards to the wealth gap the movement decries, Durant said, “I think it should be wider.”

“Does anybody think Steve Jobs should not be (sic) in the 1 percent? He made life better for the 99 percent of the rest of us. You want to create opportunities for people with their unique gifts,” he said. “They have created value and wealth.”

I am forever grateful to Jobs for allowing me to have access to the entire Stephen Sondheim catalog when at the gym, but it’s not like the guy cured heart disease or developed an alternative energy source, ending our reliance on fossil fuels and ushering in a new era of peace and prosperity. He didn’t even create a silent vacuum cleaner. He was a successful businessman who made billions. That’s fine and all but don’t try to claim he wandered the desert for 40 days and 40 nights.

Durant also demonstrates a common Republican misunderstanding of how our economic system works: The 1 percent might command the nation’s wealth but it’s the 99 percent that actually creates it. If Durant believes the iPad is the 21st century’s version of the soft drink you buy the world in order to live in perfect harmony because everyone’s too busy playing Angry Birds to pay attention to each other, then he has to understand that all Jobs had was an idea without the people in the 99 percent who helped him implement it. Code had to be written. Devices had to be manufactured. But if Durant has his way, the people who did that would not have the spare change necessary to buy a Coke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfU17niXOG8

Invoking the name of God several times, Durant described himself as a “nerdy” kid whose life was profoundly changed by the C.S. Lewis allegory “The Great Divorce.”

I sometimes think Randians pulled a large-scale prank on Republicans and replaced the insides of all their Bibles with copies of “Atlas Shrugged.” Also, it’s nice that “The Great Divorce” moved a young Durant but it seems like his political goals are to turn the United States into the “grey town” Lewis described.

Durant is not entirely without empathy — he “likened the fissures in the Republican Party of today as analogous to the implosion of the Whig Party in the 1850s over the question of slavery. He said the 2012 election is a ‘defining moment’ for the party, which must decide whether or not to ‘enslave’ a generation with debt and spending.”

Is metaphorical “slavery” comparable to actual slavery? Let’s see: Slaves working 18 hour days in 100 degree heat generating wealth in which they’ll never share for a small few. That does sound similar to circumstances today. But Durant might want to reconsider which side he’s own.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 12, 2011 in Capitalism, Political Theatre

 

Tags: , ,

Herman Cain and the Tinkerbell Theory…

In the 20 years since Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, there’s been a standard pattern whenever similar accusations emerge. The accuser is either part of a “vast conspiracy” against the accused (e.g. Paula Jones) or has a financial motive. Herman Cain  — who looks to be about as inconvenienced by the multiple accusations against him as Thomas was — has gone to the mattresses and pursued both options. He has repeatedly stated that he’s a victim of the “Democrat machine,” which means he gives the Democrats more organizational credit than I do at this point. He also suggested that it was “common sense” to consider Sharon Bialek’s finances as a possible motive for her coming forward.

The first seems less than plausible in Sharon Bialek’s case because she’s a Tea Party Republican. However, a leopard can always change its spots if there’s enough money involved. So, the theory is floated that economoic desperation is leading her into the manipulative arms of “celebrity activist” lawyer Gloria Allred. I call it the Tinkerbell Theory because it only lives if conservatives wish real hard for it.

Allred appeared on the Sean Hannity show in which Hannity, as a good mouthpiece for the right, continued to pursue the “lying broke hussy” narrative.

GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY FOR SHARON BIALEK: Nice to see  you, Sean.

HANNITY: I actually prefer when you’re on my side,  which is occasional. These are serious allegations. You said and made a big  point in your press conference — and I watched the whole thing — that your  client could have sold the story, it could have been about money. But it’s not.   Why won’t she rule out a book deal?

ALLRED: Well, she has no plans to do a book.

HANNITY: New York Times today — and how often do I  quote that –Miss Sharon Bialek has said, she is not seeking money, though she  has not ruled out a book deal at some point. That means that there still maybe a  financial motive here. And you made a big point saying that it wasn’t.

ALLRED: There really isn’t. You know, I have spoken  with her. There is no financial motive. There is no one has offered us a book  deal. We haven’t looked for a book deal. She hasn’t talked to anyone about a  book deal. This is just complete nonsense. Let’s focus on what’s really —

HANNITY: You have been in celebrity media a long time.  That’s not nonsense, because you know and I know she’s going to get a book deal  off of it.

ALLRED: Well, no, I don’t. Because you know, what? She  has already told her story. And that’s what is important. And the critical point  where she could have made some money, she could have sold her story instead of  doing a news conference and telling everyone without any charge.

HANNITY: But at that point, she has no credibility, if  she tells her story later, it has more credibility.

ALLRED: No. She’s not — take the book deal off the  table. It’s not happening. OK?

HANNITY: Not happening?

ALLRED: I have represented people in book deals. And a  number of them — Amber Frey, Anne Bird — you know, from the Scott Peterson  case — even the jury, I represented.

HANNITY: All right. I got it.

ALLRED: You know, she has not asked me to represent her  to do anything with a book deal.

HANNITY: Here is a problem that I see with the story.  First of all, whatever happened to the idea, there was a severance payment to  her, which is very different from a legal settlement term. You’re a lawyer, you  know the distinction and difference. So, they came up with a severance agreement  that was supposed to be confidential.

ALLRED: Talking about the other — some other  women.

HANNITY: OK, right, but in that case. And I am  thinking, all right, so in this case, we don’t have that. In this case, we have  this. She goes to look for a job, she never worked for the Restaurant  Association. And I am putting this all together in my mind. Do you not  understand why people are saying, wait a minute, is this politically  motivated?

ALLRED: You mean as to Sharon?

HANNITY: As to all of these charges. We don’t know  except for your client with the specific charges.

ALLRED: OK. All right, well.

HANNITY: You said he’s a serial abuser, serial  harasser.

ALLRED: What I said was, Sean, if in fact, the  allegations of all four women are to be believed and are true, then he is a  serial sexual harasser.

HANNITY: If, but you didn’t say if.

ALLRED: Yes, I did. And if they are true then he is  also a serial liar and a person who disrespects the rights of women to enjoy  equal employment opportunity without the interference of sexual harassment in  the workplace.

HANNITY: All right. Here’s my question though, as we  follow the timeline of the story that she’s telling here, right? And she claims  that she wanted help. She wanted to get a job, right? Legitimate. She has a  history of bankruptcy. She has a questionable employment record that, you know,  job after job after job after job. Legitimate questions to check the credibility  of somebody. Now, when this allegedly happened, didn’t she get back in the car  with him after?

ALLRED: In the car?

HANNITY: With Herman Cain. Didn’t she stay with him after? Didn’t she spend time with him after this supposedly happened?

ALLRED: No, she asked him to take her back to the  hotel.

HANNITY: So, she got back in the car with him.           

Hannity does not hide his bias — openly stating that he and Allred are on different sides. He also seems to have an issue with quoting The New York Times. It’s not like it was from the op-ed page or a Jayson Blair article. Anyway, this is all an interesting twist. There are no questions about Cain’s integrity or background. There is no discussion of his motives for lying — he’s running for president, after all. Instead, there is boundless speculation about Bialek — that she is so financially and morally destitute that she’s willing to destroy a man’s reputation for the possible chance of a book deal at some point in the future. That certainly is motive for her to lie but only if she’s a complete psychopath. There’s no evidence that Cain fired her or refused to hire her for a job that would provide a somewhat reasonable — if still irrational — motive for such actions.

Hannity — most likely never having been in the situation that Bialek describes — makes the same mistake that countless other men have made whenever women made accusations regarding sexual assault. They seem to believe that after such an experience, a woman would never be in shock or confused. No, her behavior afterward must be highly calculated and logical or else she’s obviously lying.

So, far Hannity is the classiest of Cain’s supporters, including Cain’s own lawyer, Lin Wood, who said “others should ‘think twice’ before making accusations” — as if the inevitable media scrutiny that is bound to occur is something Bialek didn’t consider. She just woke up one morning and thought she’d threaten the career of a powerful man. What could go wrong? Rachel Maddow called it a ‘remarkable moment,’ because a lawyer was telling potential harassment victims to “shut up,” and seemingly threatening them with some kind of retribution if they didn’t.” Indeed, Tom Hagen was usually more subdued and tactful when representing the Corleone Family.

Rush Limbaugh, from whom one should expect nothing and — if you actually listen to him — will receive even less, reportedly “slurped as he pronounced Bialek’s name ‘buy-a-lick'” and Dick Morris on FOX News “wondered when a Playboy spread would come.”  Aside from being a professional woman and mother, Bialek is 50 years old and Hugh Hefner is not generally inclined to feature women only half his age in his magazine.

Hannity meanwhile allowed Cain’s chief of staff, Mark Block, to flat-out lie on-air and claim that Karen Kraushaar, who also accused Cain of sexual harassment, was the mother of a Politico reporter. (Politico was the publication that first broke the sexual harassment story regarding Cain.)

“You’ve confirmed that now, right?” Hannity asked.

“We confirmed it that he does indeed work at Politico, and that’s his mother, yes,” Block said.

In reality, Josh Kraushaar has not worked at Politico for 17 months – and he isn’t related to Karen Kraushaar.

These gentlemen — and I use that word in the most sarcastic sense possible — apparently think bullying and intimidation is the way to counter sexual harassment allegations (though, I guess that’s in character for someone accused of doing what Cain allegedly did). He could stick with the facts and not with the people who made the claims — most of which occurred before he was even running for office — but I guess that’s my own Tinkerbell Theory.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 11, 2011 in Political Theatre

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Producer Explains Scrapping ‘Funny Girl’ — NYTimes.com…

Producer Explains Scrapping ‘Funny Girl’ — NYTimes.com…

I was disappointed to read this in The New York Times:

The Broadway producer Bob Boyett had never heard so much bad news in a single week: Four longtime investors in his shows had each backed out of his latest, a $12 million Broadway-bound revival of the hit 1964 musical “Funny Girl,” he said in an interview on Friday.

I am a big fan of “Funny Girl” (one of my favorite pastimes in my single days was to spend an evening listening to the original cast recording while whittling down my scotch supply) and would have enjoyed seeing it performed on Broadway. It is unlikely that some Transformers musical with a score from Soundgarden or something else offensive from the “South Park” creators will provide as compelling a reason for me to return to New York.

Reading this article, I can understand, if not necessarily agree with, some of the arguments for not moving forward, specifically the mainstream name recognition of Lauren Ambrose, who would have played Fanny Brice, the role Barbra Streisand made famous on both stage and screen.

At the same time, the buzz among Broadway ticket agents and other producers was that the star of “Funny Girl,” the television actress Lauren Ambrose (“Six Feet Under”), might end up giving a brilliant performance, but she was unlikely to sell many tickets on her name. Most musical revivals are star-dependent, since theatergoers tend to be familiar with the music; hence the casting of stars in current Broadway hits like “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying” (Daniel Radcliffe), “Anything Goes” (Sutton Foster), and “Follies” (Bernadette Peters).

The wording of the last sentence confuses me: Although I thought Radcliffe was great in “How to Succeed,” I wouldn’t compare him to Foster and Peters, who are both predominately known for their theatre work. Peters is undeniably a movie star, but Foster, aside from a “Law & Order” (of course), has not done much of note off-stage.

Radcliffe’s performance is certainly a best-case scenario of driving ticket sales by casting a major name without sacrificing the integrity of the show. However, I’m uncertain as to how brilliant Ambrose’s performance would have been. This is a killer role that requires vocal and theatrical chops. As the article states, Ambrose is a television actress. Yes, she’s a trained opera singer and, yes, she’s in a jazz band (Lauren Ambrose and the Leisure Class… Really), but that all amounts to diddly with a side of squat because we’re talking about Barbra Frickin’ Streisand here. Ambrose was going to have to get on stage eight times a week and sing “Cornet Man” (how many unfortunate women out there have that song on a mixtape I made them?), “People,” and “Don’t Rain on My Parade.” This sounds like a Christopher Durang-penned nightmare. Is it possible she mistakenly thought she’d signed up for a staging of Judd Apatow’s “Funny People“?

I found a clip on YouTube of Ambrose and her band performing “My Man,” which was Brice’s signature song (you can listen to the original here and Streisand’s version from the 1968 film “Funny Girl” here). It strikes me as inauthentic pantomime. She learned in a vocal class once that Billie Holiday stomped her feet when overcome with emotion, but you don’t get that she actually experienced anything she’s singing about — not that I would wish that upon her. It sounds rough.

They say Mama Rose is the female King Lear, but “Gypsy” has had four revivals. No one has touched “Funny Girl” (with the exception of a 2002 concert version with Foster) because it is so closely identified with Streisand, then just 22 when it premiered. And it’s not just Streisand’s voice — she had the motzie necessary to portray the incomparable Brice, which brings up a delicate matter: Brice was Jewish, as is Streisand. Ambrose is not. I know it’s all just acting, but Brice and Streisand both shot to fame in an industry that generally perceived them as the “other.” As the show itself says, “If a girl isn’t pretty like a Miss Atlantic City. All she gets in life is pity and a pat.” What’s unspoken is that the definition of “pretty” at the time tended to exclude women with frizzy hair or certain shape of nose. Casting Ambrose would discard the tension or force the production to “tell” but not “show,” as it seems unlikely that Ambrose grew up in a world that thought she was ugly — more suited for the life of a laundress on the Lower East Side than the life of a glamorous actress on the cover of magazines.

That said, I hardly want to persuade the producers to try again with currently popular and perhaps superficially more appropriate Lea Michele. I’d prefer seeing Laura Bell Bundy exclaim “oy gevalt!” than have the “Glee” star anywhere near “Funny Girl.”

For now, though, I can content myself with the still pristine original 1964 production. Here’s Streisand bringing down the first act curtain with “Don’t Rain on My Parade” (from the film not the show, as it was much harder to sneak camera phones into Broadway theatres back then):

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 5, 2011 in Pop Life

 

Tags: , , ,

Now time for today’s dumb story not involving a Bieber or Kardashian…

The Washington Post tweeted the following today:

Can you accurately predict how much snow will fall in #DC this winter? Take a chance and enter our contest wapo.st/t6vhxN

OK, if I had nothing better to do with my time, I could make a wild, unsubstantiated guess regarding this winter’s snowfall in DC, but I cannot “accurately predict” the amount of snowfall. That would make me either a wizard with a functioning crystal ball or someone in possession of a time machine. Either of those things could prove more lucrative than entering a newspaper contest. It’s like the dumbest mad scientist ever who invents a device that can control the weather and uses it so that he can
win this contest rather than take over the world.

I know newspapers are in trouble but have they really sunk to meteorological bookmaking?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 3, 2011 in Pop Life

 

Tags: ,

Ann Coulter On Herman Cain: Our Blacks Are Better Than Their Blacks…

Ann Coulter On Herman Cain: Our Blacks Are Better Than Their Blacks | Mediaite.

Well, of all the crazy things Ann Coulter has said, this probably ranks around the middle:

“They harangue blacks and tell them ‘you can’t be a Republican, you can’t be a Republican,’ it is so hard for a black to be a Republican,” and then complain when conservative events are mostly white-attended, Coulter argued. “Maybe you shouldn’t harangue them so much!” Coulter also told Hannity the source of why liberals “detest conservative blacks” is that “it is ironic in a cruel, vicious, horrible way… that civil rights laws were designed to protect blacks from Democrats,” and now there are “liberal wimen using laws to protest blacks in order to attack conservative blacks with these vicious, outrageous charges.”

Coulter is responding to recent sexual harassment charges against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain.

The heretofore surging Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was lifted by news Saturday that he was tied with Mitt Romney at the top of the Des Moines Register’s poll of likely Iowa caucus attendees. Then he was hit by heavy turbulence when Politico reported that, as head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, he was at least twice accused of sexually harassing behavior by women who left after receiving payments from the trade group.

Promoters of racial tolerance Coulter and Rush Limbaugh immediately argued that the release of this story was racially motivated.

“This is not a news story, this is gutter partisan politics, and it’s the politics of minority conservative personal destruction is what you’ve got here,” the conservative radio host said, also mentioning The Post’s story on Florida senator Marco Rubio (R). “We cannot have a black Republican running for the office of President. We can’t have one elected.”

Limbaugh said that Cain was targeted because of his conservative views and skin color.

“Anything good that happens to any black or Hispanic in American politics can only happen via the Democrat Party. If it happens elsewhere, we’re going to destroy those people a la Clarence Thomas.”

“It really is about blacks and Hispanics getting too uppity. That’s what this is,” he said. “You don’t achieve in American politics as a Republican…..you try it and we’re going to destroy you.”

Coulter and Limbaugh seem to be confused on motive. If anyone wants to take out Cain at this point in the race, prior to the first official GOP primary, it would be another Republican candidate. Based on the last debate I watched, there are a few dozen of them but the ones who have the least laughable chances are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Both of whom are seeing Cain lapping at their heels or potentially surpassing them. The Obama campaign is focused on Romney as a viable threat because he’s almost rational. Anyway, it would seem logical for the Democrats to wait and pull the pin on any grenade it had until much later in the primary race or even after a candidate had secured the nomination. The denials stemming from the other GOP candidates just reinforce this.

As for Clarence Thomas and his so-called “high-tech lynching.” Boo. Hoo. The guy was confirmed to the Supreme Court. It’s hard for me to find a narrative that comes close to tragedy here. OK, he had a tough job interview. I repeat: Boo. Hoo. It still grates that he pulled the racial victim card when the accusation was not about race but about gender. You’d have to be incredibly naive to believe that race was not a factor in President Bush’s selection of Thomas in the first place, and ultimately Thomas got the job. He still has it, demonstrating that he has better job security than any other black person in the United States. Is this the best Democrats can do to “destroy” people?

But let’s go back to the crazy lady.

With that as a framework, Coulter once again praised the conservative black people she had known, arguing that “our blacks are so much better than their blacks” because “you have fought against probably your family, probably your neighbors… that’s why we have very impressive blacks.” She went on to compare conservative black Americans to the family of the President, arguing that “Obama… is not a descendant of the blacks that suffered these Jim Crow laws,” that he was “not the son of American blacks that went through the American experience,” but the “son of a Kenyan” (a point she made with the caveat that she fully believed the President was an American citizen).

“Our blacks are better than their blacks”? That sounds like a discussion of college football in the South during the ’80s.

It’s probably not wise to bother asking but what’s the point of Coulter’s statement? Is the implication that the left prefers Obama because he’s “not the son of American blacks that went through the American experience”? Is the implication that Cain is better at connecting to American blacks because he did? But since when was “connecting to American blacks” a priority of the GOP? If it’s just about policies, then OK, Cain is preferable to Obama if you’re a Republican but why bring race into it?

As with the Thomas allegations, there is nothing really racially motivated about them other than that those accused claim they are. We don’t know the women involved in the Cain allegations — they could be white but that in itself wouldn’t prove anything either.

Cain might want to take some time to reflect on who his supporters are. Let’s recall what Limbaugh said about Thurgood Marshall, who Thomas replaced on the Supreme Court.

Noting that Kagan idolized Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall — she was a law clerk for Marshall — Limbaugh pointed out that, in a 1976 speech, Marshall “declared, according to a law review article she wrote, that ‘the Constitution as originally drafted and conceived was defective. Only over the course of 200 years had the nation attained the system of constitutional government and its respect for individual freedoms and human rights that we hold as fundamental today.’

“ ‘The Constitution today,’ the justice continued, ‘has a great deal to be proud of. But the credit does not belong to the framers, it belongs to those who refused to acquiesce to outdated notions of liberty, justice and equality and who strived to better them.’ ”

Rush continued: “The credit, in other words, belongs to people like Justice Marshall. So this is who Elena Kagan idolizes.”

And there’s Coulter’s statements about Martin Luther King:

Coulter writes in her book “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America,” that “Martin Luther King Jr. …used images in order to win publicity and goodwill for his cause, deploying children in the streets for a pointless, violent confrontation with a lame-duck lunatic: Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor,” the Birmingham sheriff who was known to be easily provoked to brutality and violence to enforce racial segregation.

So, per Coulter and Limbaugh, “their” blacks are Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain and, if you’re on the left, “our” blacks are Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King (and possibly Obama if we can ever figure out whether he’s black or not. I think we’re still waiting on the FOX News pronouncement). I don’t think “their” guys are going to win the political version of the Heisman trophy any time soon.
 
 

Tags: , , , ,