[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]
Okay, if you're over the age of 35 and didn't catch the premiere of "90210" (CW, Tuesdays at 8:00 p.m. Eastern), let me answer the number one question I'm sure you have on your mind: Yes, the new show uses the same theme song, although it's rocked up a bit for the new century. (And I'm sure the duh-duh-duh, duh-duh-duh riff is now firmly implanted in your head.)
Is the show similarly updated for new audiences? Very much so.
Don't get me wrong: "90210" is fully a nighttime soap, invested in issues of who is sleeping with whom (or who slept with whom, or who is dating whom) and with dramatic plot shifts and coincidences and sometimes overwrought dialogue. (Sample: A girl asks as guy, "Are you breaking up with me?", to which the guy responds earnestly, "I'm breaking up with us.") But the current version of "90210" is smarter, better acted and ultimately more enjoyable than it's 1990s predecessor.
The newbies to West Beverly High in the new "90210" are the brother and sister team of Annie and Dixon Wilson (Shenae Grimes of "Degrassi: The Next Generation" and Tristan Wilds of "The Wire"), whose parents, Harry and Debbie ("Melrose Place" refugee Rob Estes and TV veteran Lori Laughlin, most recently of the sitcom "In Case of Emergency"), have taken them halfway across the country from Kansas to live with Harry's boozy ex-actress mother Tabitha (Jessica Walter, not far from her brilliant parent-from-hell turn on "Arrested Development"). Harry, who grew up in Beverly Hills and attended West Beverly High, is taking over as principal there, much to the chagrin of Annie and Dixon, who don't relish life as the principal's kids. The 21st century update to the central siblings is that rather than being twins like Brandon and Brenda Walsh, Dixon is African-American and adopted.
Annie and Dixon are immediately thrust into the middle of drama in their new school. Annie, who has a boyfriend back in Kansas, is looking forward to seeing Ethan Ward (Dustin Milligan of "Supernatural"), a boy with whom she had a summer fling a couple of years back. But when she first sees Ethan, he is in an SUV being orally serviced by a girl who turns out to be a drug-addicted friend of his girlfriend. If that's not bad enough, Annie soon stumbles into a friendship with queen bee, rich girl Naomi Clark (AnnaLynne McCord of "Nip/Tuck"), who, surprise, happens to be Ethan's girlfriend. Annie also finds herself the subject of a vicious blog attack by Erin Silver (Jessica Stroup of "Reaper"), who goes by Silver and, we soon learn, is the half-sister of Kelly Taylor, as the offspring of her mother and David Silver's father, Mel, all characters from the original series. Annie's crime was allowing Naomi, Silver's arch enemy, to drag her away from their conversation.
Meanwhile, Dixon tries out for the lacrosse team, and when he takes the spot in the starting lineup of pretty boy Steve (Chuck Hittinger), the guy slashes him with his stick, leading to a fight. Ethan, covering for his teammate, initially lies and says Dixon started the fight, leaving the too-cool-for-school English teacher/lacrosse coach Ryan Matthews (Ryan Eggold of "Dirt") with no choice but to boot Dixon off of the team.
The adults have their own issues, too. Tabitha isn't interested in giving up her "iced tea" (of the Long Island variety) or her desire to drive, which is a bad combination. She also makes no effort to hide her dislike of Debbie. But Debbie has bigger fish to fry once Harry's high school girlfriend Tracy (Christina Moore, the replacement Laurie on "That 70s Show") starts hanging around him (after she asks Harry to drive her home, Debbie offers to drive him instead, saying, "We can swap stories about Harry's penis," to which a defeated Tracy replies, "I have enough of them"). The reason, we find out, is that Harry fathered Tracy's child in high school, who she then put up for adoption. And since this is a soap, Tracy is Naomi's mother, so Harry and Tracy have to interact at school when Naomi fails to complete her English paper (she's too busy preparing for her party, an excuse her father can't believe the teacher won't accept).
If you think this is a lot of plot for a one-hour drama, it is. And yet executive producers Jeff Judah and Gabe Sachs (writers on Judd Apatow's classic "Freaks and Geeks") manage to cram a whole lot of the original "90210" into the new version. In addition to Erin Silver, there are passing references that fans of the 1990s incarnation are sure to catch (like a glimpse of Hannah Zuckerman-Vazquez, the offspring of Andrea Zuckerman and Jesse Vazquez, and how Annie and Dixon's rooms are connected by a Jack-and-Jill bathroom, just like Brenda and Brandon's rooms back in the day). But even more prominent is the presence of Kelly Taylor (Jennie Garth), now a single mother and guidance counselor at West Beverly High, who is being courted by fellow teacher Ryan, and Brenda Walsh (Shannen Doherty), visiting for a month to do a play in Los Angeles. Joe E. Tata also returns as Nat, owner of the hangout the Peach Pit, which is now a hip cappuccino place rather than the old-fashioned diner Kelly, Brenda, Brandon and the gang used to frequent.
It was a smart move to rope in the older generation with the characters from the original series, but their story lines, at least as of now, seem almost jammed in, separate and disconnected from the new generation's goings on. (Quick check-ins between Kelly and Silver aren't enough to bridge the gap.) And observing how time has been quite unkind to some of the original actors, especially Doherty, takes some of the fun out of the nostalgia factor.
But other than the collision of the two versions of the show, Judah and Sachs have made exceptional choices with their characters and stories, as well as infusing the scripts with enough smart lines to let you know that this is not the old "90210."
Annie is way more likable and relatable than Brenda ever was. (Some might call her the anti-Brenda, considering the strong dislike many fans held for Doherty's character.) Annie is smart and unassuming, but also not perfect, willing to jet to San Francisco for a first-date dinner even though she knows her mother would not approve (and does not, when her trip comes to light). Annie's will-they-won't-they relationship with Ethan is far more compelling than the Brenda-Dylan connection, mostly because Ethan isn't a cartoon like Dylan was. Dixon is an interesting character too, less of a goody-goody than Brandon, but also more fun and less pompous. There are some interesting elements to explore with the relationship with his family.
In fact, all of the actors in "90210" are infinitely more low-key and less angsty than their colleagues from the 1990s. From Luke Perry's James-Dean-on-Valium moves as Dylan, to the hysterics of Doherty, Garth and Tori Spelling, "subtlety" is not a term that would ever apply to the original cast. But even with over-the-top characters like Naomi, McCord, Grimes, Wilds and the others in the new "90210" don't try and do too much with the soapy material. They approach the scripts like they're real dramatic stories, a tribute to both their skill and the writing of Judah and Sachs.
Most of all, the new "90210" just feels less cartoony, and yet also more grand, than it's forerunner. The debut episode's central event was Naomi's "not so sweet 16" party, an event lavish enough to put the dog and pony shows of some of the girls featured on MTV's "My Super Sweet 16" to shame. (And, in the "90210" tradition, the band at the party was the hip Omaha indie pop outfit Tilly and the Wall, just as indie legends the Flaming Lips appeared at the Pit in the 1990s version of the show.)
I loved many of the casually tossed off lines, from a reference to Ethan that "he's the one with the spotlight shining out of his ass," to Naomi responding to Annie's declaration that she would love to attend her birthday party with, "Of course you would."
In my article two weeks ago listing the five new shows I was most looking forward to watching, I wrote that I hoped the choice of Judah and Sachs to run "90210" would mean that the network envisioned the show having more depth than the original series. It's clear that while nobody will confuse "90210" with "The Wire," it just may be a smart, fun escapist romp, closer to "Dirty Sexy Money" than, well, the original "90210."
I wrote in my top-five article that while I would watch the first episode of "90210," I couldn't promise that I'd watch the second one. Well, the CW aired the first and second installments back-to-back, and I did, in fact, watch both. I'll even watch the third one next week. Based on the ratings of the debut, which were the highest for a fiction show in the network's short history, I will be far from the only one.
Friday, September 5, 2008
McCain's Claims of "Change" in His Acceptance Speech Are New Standard for Chutzpah
[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
"And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming."
"And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you."
"We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. ... We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington."
- All quotes from John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican convention, September 4, 2008
There is an old story used to illustrate the meaning of the Yiddish word chutzpah (roughly translated as "nerve" or "gall"): A man kills his parents, and then throws himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.
That story has had a nice reign, but I think from now on, it will be replaced by John McCain's speech last night accepting the Republican nomination for the presidency.
McCain argued that Americans should vote for him to bring change to Washington. It's a good position to take, since Americans certainly want change. But the policies and practices that Americans want to see changed are policies and practices that were supported -- and continue to be supported -- by none other than John McCain.
McCain is essentially arguing: Elect me to fix all the problems I caused. It is an argument that an engaged and educated electorate would reject out of hand as preposterous, which means that it has an excellent chance of working in a presidential election in the United States.
More than anything else, Americans want change in the economy. Unemployment is at 6.1 percent, its highest point in five years. Americans have accumulated an unprecedented amount of debt, and the gap between rich and poor has grown to a discouragingly large chasm. (Steven Hill pointed out in a Huffingtonpost.com article in 2007 that the Federal Reserve reported that the "top 10 percent of income earners in the United States now owns 70 percent of the wealth, and the wealthiest one percent owns more than the bottom 95 percent.") And the fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis has led to millions of foreclosures, among other hits to the American economy. But the real visible, hard-to-ignore symbol of the tough economy for many Americans has been the explosion of the price of gas.
While economic conditions are not completely and directly linked to the policies of the president, George W. Bush's philosophy of deregulation and giving unfettered power to corporations has not helped. One of the key factors that allowed the subprime mortgage crisis to occur was the gutting of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was passed in 1933 after the stock market crash of 1929, with the primary purpose of keeping commercial banks (who concentrate on consumers) separate from investment banks (who can engage in more speculative activity). Who was responsible for knocking down this wall and ending the limitations of Glass-Steagall that had stood for more than 65 years? Former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who is the architect of McCain's economic policy (and the man who has now on two occasions called the economic setbacks "mental" and Americans "whiners" for complaining about the economy).
What about gas prices? As prices are set by a global market, there is no one cause for skyrocketing numbers, with factors ranging from increased consumption by India and China to a lack of increase in processing capacity in the U.S. partly to blame. But Republicans and Democrats alike agree that a major factor in increasing gas prices was the passage of the so-called Enron Loophole (officially known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act), which exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. In other words, speculation was brought to the gas markets. (Keith Olbermann did an in-depth, fact-heavy, flawlessly researched report on this issue, which you can watch here.)
Who was the person responsible for the Enron Loophole? Do I have to even say it: Gramm, who received major campaign contributions from Enron.
McCain's economic plan calls for maintaining the key elements of the policies of the Bush administration, namely tax cuts for the rich. (In a great clip, which you can watch here, McCain supporter Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina cannot come up with a single difference between the McCain and Bush economic plans.)
And, like Bush, McCain has thrown his lot in with the big oil companies, taking millions from them while advocating for their two pet projects: massive tax breaks for oil companies and offshore drilling.
Clearly, the big oil companies have a lot to gain in maintaining the status quo and everything to lose if energy policy changes to bring about reduced use of oil and the increased prominence of renewable sources of energy. Not surprisingly, McCain has opposed tax breaks for wind power and other renewable energies.
McCain is asking to be the agent of change to reverse our economic and energy policies, even though they are the very policies he supported, and even though his current plan calls for maintaining these very policies he says have to change. That request is the living embodiment of chutzpah.
The other issue on which voters want to see change is Iraq. In 2006, the electorate booted Republicans from control of the House and Senate, almost solely on the issue of Iraq. And both parties agree that Democrats are likely to make further gains in Congress in November. McCain was an early and avid supporter of invading Iraq, telling Americans that, "I believe we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time," and that "we will be welcomed as liberators" once Saddam Hussein is deposed. (You can see for yourself here.) McCain opposed any move to set a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and he has maintained that position even though virtually everyone around him has arrived at the conclusion that such a date is necessary. The Iraqi government itself has insisted on a certain date of withdrawal, and even the Bush administration has agreed with the Iraqi government to set such a date.
McCain is at the forefront of a war that was unnecessary, made us less safe, was fought on fraudulent grounds, eroded our country's standing in the world, cost us more than 4,000 U.S. lives, adversely affected hundreds of thousands of other Americans (soldiers wounded, families burdened), and took $1 trillion from American coffers.
Again, McCain is asking to be the agent of change for a disastrous policy he virulently supported (and continues to support). Textbook chutzpah.
The bottom line is that on every key issue facing Americans, McCain is essentially arguing to continue the status quo of the Bush administration, with whom he voted 90 percent of the time. Claiming that to be change takes, say it with me, chutzpah.
So when McCain says, "And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, you have been part of that 'Washington crowd' for 26 years. You put oil companies (and other corporations) ahead of average Americans over and over again, voting for oil tax breaks, tax breaks for the rich and privatizing social security, but opposing the GI Bill, increased benefits for veterans, a ban on torture, health insurance for children, and a campaign finance reform law with your name on it."
And when McCain says, "And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, you have a record of supporting the very policies you now say you will change, including tax cuts for the rich and $1 trillion of spending in Iraq that is funded solely by borrowing, thus passing the burden to 'unluckier' generations. So you haven't shown any 'strength, experience, judgment and backbone' in addressing these issues so far."
And when McCain says, "We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. ... We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, over the last eight years, we have protected our security in your way, competed in the world economy on your terms, responded to disasters with an incompetent government you backed and to which you did not stand up, fueled our transportation network via the oil companies that you unfailingly supported to the detriment of our country's future, failed to provide training to our workers under your watch, educated our children under a federal policy you were in favor of, and did business in Washington in a manner you were an integral part of. So how can you now put yourself forward as the person to make these changes?"
One answer: chutzpah.
Move over guy who killed his parents, there is a new embodiment of chutzpah, and his name is John McCain.
"And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming."
"And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you."
"We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. ... We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington."
- All quotes from John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican convention, September 4, 2008
There is an old story used to illustrate the meaning of the Yiddish word chutzpah (roughly translated as "nerve" or "gall"): A man kills his parents, and then throws himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.
That story has had a nice reign, but I think from now on, it will be replaced by John McCain's speech last night accepting the Republican nomination for the presidency.
McCain argued that Americans should vote for him to bring change to Washington. It's a good position to take, since Americans certainly want change. But the policies and practices that Americans want to see changed are policies and practices that were supported -- and continue to be supported -- by none other than John McCain.
McCain is essentially arguing: Elect me to fix all the problems I caused. It is an argument that an engaged and educated electorate would reject out of hand as preposterous, which means that it has an excellent chance of working in a presidential election in the United States.
More than anything else, Americans want change in the economy. Unemployment is at 6.1 percent, its highest point in five years. Americans have accumulated an unprecedented amount of debt, and the gap between rich and poor has grown to a discouragingly large chasm. (Steven Hill pointed out in a Huffingtonpost.com article in 2007 that the Federal Reserve reported that the "top 10 percent of income earners in the United States now owns 70 percent of the wealth, and the wealthiest one percent owns more than the bottom 95 percent.") And the fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis has led to millions of foreclosures, among other hits to the American economy. But the real visible, hard-to-ignore symbol of the tough economy for many Americans has been the explosion of the price of gas.
While economic conditions are not completely and directly linked to the policies of the president, George W. Bush's philosophy of deregulation and giving unfettered power to corporations has not helped. One of the key factors that allowed the subprime mortgage crisis to occur was the gutting of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was passed in 1933 after the stock market crash of 1929, with the primary purpose of keeping commercial banks (who concentrate on consumers) separate from investment banks (who can engage in more speculative activity). Who was responsible for knocking down this wall and ending the limitations of Glass-Steagall that had stood for more than 65 years? Former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who is the architect of McCain's economic policy (and the man who has now on two occasions called the economic setbacks "mental" and Americans "whiners" for complaining about the economy).
What about gas prices? As prices are set by a global market, there is no one cause for skyrocketing numbers, with factors ranging from increased consumption by India and China to a lack of increase in processing capacity in the U.S. partly to blame. But Republicans and Democrats alike agree that a major factor in increasing gas prices was the passage of the so-called Enron Loophole (officially known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act), which exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. In other words, speculation was brought to the gas markets. (Keith Olbermann did an in-depth, fact-heavy, flawlessly researched report on this issue, which you can watch here.)
Who was the person responsible for the Enron Loophole? Do I have to even say it: Gramm, who received major campaign contributions from Enron.
McCain's economic plan calls for maintaining the key elements of the policies of the Bush administration, namely tax cuts for the rich. (In a great clip, which you can watch here, McCain supporter Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina cannot come up with a single difference between the McCain and Bush economic plans.)
And, like Bush, McCain has thrown his lot in with the big oil companies, taking millions from them while advocating for their two pet projects: massive tax breaks for oil companies and offshore drilling.
Clearly, the big oil companies have a lot to gain in maintaining the status quo and everything to lose if energy policy changes to bring about reduced use of oil and the increased prominence of renewable sources of energy. Not surprisingly, McCain has opposed tax breaks for wind power and other renewable energies.
McCain is asking to be the agent of change to reverse our economic and energy policies, even though they are the very policies he supported, and even though his current plan calls for maintaining these very policies he says have to change. That request is the living embodiment of chutzpah.
The other issue on which voters want to see change is Iraq. In 2006, the electorate booted Republicans from control of the House and Senate, almost solely on the issue of Iraq. And both parties agree that Democrats are likely to make further gains in Congress in November. McCain was an early and avid supporter of invading Iraq, telling Americans that, "I believe we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time," and that "we will be welcomed as liberators" once Saddam Hussein is deposed. (You can see for yourself here.) McCain opposed any move to set a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and he has maintained that position even though virtually everyone around him has arrived at the conclusion that such a date is necessary. The Iraqi government itself has insisted on a certain date of withdrawal, and even the Bush administration has agreed with the Iraqi government to set such a date.
McCain is at the forefront of a war that was unnecessary, made us less safe, was fought on fraudulent grounds, eroded our country's standing in the world, cost us more than 4,000 U.S. lives, adversely affected hundreds of thousands of other Americans (soldiers wounded, families burdened), and took $1 trillion from American coffers.
Again, McCain is asking to be the agent of change for a disastrous policy he virulently supported (and continues to support). Textbook chutzpah.
The bottom line is that on every key issue facing Americans, McCain is essentially arguing to continue the status quo of the Bush administration, with whom he voted 90 percent of the time. Claiming that to be change takes, say it with me, chutzpah.
So when McCain says, "And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, you have been part of that 'Washington crowd' for 26 years. You put oil companies (and other corporations) ahead of average Americans over and over again, voting for oil tax breaks, tax breaks for the rich and privatizing social security, but opposing the GI Bill, increased benefits for veterans, a ban on torture, health insurance for children, and a campaign finance reform law with your name on it."
And when McCain says, "And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, you have a record of supporting the very policies you now say you will change, including tax cuts for the rich and $1 trillion of spending in Iraq that is funded solely by borrowing, thus passing the burden to 'unluckier' generations. So you haven't shown any 'strength, experience, judgment and backbone' in addressing these issues so far."
And when McCain says, "We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. ... We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, over the last eight years, we have protected our security in your way, competed in the world economy on your terms, responded to disasters with an incompetent government you backed and to which you did not stand up, fueled our transportation network via the oil companies that you unfailingly supported to the detriment of our country's future, failed to provide training to our workers under your watch, educated our children under a federal policy you were in favor of, and did business in Washington in a manner you were an integral part of. So how can you now put yourself forward as the person to make these changes?"
One answer: chutzpah.
Move over guy who killed his parents, there is a new embodiment of chutzpah, and his name is John McCain.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Palin Stuff Is Fun, but Obama Gets the Real Story: It's the 90 Percent, Stupid
[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
It's been a fun week, as revelation after revelation about Sarah Palin's record demonstrated time and time again what a ridiculous pick she was to take the VP slot on John McCain's ticket. And even as the right basks in the nearly universal rave reviews for her convention speech last night, it's important to remember one thing about all these Palin stories: They don't matter.
(As an aside, the plaudits for Palin's speech are clearly based on her presentation, not the content, since the substance of her remarks was filled with the same lies and distortions the GOP attack machine has been deploying since February.)
Yes, it's been sublimely entertaining to read the Palin stories from Alaska: After lambasting Barack Obama's experience for two months, John McCain picked a two-year governor of the 47th most populous state in the country (with fewer people than Columbus, Ohio) to be next in line for the presidency to a 72-year-old who has battled cancer. Then the circus surrounding the revelation that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant out of wedlock came to town (along with the inevitable facts coming to light about how Palin opposed sexual education programs in schools and cut funding for programs assisting teen mothers). And then the real fun stories starting flying in: How her husband belonged to a political party that advocated for Alaska seceding from the union and professed hate for the United States, all after the hits Obama and his wife took for allegedly lacking patriotism. How, as mayor, she fired the police chief of her town because he didn't support her campaign (and how his replacement was forced to leave after only two weeks because of his record of sexual harassment). And how she went on a mission to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, even allegedly firing the public safety commissioner because he wouldn't carry out her personal vendetta.
Oh, and of course, the pinnacle of enjoyment for me was Republican flacks Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan getting caught on an open microphone trashing Palin's selection, calling it "cynical" and political.
And all of it doesn't matter. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the theater of the whole thing (and how it confirms McCain and the GOP as being completely out of touch, with no affirmative record or platform to run on). But what has made me the happiest of all is that Obama has stayed on message on the one issue that can win him the election: Tying McCain to the failed presidency of George W. Bush.
Now is not a good time to be a Republican running for office. Top GOP officials routinely admit that it is a bad environment for their party. It seems as if the question isn't if the Democrats will pick up seats in the House and Senate, but how many they will capture. The Republicans are stuck with one of the least popular presidents on record, with Bush currently enjoying an approval rating of only 28 percent in the latest poll by his own propaganda department (Fox News).
For McCain to win in November, he has to distance himself from the Republican brand, and even more so from Bush. He needs to push his myth of being a "maverick" and trick voters into thinking that his policies differ from those put in place by the current president. This is not an easy task, considering that McCain voted with Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007 and 89 percent of the time since Bush took office (according to a Congressional Quarterly voting study), and voted 98 percent of the time with his fellow Republicans (43 of 44) in 2007.
McCain's quest to separate himself from Bush is at the heart of his pick of Palin. Sure, he hoped that some women would be swayed by the selection of a woman, and, even more likely, that some women would be influenced by the inevitable attacks on Palin's record, feeling like the media was ganging up on her. But Palin's outsider status, more than anything else, was the true allure of her selection. The goal was to set up a McCain-Palin ticket as an outside-of-Washington, reformer team to clean up the mess made by Bush.
(We'll leave the fiction of Palin's record as a reformer, including her support of earmarks, her acceptance of at least $4,500 in campaign contributions as part of the same fundraising scheme that led to the indictment of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and her service as a director of a 527 group organized by Stevens, for another piece.)
Much to my delight, Obama seems to realize the overriding importance of tying McCain to Bush. Ever since Obama's convention speech, it seems like he can't say three words without uttering the phrase "voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time" (or some variation of it). And that's a really, really good thing.
In his convention acceptance address, Obama said: "And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time."
Yesterday, in addressing the hopeful statement from McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis that the election won't be about issues but the personalities of the candidates, Obama said: "If you've got George Bush's track record, and John McCain voting 90 percent of the time in agreement with George Bush, then you probably don't want to talk about issues either."
But the ultimate demonstration that the campaign was staying on message came when Obama's spokesman Bill Burton gave a 76-word statement in response to Palin's speech at the convention last night, and virtually all of it was about tying the GOP ticket to Bush, including yet another reference to McCain's voting record: "The speech that Gov. Palin gave was well delivered, but it was written by George Bush’s speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we’ve heard from George Bush for the last eight years. If Gov. Palin and John McCain want to define ‘change’ as voting with George Bush 90 percent of the time, that’s their choice, but we don’t think the American people are ready to take a 10 percent chance on change."
It's clear that the Obama campaign gets it: The key to winning is tying McCain (and now Palin) to Bush. And they're going to mention McCain's voting record every chance they get (even if they only use 76 words to make a point).
So it is Palin's Bush-like positions that should (and I think will) be the focus of the campaign's attacks on her, not the more enjoyable (but less effective) stories of her wacky days in Alaska. I have no doubt Obama will focus on the fact that Palin, for example:
- Opposes abortion, even in the cases of rape or where the life of the mother is at stake;
- Favors teaching creationism in schools; and
- Supports Bush's debacle in Iraq, even calling the war "a task from God."
Most of all, they will need to tie the McCain-Palin economic plan to Bush's failed economic policies of the last eight years.
Simply put, Palin's views run to the extreme right, perfectly in sync with those of the current president, and certainly to the right of the moderate undecided voters that McCain will need in the swing states. And the Obama campaign seems to realize that it is its job to make sure as many Americans understand this fact as possible.
Maybe the one Alaska story that will resonate with voters is her politically motivated dismissal of the police chief. After eight years of Bush politicizing the Justice Department, from the firing of the U.S. Attorneys to the political vetting of candidates for non-political positions, Palin's politics-before-competency approach to governing would make her a worthy successor to the incompetence of the Bush years. But I fear this issue will be too esoteric for a less-than-engaged electorate.
We've all had our fun at Palin's expense. But it's time to join Obama and laser in on one task: Demonstrating how a McCain-Palin administration would continue the failed policies of George W. Bush's presidency. If Obama can successfully frame the election in these terms, McCain is in big trouble. And the selection of Palin shows that McCain understands this idea, too.
It's been a fun week, as revelation after revelation about Sarah Palin's record demonstrated time and time again what a ridiculous pick she was to take the VP slot on John McCain's ticket. And even as the right basks in the nearly universal rave reviews for her convention speech last night, it's important to remember one thing about all these Palin stories: They don't matter.
(As an aside, the plaudits for Palin's speech are clearly based on her presentation, not the content, since the substance of her remarks was filled with the same lies and distortions the GOP attack machine has been deploying since February.)
Yes, it's been sublimely entertaining to read the Palin stories from Alaska: After lambasting Barack Obama's experience for two months, John McCain picked a two-year governor of the 47th most populous state in the country (with fewer people than Columbus, Ohio) to be next in line for the presidency to a 72-year-old who has battled cancer. Then the circus surrounding the revelation that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant out of wedlock came to town (along with the inevitable facts coming to light about how Palin opposed sexual education programs in schools and cut funding for programs assisting teen mothers). And then the real fun stories starting flying in: How her husband belonged to a political party that advocated for Alaska seceding from the union and professed hate for the United States, all after the hits Obama and his wife took for allegedly lacking patriotism. How, as mayor, she fired the police chief of her town because he didn't support her campaign (and how his replacement was forced to leave after only two weeks because of his record of sexual harassment). And how she went on a mission to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, even allegedly firing the public safety commissioner because he wouldn't carry out her personal vendetta.
Oh, and of course, the pinnacle of enjoyment for me was Republican flacks Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan getting caught on an open microphone trashing Palin's selection, calling it "cynical" and political.
And all of it doesn't matter. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the theater of the whole thing (and how it confirms McCain and the GOP as being completely out of touch, with no affirmative record or platform to run on). But what has made me the happiest of all is that Obama has stayed on message on the one issue that can win him the election: Tying McCain to the failed presidency of George W. Bush.
Now is not a good time to be a Republican running for office. Top GOP officials routinely admit that it is a bad environment for their party. It seems as if the question isn't if the Democrats will pick up seats in the House and Senate, but how many they will capture. The Republicans are stuck with one of the least popular presidents on record, with Bush currently enjoying an approval rating of only 28 percent in the latest poll by his own propaganda department (Fox News).
For McCain to win in November, he has to distance himself from the Republican brand, and even more so from Bush. He needs to push his myth of being a "maverick" and trick voters into thinking that his policies differ from those put in place by the current president. This is not an easy task, considering that McCain voted with Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007 and 89 percent of the time since Bush took office (according to a Congressional Quarterly voting study), and voted 98 percent of the time with his fellow Republicans (43 of 44) in 2007.
McCain's quest to separate himself from Bush is at the heart of his pick of Palin. Sure, he hoped that some women would be swayed by the selection of a woman, and, even more likely, that some women would be influenced by the inevitable attacks on Palin's record, feeling like the media was ganging up on her. But Palin's outsider status, more than anything else, was the true allure of her selection. The goal was to set up a McCain-Palin ticket as an outside-of-Washington, reformer team to clean up the mess made by Bush.
(We'll leave the fiction of Palin's record as a reformer, including her support of earmarks, her acceptance of at least $4,500 in campaign contributions as part of the same fundraising scheme that led to the indictment of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and her service as a director of a 527 group organized by Stevens, for another piece.)
Much to my delight, Obama seems to realize the overriding importance of tying McCain to Bush. Ever since Obama's convention speech, it seems like he can't say three words without uttering the phrase "voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time" (or some variation of it). And that's a really, really good thing.
In his convention acceptance address, Obama said: "And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time."
Yesterday, in addressing the hopeful statement from McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis that the election won't be about issues but the personalities of the candidates, Obama said: "If you've got George Bush's track record, and John McCain voting 90 percent of the time in agreement with George Bush, then you probably don't want to talk about issues either."
But the ultimate demonstration that the campaign was staying on message came when Obama's spokesman Bill Burton gave a 76-word statement in response to Palin's speech at the convention last night, and virtually all of it was about tying the GOP ticket to Bush, including yet another reference to McCain's voting record: "The speech that Gov. Palin gave was well delivered, but it was written by George Bush’s speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we’ve heard from George Bush for the last eight years. If Gov. Palin and John McCain want to define ‘change’ as voting with George Bush 90 percent of the time, that’s their choice, but we don’t think the American people are ready to take a 10 percent chance on change."
It's clear that the Obama campaign gets it: The key to winning is tying McCain (and now Palin) to Bush. And they're going to mention McCain's voting record every chance they get (even if they only use 76 words to make a point).
So it is Palin's Bush-like positions that should (and I think will) be the focus of the campaign's attacks on her, not the more enjoyable (but less effective) stories of her wacky days in Alaska. I have no doubt Obama will focus on the fact that Palin, for example:
- Opposes abortion, even in the cases of rape or where the life of the mother is at stake;
- Favors teaching creationism in schools; and
- Supports Bush's debacle in Iraq, even calling the war "a task from God."
Most of all, they will need to tie the McCain-Palin economic plan to Bush's failed economic policies of the last eight years.
Simply put, Palin's views run to the extreme right, perfectly in sync with those of the current president, and certainly to the right of the moderate undecided voters that McCain will need in the swing states. And the Obama campaign seems to realize that it is its job to make sure as many Americans understand this fact as possible.
Maybe the one Alaska story that will resonate with voters is her politically motivated dismissal of the police chief. After eight years of Bush politicizing the Justice Department, from the firing of the U.S. Attorneys to the political vetting of candidates for non-political positions, Palin's politics-before-competency approach to governing would make her a worthy successor to the incompetence of the Bush years. But I fear this issue will be too esoteric for a less-than-engaged electorate.
We've all had our fun at Palin's expense. But it's time to join Obama and laser in on one task: Demonstrating how a McCain-Palin administration would continue the failed policies of George W. Bush's presidency. If Obama can successfully frame the election in these terms, McCain is in big trouble. And the selection of Palin shows that McCain understands this idea, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
