Month: August 2011

"We need one strong hombre or hombre-ette, and I'm the hombre-ette to go and stand for you in Washington DC!" – Michele Bachmann, campaigning in South Carolina. As Brian Montopoli points out, "The Spanish word for woman is mujer."

Consternation on the right about the lack of a viable candidate next year is gaining traction. Jonah invokes the Buckley rule (one should support "the most rightward viable candidate") and warns the GOP to err on the side of electability: 

The danger isn’t so much that GOP voters will reject the Buckley rule but that they will think that almost any conservative will be electable given how weak Obama seems. After all, independents don’t subscribe to the Buckley rule — because they’re independents. If the economy improves or Obama gains traction, a Bachmann candidacy could resemble Goldwater ’64 more than Reagan ’80.

Along the same lines, Michael Gerson declared a couple days ago, somewhat tentatively, that "conviction is important, but ideological purity is overrated." Douthat continues to push for Christie's candidacy:

Christie wouldn’t be running to Romney’s left so much as competing with him to be the kind of figure who usually wins the G.O.P. nomination: The establishment-backed center-right candidate who’s acceptable to the grassroots as well. In that contest, he would primarily be drawing contrasts based on electability, personality, recent accomplishments and trustworthiness, rather than trying to establish a radically different ideological brand.

I think Ross is getting desperate. Christie has just gotten into his governorship and is losing popularity in his home state and doesn't want to run yet. Larison, on the other hand, is confident that the field is set. Earlier thoughts on the weakness of the GOP field here and here.

A reader returns to the initial debate over J.J. Abrams:

While the Star Trek universe may be a future in which many forms of sexual expression are accepted and embraced, we have yet to see male homosexuality or bisexuality – which I would argue is still the most taboo in our popular culture – depicted on-screen in any incarnation of Star Trek.

Another:

Abrams knows that if he has a same-sex kiss in a Star Trek film, that's all anybody will talk about in the months before the film is released. They won't be talking about the plot, or the great special effects, or whatever surprise cameo is made by a star from a previous cast. It'll just look like some cheap marketing gimmick from those "Holly-weirdos" trying to force their "crazy librul values" onto middle America. All that for a film that's just supposed to be fun popcorn entertainment.

That's a sad commentary on where we still are as a society, but Abrams isn't responsible for that.

His career is on the line with every big film he helms, he has a huge budget, and the studio better get that money back. And keep in mind that it probably wouldn't be his decision to make, anyway; it is likely up to the studio and the mega-corporation that owns it.

As a big supporter of gay rights, I think that this and the Sesame Street nonsense aren't helping you any. Stop getting so damn offended every time you come across someone who doesn't want to carry the banner for you in everything they make.

Um, I wrote regarding Bert and Ernie:

My gripe is that I've not just been fighting for gays to have the right to marry for two decades; I've also been fighting for them to have the right not to marry, if they so choose. And that applies to Bert and Ernie.

Another reader:

I'm going to go out on a limb and defend J.J. Abrams. A gay relationship in the new Star Trek film would indeed feel distracting and heavy-handed. And it has nothing to do with Star Trek or homosexuality, but the form of feature length film itself. Good films are tightly packed arguments with a clear central thesis – even if that thesis is as simple as 'to save the galaxy, you have to be willing to break the rules.' I agree with Alyssa Rosenburg that Abrams' Star Trek remake seems very disconnected from its original thesis, but it's that same reasoning that leads me to defend Abrams. A commentary on gay rights simply doesn't feel congruent with Abrams' vision of Star Trek - a vision that has admittedly revitalized the franchise (I myself was not a fan). 

But I also want to make a larger point about Star Trek, feature film, and gay characters/commentary. The Star Trek movies have never been as good as the television counterpart. There are plenty of arguments why, but I think that the core thesis of Star Trek is better conveyed through daily life and can't fit into a two-hour popcorn flick. And when it comes to gay characters or sub-plots – in Star Trek or anywhere else – I think television is a far better place to have them. Feature length films (especially blockbusters) have a much higher risk of turning gay characters into superficial token pieces. On television, gay characters can become part of the fabric of the world. They become part of the daily life.

If you want to make gay commentary in film, it feels like you should be making something like Milk – something tight and focused on what it wants to say. Why stuff it into a sci-fi action thriller? Was the world any richer when female or African American presidents were tossed into similar fluff? Movies will only sensationalize or caricature in such a short time span. Television, on the other hand, has weekly breathing room to let you see, laugh, and grow with a character. We can spend years getting to know a character and one day learn that he is gay. Or see the gay couple next door and slowly warm up to them. What can Star Trek give us? A kiss? Two men holding hands? Is it worth it?

The above scene from Lost, a long-running series created by Abrams, seems to be the only one featuring an interaction between gays. Here is how blogger Brian Juergens reacted at the time:

Yes, after four seasons and countless plot twists (including one pink herring) it was revealed last night that one of the show's 4,397 characters is a gay homosexual. … There had been hints to Tom's gayness previously (he had mentioned that Kate "wasn't his type" once before) but this is the first concrete evidence. We also learn that Mr. [Tom] Friendly (played by M.C. Gainey) makes it off the island and tracks down Michael in Manhattan, and has at least found time to clean up and pick up a dapper boytoy named Arturo. He gives a suicidal Michael a beat-down and then breaks the news to him that the island won't let him kill himself. Michael learns that the wreckage of the flight has been found and goes to Tom's hotel room, where Tom asks Arturo to excuse them. They share a quick corner-mouth-peck and Tom gives Michael a look that says, "one word and I'll kick your ass again." He tells Michael that he doesn't make it to the mainland too often and when he does he likes to indulge himself.

"It would be understatement to say I've not been a fan of Rick Perry for president. His shoot-from-the-lips style conveys thoughtlessness. Additionally, the suburbs won't put Elmer Gantry in the Oval Office: Perry can't permit voters to conclude he sells his faith more than he lives it," – Alex Castellanos.

Kornacki suspects Perry will do better if he gets the nomination, the way Clinton did. But Clinton was a political genius. There's no indication that Perry is.

Tom Coburn, who has admirably backed Bowles-Simpson, had a major far-right relapse today. I cannot believe this is the strongest GOP message next year:

You can’t tell me the system is better now than it was before Medicare.

Or maybe that's going to be Paul Ryan's bumber sticker. Then this racist smear:

Without specifying what he meant, Coburn said President Barack Obama has an "intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him."

And for good measure, after Perry's "pretty ugly" threat to Bernanke, we get this only a short time after Gabby Giffords made it back to the Congress:

It’s just a good thing I can’t pack a gun on the Senate floor.

Seriously. Even as the incumbent, Obama, has a massive disadvantage from the economy, the GOP keeps throwing away their opportunities with bile, rhetorical violence and unprecedented policy extremism.

He wasn’t always this way. Tiffany Stanley charts the course of Perry’s pandering Christianism: 

Despite such public displays of piety, Perry’s early religious background is more aligned with that of mainstream religious figures.

Growing up Methodist, he belonged to the mainline tradition that counts both George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton among its members. For years, starting in the 1990s, Perry and his family attended the same affluent Austin-area United Methodist church that Bush 43 did. He has spoken fondly of the denomination, of which he’s still a member, with its liturgy, and its “comfort in tradition and stability.” And yet, in recent years, Perry has chosen to spend most Sundays attending services at an evangelical megachurch, where worship is decidedly flashier—featuring rock music and stadium-style seating.

Politically, he’s been looking to more contemporary, and radical, Christian movements as well. Since at least 2009, as reported in The Texas Observer, Perry has been meeting with ministers affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a loose network of charismatic Christians that espouse a form of Dominionism—the belief that Christians should dominate every facet of life, from government to the arts…Like Christian Right movements before them, NAR adherents deny the separation of church and state and actively encourage Christians to engage in politics..One associated ministry, The Call, has been known to pack stadiums to pray against abortion and same-sex marriage. Perry’s prayer rally was modeled on those very gatherings.

Remember also that Palin started out as a Catholic. The Dominionist fanaticism came later.

Frum provides lessons:

[I]t remains true even now that Republicans do not take intelligence or expertise very seriously as qualifications for the presidency. Mitt Romney's smarts do him surprisingly little good; Rick Perry's non-smarts do him disturbingly little harm; and Michele Bachmann's out-beyond-the-Orion-belt substitutions for familiarity with life here on Earth only intensify the admiration of her fan base.

Pivoting off Greenwald, Matt Eckel says yes:

There used to be Rockefeller Republicans. There used to be Republicans who had grudgingly made their peace with the pillars of the American welfare state. There used to be Republicans who, on the most crucial domestic issue axis (the economy, and government’s regulatory and redistributive role therein) could be trusted to act with a modicum of responsibility. I don’t see those around anymore. I do see a political environment where people like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry dominate the conversation in a way Pat Robertson never managed to do. That really does represent a further shift toward the “extreme.” It’s not just something political consultants have made up.

No, it isn't. For me, the most clarifying moment was the universal rejection of a debt deal that would be 10 – 1 spending cuts to tax increases. There seems to be no actual counter-weight to the pull and pull of the far right. Because the GOP is now a church with doctrines, not a party with policies to address contingent, actual problems.

Rove takes note. McGinniss no longer believes she will run:

The truth is that Sarah has no friends any more. She has no political allies. She has no supporters. Her greed, her blatant stupidity and her malevolent personality have driven them all away. She’s painted herself into a corner from which she cannot escape. The poison she’s spewed throughout her public and private adult life is now seeping back into that corner, and poor little Sarah has nowhere to hide.

Karl Rove has said he still thinks Sarah will enter the race. I thought so myself until quite recently, when I realized she was too cowardly to do so.

Then there's this pile-on from the social right, and a luke-warm defense of it by Mike Potemra. But if you think Palin has no supporters left, you should read the comments after Potemra's post. My faves:

What is the good doctor's problem? If Palin is just a silly washed up celebrity then why pay any attention to her? The most obvious answer is, of course, that the GOP establishment know in their hearts that once Palin announces she will sweep the nomination. Conservative substance will have triumphed over its various counterfeits. The reason why some GOP establishment types resent Gov Palin is this: No one better than forgers know the value of real money.

And this base beaut:

It dosnt matter how much Snarc the left and rinos can muster when the thriller from Wascilla unleashes after the rally on the 3rd we will crush them at the voter booths with overwhelming force of numbers,they will see.,Have the crash carts on stand by they will need them…

As Republicans continue to swoon at the thought of a Ryan candidacy, Ed Kilgore wonders what the hell they're thinking:

Democrats (especially those in Congress) have been plotting for months to make Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, and particularly its radical treatment of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the centerpiece of their 2012 campaign. After all, the proposal drew the support of nearly every Republican in Congress, despite abundant public opinion research (and at least one special election) showing the potential for a strong public backlash against its specific provisions. A Ryan candidacy, in other words, would rigidly align the GOP with its least popular ideas at the very moment that all Democrats, from the president to the lowliest House candidate, are desperate to make this a “comparative” election instead of a temperature reading on life in the Obama era. So why would prominent Republicans be interested in making Democrats so very happy?

Because Bill Kristol is, in fact, not that smart. Steve Benen lambastes Ryan's most recent pronouncements on healthcare. Larison thinks Ryan is an unqualified creature of the elites:

Paul Ryan is being avidly promoted by a number of elite pundits and journalists, and the main reason we are even talking about him as a possible presidential candidate is that some party and movement elites are unhappy with the current field of candidates. Criticism of Ryan’s qualifications for the Presidency is a reaction to having a candidate foisted on us by said elites. Nothing could be more artificial than the “draft Ryan” push being encouraged by some party insiders, and nothing would please many elite conservative pundits more than a Paul Ryan presidential bid.

(Screenshot from the homepage of DraftRyanNow.com)