Mr. Obama Goes To Baltimore

I don't know what President Obama expected to gain by going to a meeting of Republican lawmakers in Baltimore and meeting and answering his critics head-on. It got some good PR for both the President and the Republicans - Obama for taking heat from the opposition, the GOP for having Obama as a guest at their otherwise private party. And the gathering seemed almost European, with the parliamentary-style questioning of the leader by the opposition. But did it lead to any possible paths to solutions on health care? On jobs? Or on campaign finance reform, a newly contentious issue thanks to the Supreme Court?

All the President and the Republicans agreed to do was disagree, if you ask me. And the goodwill generated from the meeting may have given Obama twice as much GOP support as he had beforehand, but how much is two times zero?

State Of the State Of the Union

President Obama's State of the Union address last night hit all the right notes, emphasizing a commitment to job creation, urging Congress to complete work on health care reform, and reiterating the need to reform the nation's banking system. So why did I go away largely uninspired?

Obama, to his credit, didn't lay out a laundry list of wonkish, detailed proposals. Speeches like that are a cure for insomnia. But State of the Union addresses have a soporific quality to them for the predictability of their content and the aftermath, particularly in the inevitable contrarian tone of the opposition's response. It simply wasn't the time for rhetorical flourishes, and Obama pretty much stuck to what was expected. It was thus a solid but measured and unspectacular speech.

Some moments stood out. President Obama announced that eight billion dollars would be committed to start building high-speed rail projects, he recommitted himself to allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military (but, again, did not offer a timetable), and made it clear that he wanted to soften the Supreme Court ruling allowing more corporate money in election campaigns.

The last point created a stir. Obama's (also most people's) interpretation of the ruling caused Justice Samuel Alito to shake his head and mutter "Not true, not true," reminding me once again why I, a resident of Alito's former hometown of West Caldwell, New Jersey, don't brag about Alito or my hometown.

Republicans are likely to be against anything Obama proposes, despite his pleas for bipartisanship. Obama has apparently tried to call the Republicans on their obstructionism and give them some responsibility for helping the President and the Democrats get things done, hopefully holding them accountable in part for gridlock. That may make Republicans look bad - John McCain has already come out against Obama's new jobs bill - but it's not going to get them motivated to help anyone accomplish anything. Besides, Republicans have opposed to medical insurance reform (government takeover of health care), modernizing Amtrak (government takeover of transportation and mobility), financial regulation (government takeover of banks),and gays serving openly in the military (wonder what kind of government takeover they're afraid of here?). Virginia's new Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, made the Republicans' refusal to relent on anything clear in his party's response, hammering away at Big Government to an invited audience in the Virginia House of Delegates chamber in Richmond (which Mark Shields jokingly called the "State of the Confederacy" address). MSNBC noted that this was the first time the Republicans had delivered a State of the Union response in the form of an address rather than one person alone in a room with a TV camera (forgetting that New Jersey governor Christine Whitman pulled the same stunt in the nineties after one of President Clinton's Sate of the Union addresses by addressing an invited audience in the New Jersey Assembly chamber).

Many of the proposals Obama has made revive the economy to create jobs - government investment in key programs, spending freezes on other programs to cut the deficit - are sure to be debated over the net few weeks and months, but sooner later there'll be a time when talk has to end and action has to begin. And once it does begin, Obama's initiatives will hopefully create more jobs. They'd better. America is out work.

Literally. Actress America Ferrera is unemployed. ABC just canceled her show "Ugly Betty."

Time Out Of My Mind

In the spirit of Bill Maher, I'd like to propose the following new rule: Cable news channels should not have a countdown clock leading up to the start of a presidential State of the Union address. Hello? A State of the Union address? You're counting down to that? It's a constitutionally required annual message to Congress, not the liftoff of an expedition to Mars! If you want to count down to an end in politics, count down the days until Harry Reid is voted out of office!

Bonking the ACORN Bonker

Tell me I'm not dreaming. Tell me it really happened. Tell me that James O'Keefe, the right-wing activist who implicated the Associations of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) in an Abscam-style prostitution scheme with doctored video and exaggerated claims. finally got his just deserts. O'Keefe was arrested in trying to bug - yes, bug - the New Orleans office of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) for her vote for the Senate health care bill (now stalled) using young men in their twenties like himself posing as telephone repairmen. The plan apparently was either entrap Landrieu in a prank of some sort or commit some more serious form of political espionage. After humiliating ACORN in an attempt (successful, alas) to cut off their associations with the federal government, O'Keefe tried to go after someone in the government -Seantor Landrieu - to create a scandal. He only got himself in a scandal now. He and his three co-conspirators are to be in court today for pretrial meetings.

Tell me this is the first nail in the coffin of the right-wing movement. Tell me this is the butterfly's wing flap that creates an anti-conservative storm. Tell me, please, that this is the beginning of the end of the dominance of the American right.

Auto Company Overhauls

General Motors reached a deal to sell Saab to the Netherlands-based Spyker Cars NV, a speciality car firm. Many Saab fans are obviously happy about this, meaning that the storied brand will live on. It's likely it will compete with GM's Opel brand in Europe. For Saab, this is indeed a Dutch treat. :-)

With this sale finally out of the way, GM is investing in the future - sort of. The company insists n building more light trucks, but it hope to increase the corporate average fuel economy of its cars by making electric motors for its upcoming rear-wheel-drive hybrids, spending $246 million on a new plant to produce them. Ford, meanwhile, is moving production of the latest generation of its Explorer SUV to a newly redone plant in Chicago, while a factory that previously made the Explorer will build smaller cars. The good news is that the Chicago factory is hiring. The bad news is that new hires will only make fourteen dollars an hour. That's a good wage these days, but far less than autoworkers used to make.

It's a whole new ball game.

Rock and Roll Over

I'm not reassured when the stock market invites the guys responsible for songs with titles like "Sweet Pain" to ring the closing bell.

All hail the gods of thunder. :-O

Stand Pat

To be young, gifted and black . . .. It's apparently important to attract voters who are none of those things.

Recently, Pat Buchanan, playing the role of the "conservative conscience" of MSNBC, cited the less educated and older white voters who deserted the Democrats in last week's Massachusetts special Senate election and declared that they are the key to winning elections in 2010 and 2012 as the country keeps going through economic convulsions. Buchanan insisted that President Obama, who is young, gifted and black, ought to take the concerns of these voters, many of whom are opposed to larger government and a more public role in health care, into consideration if he wants to be an effective President. So, what the President ought to take away from the Massachusetts election is to just preserve the status quo? Because that's exactly what Senator Brown of Massachusetts (to avoid confusion with Senator Brown of Ohio, Sherrod Brown, the good Senator Brown) advocated in his campaign. Somehow, I don't remember the Obama slogan from 2008 as "Conventionality We Can Believe In."

Buchanan disparaged the black voters, younger voters, and better educated voters of any race as a fringe bloc, though he didn't use those words. Obama, alarmingly, may have learned the wrong lesson from the Massachusetts election results. He's ready to scale back health care reform and sidestep gingerly if not avoid altogether tough climate change legislation in an apparent effort to win back those older, whiter, and dumber voters. Scott Brown, born two years before the biracial Obama, is himself older, whiter and dumber than the President.

Meanwhile, I don't understand why the Democrats are ready to "stand pat" when, as one progressive group pointed out, they have a larger majority in the Senate under Obama than the Republicans did under George Walker Bush - who got just about everything he wanted from Congress. Also, you're telling me it takes a three-fifths majority of sixty senators to pass a law, but it takes only a simple majority of five Supreme Court justices to throw it out?

To give you an idea of Democrats have crippled themselves with their own timidity, it's worth referring the scene at Martha Coakley's concession speech last week. The astute observer will remember that John Kerry was present . . . he was standing to Coakley's right side on crutches. How fitting for a milquetoast presidential candidate whose election could have stopped John Roberts and Samuel Alito from getting on the Supreme Court.

Something In the Airwaves

It's official: Italian-Americans are the only white ethnic group left that can be stereotyped. And if you're an Italian-American from New Jersey, watch out.

A couple of months ago, MTV premiered "The Jersey Shore," a so-called reality show, depicting Italian-Americans in a rented New Jersey beach house having sex, drinking, and lying out in the sun working on their tans - if they hadn't sprayed them on already. The Italian-American group UNICO demanded that the show be taken off the air, claiming it unfairly depicted Italian-Americans in general and Italian-Americans from New Jersey in particular (even though most of these young folks aren't from New Jersey) as vulgar, crass buffoons with big hair and small brains who all talk like they have marbles in their mouths. Though MTV reacted with greater sensitivity to a smaller show stereotyping young Puerto Ricans, they refused to consider the concerns of Italian-Americans.

Why? Maybe it's because "Jersey Shore" got good ratings. In fact, it set new ratings records for MTV, drawing an unprecedented 4.8 million viewers for the season finale Thursday night.

Twelve-year-olds love it.

While there is an element of truth in stereotypes - "Jersey Shore" was filmed in Seaside Heights, a town I've visited before, one of those places where girls dressed like Madonna before she became famous - not all Italian-Americans are like that. Nevertheless, it seems that Italians don't seem to have the same kind of luck other ethnic groups somehow have in getting those who perpetuate ethnic stereotypes to cut it out. And to be honest, UNICO president Andre' DeMino should consider his own public image before speaking out against shows like "Jersey Shore." Because when you have inch-long hair that stands on end, and you wear dark green shirts with silver ties, you're probably not the best spokesman for fighting Italian-American stereotypes. In any case, being from New Jersey and half-Italian myself, I'm offended by this show, yes, but I'm even more offended by two other embarrassments to the Italian-American population that are associated with New Jersey.

They're both sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Speaking of which, don't tune in to Air America for pointers on what can be done about John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and the aforementioned Jersey Boys, Scalia and Alito, as they tear apart decades of thoughtful judicial precedent. The liberal talk radio network went off the air last week. Liberal talk radio was always something of an oxymoron, but Air America's failure is due less to an unpopular product - a more progressive political agenda - than to a media establishment that at best limits and at worst stifles contrary voices to their mainstream, conservative biases and agenda. Too bad. UNICO might have found a friendly voice in Air America, which was always against the kind of exploitative fare "Jersey Shore" represents.

Family - A Song For Me (1970)

Normally I don't repost anything from another page or blog of mine, but this case I'm willing to make an exception. Forty years ago today Family released their landmark album A Song For Me, and to recognize that anniversary, I offer here my review of the album from my Family page. I originally wrote this in October 2002. :-)

When Family went into the recording studio in late 1969 to make their third album, with new members John Weider and Poli Palmer, the stakes couldn't have been higher; they had suffered various blows throughout the year, and it seemed as if the group was irrevocably damaged. Furthermore, this was to be their first self-produced LP. All Family had to do to prove that they had rebounded from their setbacks was to concoct a decent album. Instead, they went far better and surprised everyone by making one of the most astonishing rock albums of the early seventies.

Issued in January 1970, A Song For Me is an act of defiance from a band that refuses to surrender to the kind of adversity that would have devastated other groups and comes back stronger and sharper than ever. Family had formed a new production company to replace John Gilbert's management, and they gained a sense of freedom along with confidence in both their music and in taking full control of the recording process. The ten cuts on A Song For Me are an eclectic mix of country, folk, twelve-bar blues, and brutally hard rock in which conventional rock and roll boundaries are outlined and subsequently smashed. Weider's rough bass certainly helped, and Palmer contributed an awesome array of skills as a pianist, flutist, and vibraphone player, but the remaining original members were no less potent. Charlie Whitney's guitar slashed through chord changes with raw intensity, and Rob Townsend's drumming was nothing short of a major assault. But it was Roger Chapman, as usual, who outdid everyone; his voice had now mutated in a hideously wonderful screech that, to paraphrase Robert Christgau, could kill small animals at a hundred yards.

Independence is the main theme on A Song For Me, as the songs mainly deal with refusing to bow to conformity and accepting the risks of freedom as well as its rewards. (This had obviously been a recurring theme in Family's music, as a few of the songs here had actually been part of the band's legendarily powerful live set long before this album was recorded.) "Drowned In Wine," the opening cut, is an incredible band performance alternating between subdued, intense folk rock and slashing power riffs, accentuated by Chapman's scorching bleats and Palmer's overamplified flute. There are elements of danger throughout. "Some Poor Soul," in which Chapman displays his gentler side, depicts a nighttime rural landscape where the wildlife scurries nervously beneath the seemingly placid surface (nice acoustic guitar from Whitney); "Wheels," a song about trying and failing to achieve personal fulfillment, is highlighted by choppy guitar chords. The song is full of self-doubt, but without the self-pity. "Stop For the Traffic," by contrast, finds the song's narrator liberated by the sense of possibility as onlookers who "are smiling desperately" crave his carefree attitude, to the backdrop of echoey guitars.

As Family frees itself from the past, it offers stunning insight into the idea of doing so. "Song For Sinking Lovers," a tale of regret and separation from a woman, bristles with a strong country-rock arrangement that climaxes with a heavy raveup between Whitney's banjo and Weider's violin. But Family mostly looks ahead here musically, changing tempos and styles within songs more radically than on previous albums. They also change moods by directly cutting from one song to another, as in following a short nightclub jazz song, "Hey - Let It Rock," with the hard rockabilly song "The Cat and the Rat," as well as adding instruments in a seemingly implausible manner (vibes in the steaming blues rocker "Love Is a Sleeper").

The absolute masterpiece on the A Song For Me LP is the title song, which is one of the nastiest hard rock performances ever committed to disc. Throughout the song's nine minutes, against the backdrop of a blistering electric riff, Whitney sprays notes from his guitar like bullets from a machine gun while Weider's violin passages rush out like ghosts from a haunted house. As Palmer bangs on his piano with full force, Townsend's drums explode all over the stereo spectrum. Topping it all off is Roger Chapman's incendiary vocal, shredding whole verses while drowning out everyone else. As "A Song For Me" progresses, the initially medium tempo picks up for a rousing finish comparable to the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" of a year later.

If there's one flaw in A Song For Me, it's the somewhat muddy production, owing to Family's difficulties with studio technology as first-time producers. The decision to record the guitar, bass, and drums together as a three-piece set complicated the mixing stage as well. This, however, is a mere quibble; A Song For Me (which peaked at number four on the U.K. album chart, the best showing there for the group) remains an explosive document of a group determined to overcome adversity. It is more than a great album; it is an indisputable classic.

The Best of the BAD

If you're still confused by BAD as defined by Paul Fussell, a quick rundown of the difference between the bad and the BAD should make it clearer. Some of these examples are mine, others come from Fussell's 1991 book "BAD Or, The Dumbing of America."

Jell-O is bad food. Dyed, chemically treated fruit is BAD food.

Howard Stern is bad because he's an obnoxious radio entertainer. But because Stern has never pretended to be sophisticated or profound, he doesn't qualify as BAD. Rush Limbaugh, who's taken seriously as a political commentator despite his own obnoxiousness and his inability to get his facts straight, is BAD.

A public sign that misuses the apostrophe ("Open Sunday's") is merely bad, but a sign that needlessly inflates language ("Open Monday to Sunday" instead of the simpler "Open Daily," for example) is BAD.

Detroit is a bad city. Atlantic City, which is just as rotted and decaying as Detroit but bills itself as a tourist destination because of its glitzy, modern, sumptuously appointed casino-hotels, is BAD. Las Vegas, because of its sense of what kind of city it is and its acknowledgment of its own character, is more bad than BAD, but Washington, D.C., because it is our nation's capital and has nothing other than the showy, empty political elite to brag about, is very BAD.

Sarah Palin and Scott Brown, I believe, are more bad than BAD because they're not showy enough, but if either one of them runs for President, that may change.

I think that should explain Fussell's ideas.

John Edwards: BAD to the Bone

The great intellectual Paul Fussell once described the idea of BAD, as opposed to what is merely bad, as thus: Plain bad is something like a case of scarlet fever or a failing grade - something no one ever said was good. BAD, on the other hand, is something that can be seen as wonderful, prized, desirable and valued but is in fact pretentious, showy, stupid, fake and shallow. John Edwards falls into the latter category.

Edwards finally admitted that he is in fact the father of his mistress Rielle Hunter's daughter. This, in and of itself, was hardly shocking news - people figured it out. What was shocking was that Edwards lied about it and went through great lengths and spent great amounts of campaign money to cover it up in his quest to uphold his image as an erudite, virtuous populist. Edwards in fact was none of those things, and the scandal revealed himself to be a duplicitous phony divorced from the reality of his own personality. A glib trial lawyer who talked his way into a fortune and proved to be clueless on many issues - particularly foreign policy - that he needed a grasp of if he were to be elected President of the United States, Edwards showed a callous selfishness cheating on a wife battling cancer and walking around with expensive haircuts while claiming to be a man of the people. It makes his announcement for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination from a Katrina-ravaged neighborhood in New Orleans seem all the more cynical, and no less phony than when George Walker Bush went down there after the hurricane to help build a house.

You can come back, Gary Hart. All is forgiven.

By the way, I take back my criticism of Jim Cramer for his rants against Edwards. Cramer was on to something about Edwards, citing the hedge funds Edwards was involved in that enabled him in part to build up his fortune. He could sense the phoniness in Edwards that most of us - me included - could not. That's what makes Edwards so despicable - he fooled everyone with his white-knight persona, even his closest aides and supporters. Now I understand why he was so conscious about his appearance. He had to tend to two faces.

Edwards's outing as a reprehensible monster is an upward blip in an otherwise downward trend. As Paul Fussell wrote, politicians in America, like so many other American people, places and things, are BAD to such a great degree that calling it out is hardly going to reduce the level of BAD in this country.

Late-Night Musical Chairs

The dust has settled, and everyone is ready to move forward in the interest of the general public.

No, I'm not talking about health care reform, I'm referring to the deal struck over at NBC. Jay Leno is moving back to "The Tonight Show" after the Winter Olympics are over. The once-proud Peacock Network gave Conan O'Brien and his staff severance pay totalling $45 million, $33 million of which is going to O'Brien.

There are no winners in this sorry affair. NBC first forced Leno into early retirement when his ratings began to slip, and he happily agreed to step aside. Then he used his capital to stay in violation of the agreement inked in 2004 when his ratings began to go back up, creating a sense of contentiousness not seen since Johnny Carson retired and Leno went up against David Letterman for the right to succeed him. Meanwhile, as noted before, O'Brien has been denied the chance to develop "The Tonight Show" in his own persona. As it evolved, a Conan O'Brien-hosted "Tonight Show" would have been different from the Leno version as the Leno version was different from the show in Carson's day.

Ironies abound here. Leno was forced to give up "The Tonight Show" in the interest of NBC's long-term planning for late night, and now his return to that program is a quick fix. The lack of long-term planning on NBC's part involving drama series in the 10 PM Eastern hour forces the network to quickly fill the time slot Leno has just vacated before they can think of planning for the long term. And the quick fixes Jeffrey Zucker was trying to keep NBC afloat in the ratings for prime time a decade ago have created long-term problems for NBC to address, now that the Leno experiment has failed even as NBC's prime time lineup features some of the least impressive shows of recent memory. Is "Parks and Recreation" really that funny?

Leno may have returned to late night in triumph like Napoleon returning from Elba, but Napoleon at least was able to convince enough French soldiers to stand by him at Waterloo. It remains to be seen whether Leno can win back fans who got bored with him during his ill-fated prime time show. As for O'Brien, whose similarly short-lived "Tonight Show" stint ends tonight with his last show, he'll be a free agent this September. And there at least two other networks (CBS isn't one of them, of course) who may be interested in him. Look for Fox, whose efforts to establish a late-night presence have been as unsuccessful as CBS's were during the Pat Sajak era, to come calling for Conan.

Money Swears

Got speech for sale?

The Supreme Court today overturned decades of laws restricting corporations from spending money on political campaigns. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the usual suspects, dismissed the overturned laws as tantamount to government thought control. The decision was a victory for the right-wing group Citizens United, which put out an infomercial masquerading as a documentary about - and making the case against - Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

A lower court ruled against Citizens United. It stated that the infomercial violated a provision in the McCain-Feingold Act, which forbids corporations, unions and other interest groups from using funds from their general treasuries for an airing of a television program that refers to a candidate for federal office during an election season, according to the Washington Post. The right-wing bloc on the Court expanded it to cover the constitutionality of campaign finance laws in general, and struck down laws dating back sixty years in the process. The ruling adds insult to injury against the American progressive movement, still reeling from the special Senate election loss in Massachusetts. In addition to health care on life support, liberals now have to face corporate America outspending them into political irrelevance.

The silver lining? Unions can spend as much money as they want, too.

President Obama criticized the decision, and New York senator Charles Schumer has vowed to push for new legislation that would, among other things, limit donations from government contracts and get shareholder approval for campaign spending, but trying to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling is like trying to avoid quicksand in the jungle; you have to tread very carefully, and you might still slip. Congress has to produce a law that passes constitutional muster according to the current Court's view. Good luck.

Corporate America won a victory for "free speech," which they can put a price on now.

The Undistinguished Gentleman

After a comically endless and insufferably smug victory speech that made Bill Clinton's 1988 Democratic convention speech sound like Cicero, noted centerfold model Scott Brown made the obligatory talk show rounds as Massachusetts's new senator-elect, explaining his positions on taxation and fiscal discipline and vowing to be a different kind of Republican - as if Edward Brooke, the last Republican to represent the Bay State in the Senate, hadn't been so different. (A black liberal Republican sounded like a novelty even in the seventies.) Brownie did a heck of a job at his first post-election press conference, insisting that he supports health care reform but that he wants to see a better bill than the one we have now (you mean you support a public option, Brownie?), and that he wants to work with President Obama and the rest of Congress to make it happen.

All . . . right.then - if Scottzo is sincere about this, let's see him work with Democrats to make health care reform a reality! Who else would Obama go to in the Senate Republican caucus to work with? Ohio's George Voinovich? Maine's Olympia Snowe? Maybe even . . . George LeMieux of Florida? You can't be serious! Here's your chance to prove you're not just another Cosmopolitan superstud, Brownie - go out and get health care reform done for the people! Come on, Scott - show your stuff!

You did it in June 1982.

By the way, is it just me, or does anyone else get the vibe that Scott Brown's favorite song is "My Sharona?"

Meanwhile, I'd like to offer the following message to Martha Coakley. . . . I've been having a bad week, too. So don't be discouraged, Martha my dear - someone understands. :-(

Mr. Brown of Massachusetts

Congratulations, Massachusetts . . .

You just elected a rabid, reactionary tea-party-supporting, bigoted, truck-driving, graceless centerfold model and action hero who embarrassingly can't and won't shut up about himself without publicly disgracing his wife and daughters in the process as your new U.S. senator!

I hope the spirit of Massachusetts is not the spirit of America.

Governor Christie

The Jon Corzine era, as the two thousand zeroes are likely to be remembered in New Jersey, is over. After six years as a U.S. senator and four years as governor of New Jersey, Corzine has stepped aside and gotten off the stage. Now the state is in the hands of noted reckless driver Chris Christie, who has taken over a state that's in a sorrier situation than his driving record. The state is broke, property taxes are through the roof, and thousands of people are unemployed.

Christie has vowed to get to work right away, promising to get more aid to the state's unemployment insurance fund, give property tax rebates as a stepping stone to property tax reform, reform higher education, streamline state regulations, and, uh, give tax cuts to the rich. Well, he might not get very far on that last point, given a Democratic legislature. But as he's is my state's governor now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He seems to be ready to get right to work and play hardball for reforming the state's pension systems and saving the state's sports authority, which runs the Meadowlands complex. We have to give him a chance to sort things out and set new Jersey right. No pun intended.

Let's see what happens. It's going to be a short honeymoon, to be sure.

An Unfinished Career

The new book "Game Change" by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann reveals what a big monster John Edwards was in documenting his affair with a freelance filmmaker and the love child it produced. Edwards carried on the affair even as his wife Elizabeth was battling cancer and tried to bargain with Barack Obama for the Vice Presidency, then a Cabinet position, before the baby was born in exchange for his support. The best he could get was a speaking slot at the Democratic convention. By the time the convention took place, the scandal broke and even that was out of the question, as Edwards's political capital was worth about as much as a Guyanese dollar. I take that back - the Guyanese dollar is worth much more. This story only makes me realize how a man with a potentially great career in public service threw it all away on a fling.

I refer, of course, to former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.

One other thing we learn from Halperin and Heilemann's book is that Edwards was a consummate phony, speaking out on the issue of poverty while making an obscene amount of money as a trial lawyer and living just as obscenely in a 28,200-square foot mansion, complete with a recreational annex that includes a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, a kitchen, bathrooms, a swimming pool, and a four-story tower. While Edwards talked about fighting for the little guy, Eliot Spitzer did fight for the little guy. He has a record. Not the police record form the prostitution sting, but his record as New York State Attorney General. He prosecuted cases involving white collar crime, securities fraud, environmental law violations, and even fraud at the now-discredited American International Group. He could have been one of the great governors of New York, and possibly America's first Jewish President. Now Spitzer is disgraced, and so is his state. Governor David Paterson has been a complete failure as the state's accidental chief executive, with the state budget a mess and the economy arguably in worse shape than the national economy.

I at least hope that New York State residents are grateful for the job he did as Attorney General. New York, Connecticut, and, yes, Massachusetts are fortunate to be able to elect their own attorneys general and have someone accountable to the people to fight for the people. In New Jersey, the attorney general is appointed by and serves at the pleasure at the governor.

As for Spitzer, he's still an important voice to listen to, and people do listen to him - he's appeared on Ed Schultz's MSNBC show periodically to tell people how Wall Street is still screwing us. He may have a thing or two to tell us about hedge funds, which benefited Edwards.

It's only too bad he's no longer in a position to do anything about any of this.

Make Massachusetts Scott-Free!

Scott Brown is a dangerous man. He's Sarah Palin in a suit and tie.

Scott Brown, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Massachusetts's special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy, more than opposes the Obama health care plan. He opposes taxing the banks to restore fairness to the economic system in this country. He opposes financial reform of any kind. He also opposes emergency abortions for impregnated rape victims. Martha Coakley favors more punitive taxes on the greedy bankers and no punitive restrictions on woman's reproductive rights - or any women's rights. You vote for Brown, you vote for reactionarism that sets the country back to the George Walker Bush days.

I reiterate this blog's endorsement of Martha Coakley for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts. Please make sure that the Coakley loss I predicted does . . . not . . . happen!

Martha my dear . . . you, go, girl! (Beatles title mixed with hip-hop slang - nice touch, huh?)

Corrections: January 18, 2010

I need to issue two corrections regarding my post on the Coakley-Brown U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts titled, "Martha My God!":

I wrote that Mitt Romney's election to the governorship of Massachusetts was the fifth straight Republican victory for that office; it was in fact the fourth.

The second correction is actually more of a clarification. I wrote that no Republican has been elected to the U.S .Senate from Massachusetts since Edward Brooke was elected in 1972. He was elected to a second term, so "re-elected" was a better choice of a word. I have made these corrections in the original post.

I regret these errors.

Burr In the Saddle

The race in Massachusetts to fill the unexpired U.S. Senate term of Ted Kennedy is almost over. Thank God for that. But there are still the regular midterm Senate elections and other special races ahead. Despite their diminished standing in the polls, Democrats think they have a realistic shot of winning one or more of the open Senate seats being vacated by Republicans, namely in New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida and possibly Kentucky (yeah, right). They're even eyeing the seat of Republican Richard Burr in North Carolina, who is not retiring but whose poll numbers are weak - in Harry Reid territory - and has kept a low profile.

But Burr is also in jeopardy due to what I like to call Sam Ervin's curse. The curse goes like this: No incumbent senator has won re-election to this seat since Sam Ervin, the folksy Democrat who chaired the Senate committee investigating the Watergate affair, was re-elected to the seat in . . . 1968. To give you some perspective, that was the year Ervin's fellow North Carolinian Andy Griffith's namesake sitcom aired its last episode. And "Matlock" has come and gone since then.

A history of elections to the seat since then goes like this:

Ervin chose not to run for re-election in 1974, the year President Nixon resigned over Watergate. North Carolina's state attorney general, Robert Burren Morgan, was elected to the Senate that year with 63 percent of the vote. In the Senate, Morgan established himself as moderate-conservative in the Jimmy Carter mold. But dissatisfaction with Carter in North Carolina in 1980 allowed Ronald Reagan to carry the state in that year's presidential election and allowed Republican John East to narrowly defeat Morgan in his bid for a second term. East exploited Morgan's involvement in the Panama Canal Treaty that eventually gave control of the canal to the Panamanian government.

East, a rabid social conservative like his colleague Jesse Helms, chose not to run for a second term in 1986, citing his failing health; he was a paraplegic from polio and had hypothyroidism. In June 1986, he committed suicide, and the Republican governor named Republican Representative James Broyhill, a scion of a North Carolina furniture manufacturing family, as an interim senator. Broyhill ran for the remaining two months of East's term and for a full term in his own right but was defeated by Democrat Terry Sanford in both elections, both held on November 4, 1986.

Sanford, a former governor and president of Duke University, served a full term in the Senate, where he had a record for supporting policies for economic development for Central America. In 1992 he lost his bid for a second full term to the ridiculously named Republican Lauch Faircloth, an ex-Democrat and a former highway commissioner in Sanford's gubernatorial administration and onetime Sanford "friend." Sanford himself was so dissatisfied with the Senate, he almost retired voluntarily.

Faircloth, another Helms manqué like John East, lost his bid for re-election in 1998 to John Edwards, who became a superstar for his star quality and his aw-shucks Mayberry style. Edwards didn't run for re-election in 2004, choosing instead to run for President that year; some say he would have lost that year, citing his falling standing in North Carolina polls. As it turned out, the seat changed parties once again, with Republican Richard Burr defeating former Clinton White House Chief of Staff (and current University of North Carolina system) Erskine Bowles in that November's election.

Fast forward to 2010. Richard Burr is a Republican incumbent in an election year that favors Republicans but not incumbents. And Burr is currently seen more as the latter than the former.

Abandon all hope, ye who enter Sam Ervin's Senate seat.

Forget Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania or Harry Reid in Nevada. Richard Burr's bid for re-election to the Senate from North Carolina is the race I want to watch.

A Blue State To Go Brown?

I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling Martha Coakley is going to lose the special election to Republican state senator Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts.

The first indication of a "Brown-out" in Tuesday's election is that Coakley is a worse candidate then she appears to be. After seeing audioless clips of her campaigning, on MSNBC, I watched the PBS NewsHour, which played a clip of Coakley speaking - with sound. It was then that I finally got to hear her talk.

To say she's stodgy is like saying Atlanta is uncomfortable in July. She's one of the stiffest women I've ever seen, and her voice could cure insomnia. She needs John Kerry to campaign for her . . . for the charisma.

That's where the second telltale sign comes in. John Kerry, Obama aide Mitch Stewart, and Democratic operative (and Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank's sister) Ann Lewis had e-mails sent in their names today - that's right, today - asking for money to give Coakley a lift in the final three days of the campaign. I got all of them. This is the kind of desperation associated with the presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis in 1988, Dukakis, of course, was the governor of Massachusetts.

The thing is that even if Coakley were as glamorous or as charismatic as, say, Scarlett Johansson, it wouldn't help. She's the Massachusetts Attorney General, making her look like an incumbent in a year where being an incumbent officeholder isn't so advantageous right now. Also, Scott Brown has made some key tactical moves that has put him in good standing with voters. Asked by David Gergen in this past Monday's debate if he thought it was plausible that such an arch-conservative Republican like himself could take over Ted Kennedy's seat, Brown retorted that the seat doesn't belong to the Kennedys or the Democrats, but rather to the people. And all across Massachusetts, you could hear voters say, "Ooh, good answer - good answer!"

On top of that, Brown ran an ad featuring a clip of John F. Kennedy - who also held that seat - arguing in favor of tax cuts, which Brown supports. Brown conveniently left out the fact that Kennedy also believed in giving something back to your country, selectively using elements of the thirty-fifth U.S. President's record to make himself look like an appropriate heir to the Kennedy legacy.

Except for one thing - Brown promises to oppose the health care reform bill currently being hammered out in Congress. As noted, a forty-first Republican vote in the Senate to block passage of the bill will effectively kill it, making health care reform a dead issue for another generation. That the fatal vote could come from a senator holding Ted Kennedy's seat is, of course, ironic. But many Massachusetts residents may not care much because the state already has universal health insurance, courtesy of the gubernatorial administration of Mitt Romney, who in 1994 almost won the Senate seat of . . . Ted Kennedy. Brown isn't just a conservative Republican - he's even more reactionary than the last Republican to hold that seat, Henry Cabot Lodge II . . . and possibly even more so than the original Henry Cabot Lodge.

Which is why this blog endorses Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts. Yes, she's boring, but, in regard to health care, if we don't get boring we're going to get screwed. Brown is a more exciting candidate, no doubt about that - that centerfold photo he did for Cosmopolitan certainly generated heat - but a hostage crisis is also exciting. I don't want excitement from my government. I want a shot at buying some decent medical insurance.

Another reason to vote for Coakley. . . . If you thought that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck were gloating insufferably over the failure of President Obama to get the 2016 Olympics for Chicago, well, if Brown wins this election Tuesday, you ain't seen nothing yet!

I said that I think Coakley will lose. So come on, Bay State voters, prove me wrong.

R.I.P. Teddy Pendergrass

Teddy Pendergrass, one of the greatest soul singers of all time and the greatest voice in Philadelphia soul, died yesterday at 59 of colon cancer. Pendergrass was known for a big, expressive voice that employed to great effect, both as the lead singer for Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes and as a solo artist. Blue Notes hits like "If You Don't Know Me By Now," "Bad Luck," and "The Love I Lost" and Pendergrass solo hits like "Love TKO" were indicative of his vocal style.

In 1982, Pendergrass was severely paralyzed for life in a car accident, yet he continued performing and considered himself blessed to be able to do so. This blogger missed perhaps his best moment. I was at Live Aid n Pendergrass's hometown of Philadelphia, and I had to either use the restroom or get a drink - and I missed Pendergrass's performance, one of the most poignant of the show, while I was away. I was so bummed.

A lot of people loved Teddy Pendergrass, and now he's the love they lost. Rest in peace. :-(

Palin: Evil Or Stupid?

My British ladyfriend Therisa, whom you already know about, hates Sarah Palin with a cold passion. Citing Palin's atrocious animal welfare record as governor of Alaska, Therisa threatened on her MySpace page (which is not private, so I'm not giving anything away here) that she would leave the U.S. if John McCain were to be elected President and the evil Palin were a heartbeat away from ultimate power.

Well, that never happened, and so Therisa stayed in America. But the comments on Palin in John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's new book "Game Change" reveal more facts about Palin that seem to suggest that her biggest problem is not an evil heart but an empty head. Palin was always known to be something of a dim bulb, but Halperin and Heilemann show that she's far more stupid than even her most ferocious critics realized; she makes George Walker Bush look like Aristotle. Among the the revelations in this book about the woman Rush Limbaugh holds in such high regard:

Palin had to be schooled into understanding what both world wars were about, and how they started;

She didn't know the difference between North Korea and South Korea, or even that Korea was divided into two independent states (I'm only a year or so younger than Palin, and I learned about Korea simply by watching "M*A*S*H!");

She didn't know what the Federal Reserve does;

She believed Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, and when she saw her son off to military service in post-Saddam Iraq, she couldn't explain who we were fighting there, and;

She asked Senator Joseph Biden at their 2008 vice presidential debate if she could call him "Joe" not to disarm him with charm but to avoid conflating his and Barack Obama's surnames and calling him "O'Biden," which she'd been doing in practicing for the debate. Or maybe she was conflating it with Conan O'Brien, who might have been a better interviewer for her than Katie Couric. Well, Joe Biden is Irish, so it must be an Irish thing. In any event, she referred to Biden as "O'Biden" once during the debate, but the slip pretty much went unnoticed.

So, when Sarah Palin went about trying to ban books from libraries as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska or permit wolves to be shot in cold blood from helicopters as governor of Alaska, it was possibly more out of ignorance than malice. I'll be happy to forgive her if she knows not what she does, but do we really want someone who doesn't know what she's doing to run the country?

What could Palin, who turns 46 next month, possibly do with her life at this point? How about being a commentator for Fox News, a gig she just started? Yes, she's an idiot, but that's what qualifies her to be on Fox News. And the handsome paycheck she'll get from that may dissuade her to run for President in 2012. After all, the President of the United States only makes $400,000 a year.

The Earthquake In Haiti

I watched with interest a report on Haiti on the PBS NewsHour on Monday, before the devastating earthquake hit the the Port-au-Prince area, and it explained how the Western Hemisphere's poorest nation was trying to pick itself up after over two hundred years of anarchy and poverty. many international organizations were providing Haiti with aid and many of its debts were being foreign so that it could invest more in its people. The report explained how Haiti - the second oldest independent nation in the Americas, after the United States - was bring given one more chance - possibly one last chance - to get things right.

With this 7.0-Richter scale quake, which has left hundreds of thousands of people dead, all bets are now off. It is the most cosmic form of irony that Haiti should find its fortunes, which began to look promising after the election of President René Preval in 2006, reversed in a single natural disaster. Now, more than ever, anyone who can help with aid should do so. It's hard to find anyone without sympathy for the Haitian people.

But not impossible. Many people have already heard Rush Limbaugh's assertion that Preisdent Obama is sending aid to the Haitians to shore up support among his fellow black Americans and that he cares more about Haiti than about terrorism. But Limbaugh's racially bigoted, logically bewildering rhetoric pales in comparison to Pat Robertson's insistence that the earthquake was divine retribution for a pact Haitians supposedly made with the devil to win their independence from France.

Here's what Robertson said: "They were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'OK, it’s a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got . . . themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."

For the record, the Haitians revolted against France because the French parliament tried to restore slavery in the colony (then called Saint-Domingue) after it had been abolished by the National Convention government that took over France in 1792. Napoleon Bonaparte (not Napoleon III, the nephew of the original Napoleon) sent an army to crush the slave revolt, but the army was defeated by the slaves and done in by yellow fever - not the devil. Napoleon's troubles in Haiti led him to sell the Louisiana territory to the United States, including New Orleans.

Speaking of which, I don't want to repeat Robertson's interpretation of Hurricane Katrina.

Modesty In Motown

The North American International Auto Show in Detroit kicked off with much less glitz and glitter in a much more subdued fashion. Good ol' American showmanship remained in high gear (no pun intended) on the auto show circuit during the last great recession of 1981 and 1982, when General Motors was so full of itself it boasted it could build a small car just as good as anything from the Japanese . . . and demonstrated their inability to do so with the Chevrolet Cavalier. Even the start of Persian Gulf War in 1991 didn't dampen the enthusiasm at that year's Detroit show. Now GM and Chrysler, humbled by the bad decisions and inferior product, don't talk so loud, especially after they needed government bailouts to stay in business. GM's Pontiac and Saturn brands are down to one car or two each in their last year, and they're not represented at the show. (Even Oldsmobile had a display on the auto show circuit in 2004, its last year.) GMC Truck offers an SUV concept that's about the size of a traditional station wagon. And Chrysler's most exciting products are the Fiat-based Chryslers and Dodges that aren't on sale yet.

Ford is much better off, winning the 2010 Motor Trend Car of the Year award for its Fusion sedan and getting good press for two smaller vehicles due in showrooms soon, the next-generation Focus and the new Fiesta, the latter car set to return to America following a thirty-year hiatus.

The Japanese continue to demonstrate their affinity for hybrids, Toyota displaying a FT-Ch concept hybrid compact and Honda showing a new CR-Z gas/electric sport coupe. Meanwhile, Volkswagen, to quote an old VW tagline, does it again. The German automaker, Europe's largest, unveiled a new concept car - a compact two-door coupe obviously based on the new, upcoming sixth-generation Jetta sedan. This will likely be a two-door Jetta, the first since 1991. This coupe is quite stylish, offering impressive fuel economy and a seven-speed DSG transmission mated to Volkswagen's TSI gasoline engine with a supplementary electric motor. And the company is on track to continue expanding in the United States, as Consumer Reports recommends eight VW models and the new Tennessee factory is on schedule. Learn more - a whole lot more - by watching the video here.

I'm a little embarrassed by the dancers at the end of the presentation. Volkswagen is notoriously famous for avoiding the showbiz razzmatazz at auto shows favored by GM or Chrysler. But they have less reason for such showmanship, which is why they have none this year (no pickups dropping from the ceiling), and VW is bucking the trends of the recession, so I'll give VW a pass.

Follow The Money

A lot of stories involving money have been floating around the water cooler. Well, the water cooler in my mind, anyway.

First, the NBC late-night fiasco. Late word is that the 11:35 PM -12:35 AM Eastern time slot will not be halved to accommodate Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien. Rather, "The Tonight Show" would be pushed back to 12:05 AM, with Jimmy Fallon at "Late Night" starting at 1:05. NBC had clearly hoped to maximize ratings - and, of course, profits - by re-arranging the late-night schedule to accommodate and retain all three comedians while appeasing affiliates with traditional prime time programming at 10 PM Eastern for lead-ins to local late night news. The network has had its plans thwarted by O'Brien, who has refused to go along with the idea, dismissing it as impugning the integrity of "The Tonight Show" and being unfair to Fallon by pushing his show so deep into the wee small hours of the morning. O'Brien laments that he has not been given enough time to build up an audience because of the network's troubles. But hey, it's all about the money these days, isn't it?

Meanwhile, in Washington, the Obama administration is considering taxes on commercial banks and investment banks that have received federal bailout money from the government - even from those that have paid back their loans - in an effort to recoup the government's infusion of cash at the beginning of the fiscal crisis and compensate for the money the banks lost in the recklessness that led to the events of 9/15. The bank taxes and fees proposed would target bonuses and executive pay and address incurred by the Troubled Assets Recovery Program. The banks don't like this, of course, but President Obama certainly believes it could pay down the deficit, restore fairness in the Wall Street-Main Street paradigm, and, not so coincidentally, improve his standing with voters on economic issues and avoid serious Democratic losses in the midterms.

The attempt to avoid a serious Democratic loss in Massachusetts, meanwhile, continues with leading Democrats sending e-mail after e-mail urging emergency contributions for Martha Coakley's campaign against Republican Scott Brown as she fights for her political life leading up to the special Senate election for Ted Kennedy's seat next Tuesday. I've gotten several such e-mails. Please, if I were interested in spending money on a woman I may not hear from again in a week, I'd go back to dating! :-O

Harry Chastened

The revelations from a new book on the 2008 campaign, "Game Change" by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, have been the talk of Washington, including a now-infamous tidbit about Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada having declared that Barack Obama was a plausible candidate for President because he was "light-skinned" black man who chose not to speak in the "Negro dialect." An embarrassed Reid apologized to President Obama for his remarks, and Obama accepted the apology, but Republicans have called for Reid to resign,. just like Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi did when he lamented that noted segregationist Strom Thurmond wasn't elected President in 1948 . . . and the country would have been spared a lot of "problems" if Thurmond had made it to the White House.

Gee, were black Republicans - all five of them - that offended by Reid's remarks?

Comparing to Reid's comments to Lott's is comparing apples and spinach. Reid was expressing, however inarticulately, how Obama's personal qualities made him attractive to white voters who most likely would not have considered a black presidential candidate otherwise. Lott pretty much said that segregation forever -Thurmond's 1948 campaign slogan - was a desirable goal. The truth of the matter - and a political gaffe always occurs when a politician tells the truth - was that Obama was more like Will Smith than Jay-Z. As for Reid, his civil rights record and his record on social programs that benefit blacks is as commendable as Lott's is not. In fact, Reid was one of the first people to see Obama as a potential presidential candidate.

And regarding the use of the word "Negro" . . . . While you can argue that broken ghetto English isn't necessarily a "Negro dialect," I'm, still having trouble with the idea that there's any pejorative in the word "Negro." Martin Luther King used it himself: "The Negro is an American." It's an anthropological term, just like "Caucasian," and while blacks are a bit uneasy with the use of the word "Negro" on census forms, I, a Caucasian, am not offended when I see that word used in place of "white" on Internet forms, which has happened.

But enough about that. How about this? If Harry Reid had said Rudolph Giuliani had a plausible chance of becoming the first U.S. President of Italian origin because he wasn't short or swarthy-looking and didn't speak in the Italian-American dialect (saying "quandemose" instead of "big deal," "stunade" in place of "stupid person") and didn't gesture with his hands while saying words like "metagon" (meaning "whitebread American"), would we be having this conversation? Would we have been having it during a Giuliani Presidency?

I think I've made my point. Now can we please talk about something else, like the other tidbits in this new book? More of that later.

Martha My God!

You would think that a nice Irish Catholic girl like Martha Coakley, a woman who's a loyal Democrat, a lifelong resident of Massachusetts (Massachusettian? It doesn't come up correct on my spellchecker), and an accomplished state attorney general, would be a lead-pipe cinch for wining next week's special election to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy for the next three years. You'd think the Republican opponent, a tea-party conservative candidate named Scott Brown, wouldn't stand a chance.

You'd be wrong.

Coakley, who led Brown in Massachusetts polls only recently, is now in a dead heat with Brown in one poll and in serious danger of losing. Seeking a chance to gain the most prestigious Democratic seat in the United States Senate, Republicans have been dumping negative ads against Coakley the way Bostonians dumped tea in the harbor on a cold December night in 1773. Brown has been emphasizing the need to rein in government, campaigning on lower taxes and in opposition to the health care plan before Congress today. This contrasts sharply with Coakley's support for targeted tax cuts for the middle class, as well as her support for an individual mandate and a public option to lower health insurance costs. So what's going wrong for Martha Coakley?

Maybe it's that she's a flawed candidate. As Massachusetts Attorney General, she has refused to investigating Boston mayor Tom Menino for allegedly destroying public e-mail records in violation of the law. When state district attorneys made allegedly inaccurate and misleading charges about a marijuana policy initiative up for a referendum in an effort to defeat the law, such as suggesting anyone could carry pot any time (it passed), Coakley replied that "nothing in the proposed law explicitly forbids public use of the drug." In fact, the law still levies a $100 fine and confiscation for adults and mandatory community service for minors, suggesting Coakley, who as the state Attorney General should know what she's talking about, didn't read the bill.

Even Coakley's actions as a district attorney have been under attack A Somerville, Massachusetts police officer was charged with sexually abusing a 23-month-old girl in 2005. Coakley, serving on the grand jury in the case, decided not to indict him and allowed him to be released without bail. (Coakley's successor in that office charged him and got a conviction; the policeman is now serving two life sentences. Coakley defended her actions in the sexual abuse, insisting her decision was based on all the evidence available to her. How did the evidence that allowed the conviction to go forward, though, suddenly show up after she left that DA office?

Coakley's candidacy smacks of complacency among Massachusetts Democrats. After all, the state's entire congressional delegation is Democratic, and the Bay State hasn't sent a Republican to the Senate since re-electing Edward Brooke in 1972. But Massachusetts voters will elect a Republican for pragmatic reasons; as recently as 2002, they elected a Mormon businessman as governor because a skilled capitalist with moral rectitude who also rescued the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was seen as the right man for the job. (Mitt Romney's election was the fourth straight Republican victory in a Massachusetts gubernatorial contest.) Even Massachusetts's reputation as a liberal state is inflated. The Boston busing controversy of 1974 had a lot of racial overtones, many white Boston residents angered by the plan to integrate their kids with black children in black schools that were seen as inferior. Scott Brown's success so far suggested that the people of Massachusetts are no more enamored with President Obama's agenda that residents of other states. It's typical of Democrats to take something for granted and put up anyone for office thinking nomination is tantamount to election.

So what does this have to do with everyone outside Massachusetts? Everything. The health care bill, flawed as it is, is the best chance for reform we're likely to get for another fifteen years. Brown opposes it. If he wins the special Senate election next week, he will be the forty-first Republican vote in the Senate needed to block the bill from proceeding. That is, if Coakley loses, health care reform loses.

The silver lining is that Coakley is a ahead of Brown by fifteen points in a Boston Globe poll, and she has a chance to turn things in her favor in a debate with Brown tonight. But even if she wins next Tuesday, I hope this serves as a lesson to Democrats in states where the party is dominant that a Democratic nominee only has to stay alive until Election Day to win.

Story Updates

A few updates on stories I've commented on of late:

Dylan Ratigan may have lost his morning show on MSNBC, but he has a new show that begins at 4 PM Eastern today. Still no word on what's going to become of Dr. Nancy Snyderman, but David Shuster and Tamron Hall will still be on between 3 PM and 4 PM Eastern.

A new MSNBC show, "The Daily Rundown," began today at 9 AM Eastern. It's hosted by Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd. I can understand why they would have Savannah Guthrie, who's as cute as a button, host a show, but aren't people tried of seeing Chuck Todd and his goatee?

Saab may not be dead after all. General Motors is still interested in sell the Swedish car company to potential bidders, which include the Dutch firm Spyker, but the clock is ticking and they are already going ahead with phasing out Saab if there is no deal son. AlixPartners, a consulting firm, has already been hired by GM to oversee the dissolution. There's still a chance, Saabphiles, that your favorite brand will survive, but it doesn't look good.

I now return you to my regularly scheduled musings.

Jay Xed

Late word from NBC is that Jay Leno's prime time talk show has been canceled, and it will air its last show next month. Its time slot will be temporarily filled by Winter Olympics coverage from Vancouver, which will likely result in lower ratings for that slot.

Perhaps they have have some dramas to fill the 10 PM Eastern time slot after the Vancouver Games are done, but NBC still has the aftermath of this failed late-night talk show experiment to sort out. With Leno out of prime time and O'Brien in worse shape by actually still being on the air, and with everyone having acknowledging that Leno should have been left on "The Tonight Show," how does NBC right itself without doing more short-term damage?

Simple - it can't. NBC's troubles with late-night talk began, interestingly enough, with an emphasis at short-term ratings and the expense of long-term thinking. They were in a rush to drop Jay Leno in 2004 when his ratings slipped against Letterman at CBS, but when his ratings improved as it came time for him to relinquish "The Tonight Show" to O'Brien, the network bent over backwards to keep Leno from moving to ABC. They still hoped to keep Conan O'Brien and somehow thought that late-night talk overkill would be the way out of last place in the overall ratings. The damage has been so great from this experiment that, if either comedian chose to leave NBC now, he would re-enter the job market with less heat than before. How is it that ABC is owned by Disney, yet NBC is acting like a Mickey Mouse operation?

Oh yeah, the bottom line. That was actually the best part of Leno's prime time show; it was actually making money for the network, despite its low ratings, because it was so cheap to produce and air. But its poor performance with Mr. Nielsen and company affected the local news reports of the affiliates that followed Jay Leno in numerous regional markets. I'm no media economist, but, if I'm not mistaken, that makes advertising time on NBC in the 10 PM Eastern slot less valuable. in fact, some affiliates had threatened to air the local news at 10 PM Eastern / 9 PM Central and then air Leno's show afterwards, which would have made selling advertising time really difficult for the network.

The idea now is to move Leno to 11:35 Eastern for a half-hour show, followed by O'Brien at 12:05 AM Eastern, with Jimmy Fallon remaining at "Late Night." This is supposedly to keep both Leno and O'Brien and avoid bruised egos, but does NBC do that when they're halving the running times of both the Leno and O'Brien shows? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the television equivalent of "troubled assets."

Rudolph The Long-Nosed Republican

My jaw almost dropped when Rudolph Giuliani appeared on ABC-TV and insisted to George Stephanopoulos that we had had no terrorist attacks under George Walker Bush, completely forgetting that the September 11, 2001 attacks happened on Bush's watch. Many people found this ironic, given that Giuliani was mayor of New York when the 9/11 attacks happened and has used the event to buttress his own national security credentials. Stephanopoulos apologized for not calling Rudy on the mistake, but Giuliani continues to insist that President Obama has done nothing to make us safer.

Giuliani has since said that he meant we'd had no terrorist attacks in the United States since September 11, 2001 under Bush. Okay, I'll give him that, because I'm a charitable sort of guy, but even that remark isn't entirely true. How about the 2001 anthrax attacks? Okay, so Giuliani meant there had been no Islamic terror attacks under Bush after 9/11, and pointed that out as much. "[A]s far as we know," he said of the anthrax attacks, "that was not done in the name of Islamic terrorism."

Even if you grant that, you have to consider the SUV attack at the University of North Carolina, where a Muslim inspired by Muhammad Atta intentionally hit nine people with his sport utility vehicle to punish America, as well as the 2002 Washington, D.C.-area sniper attacks orchestrated by one John Allen Muhammad, a member of the Nation of Islam, as an act of jihad. If Giuliani were to insist that he was only referring to foreign Islamic terrorism, I couldn't grant any benefit of the doubt there. Too many qualifiers. But that still wouldn't be true, as an Egyptian militant shot up a El Al (the Israeli national airline) ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002. All of this happened under Bush.

Giuliani isn't the only Republican to try to imply that 9/11 was not Bush's fault. Bill Clinton was blamed for 9/11 by right-wingers almost since September 12, 2001, on the grounds that he left Bush a flawed national intelligence network . . . and also because he had failed to capture Osama bin Laden. So had Bush. And Bush didn't seem too serious about bin Laden even after the August 2001 memo indicating bin Laden's desire to strike inside the United States. This is all part of an orchestrated attempt to paint the Democrats as soft on terrorism, even as Obama demonstrates his own seriousness in dealing with the issue. What's appalling about Giuliani is that he built his post-mayoral career and political prospects on the idea that he's a security expert who knows how to combat enemy commandos bent on acts of war against American citizens. He's not. He did a great job keeping New York City together on September 11, 2001 and in the weeks after, but he didn't do anything that might have enhanced the security of New York City. If anything, he did something that weakened it by keeping the city central command center in the original 7 World Trade Center building after David Dinkins, his predecessor, advised him to move it to Brooklyn when Giuliani took over the mayor's office in 1994. The advice was ignored.

Even Larry King, not exactly a hardball interviewer, caught Giuliani rewriting history. Giuliani complained about Obama waiting three days to address the would-be "underwear bomber" on that Christmas Day flight into Detroit while Bush waited twice as long to address Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," on that flight into Boston. Giuliani insisted the Reid incident happened before 9/11. It happened three months after 9/11.

George Stephanopoulos was deeply ashamed of his lapse of journalistic professionalism, and he made that clear. Giuliani, by contrast, has no shame.

I Can't! I Can't! I Can't!

By the power not vested in anyone by the state of New Jersey, no gay couple can be pronounced married. The New Jersey state Senate voted down a law that would have made New Jersey the sixth state to legalize gay marriage, and with the Assembly now a moot point and incoming governor and noted reckless driver Chris Christie opposing the idea, the fight is over. At least the legislative part is. But Steven Goldstein, a gay activist and gay rights advocate, has vowed to take the issue to the courts. Good for him. I wish him and his fellow activists well, and maybe this will lead to a happier ending for the issue.

The legal path is always tricky, though, because subverting a social issue that is normally decided in state legislatures can inflame passions on both sides of the issue even more - witness Roe v. Wade and the ongoing battle over abortion that caused. But since gay marriage, unlike abortion, has hardly been shown to have any detrimental effects on anyone, and since the arguments against it are redolent of the arguments made against interracial marriage back in the 1950s, it's just inexplicable that gay marriage can't gain acceptance so easily - not even in "intellectual" New York or "laid-back" California.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's "originalist" interpretation of constitutional text comes to mind here. Scalia's "originalist" philosophy says that if a protection or right isn't spelled out constitutionally, all you have to do is pass a law. Well, so much for that idea. But, on the other hand, neither the Constitution nor the New Jersey state constitution says anything about marriage being between a man and a woman. The gay rights movement may have an opening here as a result. The legal path may be fraught with danger, but it's probably the only path available right now - in New Jersey or anywhere else.

This is an issue that Democrats, controlling every branch of the state government, were expected to win on, but it was far from clear cut. True, the vote was mainly on party lines, but six Democrats voted with the majority - without them, there would have been no majority. And it's not a case of bigoted white middle-class conservatives versus a rainbow coalition involving everyone else; though the issue was touted as one of civil rights, Senator Ronald Rice (D-Essex), who is black, voted against it. A picture in today's Star-Ledger shows a black woman cheering the outcome in a room full of mostly white gay marriage supporters.

Some gay marriage opponents still support civil unions, legal in New Jersey but not offering the full benefits of marriage - the civil union law doesn't guarantee health benefits for same-sex partners, for example. One Republican state senator, a same-sex marriage opponent, has vowed to help amend the civil union law to strengthen it. But as long as same-sex partners are denied the right of full marriage - and can only be considered "kind of" married - that's just as insulting as pre-abolition standard of making a black slave equal to three-fifths of a person.

The Truman Show

President Obama took full responsibility for the lapsed intelligence that allowed a Nigerian terrorist to board a Detroit-bound plane in Amsterdam on Christmas Day and almost blow it up. In ordering changes to the nation's anti-terrorist system, such as adding air marshals to flights and expanding CIA name traces, he took the approach Harry Truman always had as President - accepting blame for anything going wrong on his watch. Or, as Truman always liked to say, "The buck stops here."

This is a refreshing change from previous administrations, such as that of Ronald Reagan (who would always say that "mistakes were made") and George Walker Bush, who would subject underlings who screwed up to receiving a Medal of Freedom. Obama has likely to earn himself a fair amount of good will with his tough stance on correcting the mistakes of his administration in the struggle against al-Qaeda and the commitment to fighting the terror network, even if sending more troops to Afghanistan isn't really the way to do it. He also admitted that the system can run perfectly well and still not be entirely foolproof (like Truman, he told the truth), but that should not stop the country's efforts against al-Qaeda. Will this help Obama with his critics?

Not a chance.

As sure as the Cheney family is ready to put out another press release attacking the President, congressional critics are likely to press for a greater investigation. And if the Republicans had the opportunity, they'd get a special prosecutor to see if there are grounds for impeachment. Because Obama is not likely to win a lot of trustworthy allies by doing or trying to do the right thing. As Truman also famously said, "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."

Fade Out

Two Senate Democrats have decided they will not seek re-election to their seats. Last night it was Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who decided he wanted to pursue other interests. As I type today, though, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut is announcing his own decision not to seek another term.

The Dorgan announcement was unexpected and unwelcome. Dorgan has been a reliably progressive senator, fighting for cheaper imported drugs and working to help small family farms. Chris Dodd is a different case. His poll numbers in Connecticut are below forty percent, and he hurt himself by running for President in 2008 and practically moving to Iowa with his family the previous summer. All he did was anger his constituents and make himself a running joke for Jon Stewart. However, his role in getting lenient treatment for executives of the bailed out insurance giant AIG and questions over a reportedly favorable deal he got from the scandal-plagued mortgage giant (he was cleared of any wrongdoing) in the midst of a subprime mortgage crisis proved to be no laughing matter.

Dodd's withdrawal - possibly encouraged by the Obama administration - may be a blessing in disguise, as it has cleared the way for Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to seek the Democratic senatorial nomination. Blumenthal is a popular figure in the Nutmeg State, with a reputation for fighting for the little guy -sort of like Eliot Spitzer without the sexual peccadilloes (I hope!). He is likely to be a heavy favorite. If Democrats can get enough congressional candidates like Blumenthal - candidates to inspire the party base - perhaps they can regain the momentum and excitement from the Obama campaign that has since been lost.

As for Dorgan's seat, North Dakota John Hoeven, a Republican, is an early favorite, though MSNBC commentator Ed Schultz has been urged to move back to North Dakota to run for Senate. (He can't; he has to be a North Dakota resident for at least two years to qualify.) Although it's a Republican state, Democrats are very good at winning Senate elections there because of their ability to connect with voters on a personal level. It's not only one of the least populated states, it's one of the most rural. That may be in part why no Republican has been elected to Congress - House or Senate - since Mark Andrews won a single Senate term in 1980.

More intriguing is Democratic Colorado governor Bill Ritter's decision not to run for a second term this year. He was considered a rising star in the Democratic Party.

MSNBC's Weekday Problem

Earlier today I commented on MSNBC's unwillingness to air news shows or talk shows on the weekends. But that's only part of their problem. While the liberal cable news channel is holding its own well enough on weeknights, their weekday morning and afternoon programming is still in need of fine tuning.

This past summer MSNBC launched two weekday shows anchored by anchorman Dylan Ratigan and NBC medical editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman. Both shows have been canceled and will soon be replaced. And so the shows hosted by Ratigan and Dr. Snyderman join the shows of John Hockenberry, Phil Donahue, and the late Jerry Nachman, as well as Ron Reagan and Monica Crowley's "Connected: Coast to Coast," in the Archipelago of Failed MSNBC Shows - where Happy, the baby new year, has reportedly been sighted after having been missing for a decade.

MSNBC had long been throwing anything to the wall to see what sticks to produce a lasting prime time lineup, something the network finally achieved with some coherent planning. Now they need to do the same for their daytime schedule.

Incidentally, anyone who's watched MSNBC lately most likely has noticed that the network has changed its graphics and now spells out its initials in lowercase letters. I just hope the liberal network isn't on its way to belittling itself.

MSNBC's Weekend Problem

Recently it was reported that the most watched cable news channel in 2009 was Fox News, a finding that must be scaring liberals. It bested MSNBC by a wide margin. The big loser, though, was CNN, which remained in third place. Ratings for MSNBC produced mixed results; though more people watched Fox, MSNBC gained among viewers in the 25-54 age demographic. Rachel Maddow's show has become appointment television, and Ed Schultz has cultivated a core audience of his own. But facts are stubborn things. For all of Keith Olbermann's lampooning of Bill O'Reilly as "Billo the Clown," O'Reilly's show has been highly rated, usually attracting more viewers than Olbermann in the same time slot, and even Rachel Maddow has faced tough competition against that other Long Island Irish fascist on Fox, Sean Hannity.

Fox's higher ratings don't necessarily meant that the country is tilting more rightward; it could easily mean that conservatives, feeling that their ideology is under siege, are tuning in to Fox more frequently. The political faction out of power normally rallies together and stirs up trouble, and it's been that way since newspapers sympathetic to Thomas Jefferson regularly assailed the administration of John Adams. MSNBC is actually doing pretty well overall, but it has one Achilles heel that makes it seem less like a serious cable news channel than even Fox.

I'm talking about MSNBC's weekend programming.

MSNBC always airs documentaries, usually on prisons, murders, and domestic abusers, on Saturdays and Sundays. The channel, like the fabled middle class Ed Schultz is trying to represent, pretty much takes the weekend off. Occasional updates from Christina Brown are as much news as you get from MSNBC on the weekends, except when they come from Milissa Rehberger. Naturally, the channel also goes in to hibernation on holidays, as it did on Christmas Day a couple of weeks ago. Therefore, MSNBC was the last channel to get in on the attempted airline bombing over Detroit, and the channel seemed just as slow to react as President Obama was while in Hawaii.

And some of MSNBC's commentators actually had the nerve for chastising Obama.

MSNBC has always frustrated me with their weekend programming. I don't like their sensationalist documentaries, and I never find out what's going on in the world when I tune in on Saturday or Sunday. It sounds trivial, but if cable television news had been around in 1941 or 1979, and if MSNBC then had a programming format like the one it has now, they would have been out of the loop during, respectively, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Iran, both of which happened on Sundays.

If MSNBC wants to be taken more seriously as a cable news show, they should have weekend news and talk shows and not just show those stupid documentaries, many of which are reruns of "Dateline NBC." They don't even show reruns of "Meet the Press" anymore on Sunday evenings, and they've had little if any weekend news programming since Tim Russert died. Even its loyal weekday viewers now have to go somewhere else for breaking news on Saturdays and Sundays.

It is not true that MSNBC has more initials in its name than it has viewers. It is true, however, that MSNBC has more initials in its name than it has weekend news reports.

The Infernal Tower

The emirate of Dubai on the Persian Gulf, one of the seven sheikdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates, celebrated the completion of what is now the tallest building in the world. The 160-story Burj Khalifa tower stands at 2717 feet tall, which is roughly half a mile high and nearly a thousand feet taller than the Freedom Tower in New York will be if the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ever actually builds the darn thing. So, the Port Authority wanted to respond to 9/11 by building the tallest building on earth at the site of the World Trade Center towers, but they lost their bid to do so before they even got started.

It's a Pyrrhic victory for Dubai, which planned the skyscraper in better times while trying to become the glamour and leisure destination of the Middle East but finished it (except for a few floors, many of which still have exposed drywall) just as the real estate bubble there burst in the middle of a global recession. I don't think the Burj Khalifa tower - named after the president of the U.A.E. as an act of gratitude to the Abu Dhabi, of which the Emirati president is also the emir, for helping Dubai through its financial crisis - is going to become the kind of iconic landmark that the Empire State Building in New York became once the Great Depression ended. I don't even think the new skyscraper will be redeemed like the World Trade Center towers were once the American economy recovered from the malaise of the seventies. For Dubai has already spent so much money on foolish things like artificial islands and indoor ski slopes, and it's produced so much surplus real estate, it's hard to imagine the Burj Khalifa project breaking even, despite insistences from the developers that much of it is already rented. Consider also the fact that the global economy still hasn't quite recovered from the crashes of 2008, along with the fact that Dubai has few natural resources of any value, and you have yourself the mother of all white elephants.

And they can never hire enough foriegners to keep the place clean.

This skyscraper is a monument to ego, not just to the self-love of Dubaians or other Emiratis, but to the self-love of all humankind. There's some kind of germ in the human psyche to show how clever and capable we are by building such structures to prove that we can in fact build them. It's been that way as far back as the construction of the Tower of Pisa, which, in an ironic twist, has been leaning to one side as if to demonstrate that we humans are not in fact infallible. Skyscrapers - even the most beautiful, best-engineered, and most beloved of them - have all huffed and puffed in their own different ways, their very existence seeming to express the pride and self-absorption of their builders: "Look and see what we just did!" The Burj Khalifa is a continuation of this self-love, taken to the extreme. But this latest variation on the Tower of Babel is bound to fail. It may not get destroyed by terrorists, but the exorbitant costs and labor necessary to maintain it, never mind what it took to build it, will humble its builders and be its undoing. It's likely that no grandiose projects of this nature will ever be attempted afterwards.

We may never love like this again.