Wake up Maggie, L.O.'s got something to say to you

Maggie Gallagher. Did you ever believe in anything? Besides stuffing your face and getting bad haircuts? L.O. cannot believe that you were on the take. Throughout the years, L.O. has had opportunity to read your columns in L.O.'s hometown newspaper. You struck L.O. as the type who didn't need to be paid---your fervent belief in the dangers of homosexuality and single motherhood and reproductive health seemed to be your source of energy and inspiration. L.O. was shocked, shocked, to find that you'd been on the take to spout off about Bush administration policies on marriage. And that the take was so small. L.O.'s read your columns. The way you, a Yale graduate who lives in Westchester and who runs think tanks, look and sound like a midwestern housewife was perfect---you came across with your hate-filled columns as benignly and mildly as Andy Griffith. Surely that was worth at least more than 50k. Do you have gambling debts? An addiction to Stackers? Why, Maggie, why? It makes L.O. feel so cheap. You seemed like you were a true believer. It hurts to think that a woman of principle like you should be so quick to be used--to put your reputation and your wonderful, wonderful work on the line. What will the other homophobes and misogynists say? Will they be hurt? Or are they, too, just whores who put no limit on the amount of humiliation they have to endure, the reprehensible things they have to do, so long as they're still in the game? A highly intelligent, righteous person, why did you forget to draw for yourself the moral lines in which you've tangled up stronger, more worthy people? When did you decide to become an amoral person?

L.O. thought you were better than that, Maggie Gallagher. For shame.

The future of the Democratic Party

Loyal Opposition is a loyal (natch) Democrat. But Loyal does not check its intellect at the altar of loyalty.

Therefore, Loyal cannot greet the coronation of Howard Dean as DNC Chairman with the joy that has been ringing through the blogosphere.

Loyal Opposition did not think that Howard Dean could ever be DNC Chairman. L.O. did not think it likely Dean would pass muster with the powers that be. However, Dean's chairmanship makes sense for a variety of reasons:

It is yet another example of the power of personality. That is to say, the Democrats have been searching for that elusive figure, that Moses they feel will come to deliver them to the promised land. The irony being that Dean himself has stated, quite rightly, in L.O.'s opinion, that the Democrats need to stop thinking about progress in terms of personality---a Bill Clinton coming along every so often---and start building organizations and organizational themes.

Just as perceptions of Kerry's electability set in motion a process by which people in the party came to support him regardless of their affinity with or affection for him, due to their expectations of his ability to gain results (based on the "fact" that others had the same expectations), perceptions of Dean's "vision" and "organizational ability" created a groundswell.

At the same time, it reflects the power of the increased popularization of the intra-party process. The "candidates" for DNC chairman actually campaigned through speeches, tv ads, and blog advocacy. Dean had the most name recognition out of all of them. And though it was not a position that he could be "elected" to per se by the national Democrats, the party officials recognized the will of the people and acted as their representatives. One could say that this was a good thing---a step away from the smoke-filled room, but L.O. doubts the cigar smoke is going anywhere. Furthermore, not to sound elitist, but what the hell do people know anyway?

In all seriousness, though, the position of DNC chairman may not be as influential as it sounds. Their duties are organizational and fundraising. It is up to the elected politicians to stand for the Democratic party ideals. The RNC chairman does not create policy. He takes the policy of the Republican party and creates an organizational/financial support system. His power is visibility.

For all of McAulliffe's problems, he was a masterful fundraiser and organizer. He was not as adept at adapting to technology as Dean has shown himself to be--a strength, most definitely. But McAuliffe was a player within the system---he drew his strength and exerted his influence amongst the powers that be in the party. The donors, the politicians, and the think tanks. The establishment is already there.

Where McAuliffe was ineffectual was as a party frontman. He was not the most graceful presence. He was not the most articulate presence. He left much to be desired in that regard. Whatever muddled values there were to reflect, however, he reflected them. He gave them spin. Dean is a problem. As public figures go, he is not the most sympathetic. He is abrasive. He is, frankly, a bit of a hard-ass. And Dean has a penchant for saying things stupidly as well as for saying stupid things. It will be awkward if Dean decides to reflect his values as the values Democrats have, when they are just the values he thinks the Dems should have. Furthermore, Dean's organizational skills leave much to be desired. Though he, with the help of Joe Trippi, revolutionized internet fundraising, his on the ground operations in Iowa and New Hampshire were jokes. Dean is not a beloved figure by the establishment. His hardcore base are bloggers and young internet consultants. Those Bob Shrums of tomorrow are counting on Dean---it will lead them to riches. But it will lead the Dems to the same stupid cycles.

Dean needs to work on his "playing well with others" skills if he is going to be a successful Chairman rather than a messianic figure positioning himself for a stake in the party. He has had a lot of great ideas, primarily breaking the taboo against reforming the party and shaking it to get some life back in it. However, parties need to be run well, not just inspired. The direction of ideological reform and positioning needs to come from the politicians, supported by the think tanks and research groups. We need to ban the consultants and the media hacks from the door. Hillary Clinton's masterful speech on abortion is a step in the right direction. Howard Dean needs to create an organization that gives these initelligent pols the air cover and the ground troops they need to wage war against the radicals bent on destroying this country. He needs to be the realist and the idealist he was in Vermont. L.O. wishes him luck.

In Memoriam: Carson

One of the problems with L.O.'s absence is that L.O. was unable to pay tribute to one of the paragons of comedy and entertainment, Johnny Carson, who died this past January. So L.O. is taking the opportunity to do so now, noting that other bloggers have done so.

L.O. believes that, contrary to popular opinion, Carson's influence is not what it should be. Frankly, it would be impossible. Carson put late night on the map in a big way. But he also owed a great debt to those who pioneered it before him---Jack Paar had a greater gift for unpredictability, but that same unpredictability that made his show a flashfire of surprising emotion also made Paar unstable and hampered his continued success. Carson was not as vulnerable as Paar. Carson was, amazingly, a sphinx. Behind his quips and his persona, no one knew what went on behind the curtain. Carson held SOMETHING in reserve---an alien concept to the entertainment figures of today. That was, perhaps, a reflection of the different era in which Carson came up. But at the same time, for over 30 years Carson stood in the unrelenting spotlight and gave up only what he wanted to give up. You have to admire that. Carson wasn't as proficient a jokester as Steve Allen. And his dry wit and cutting edge was not even close to that of the marvelous Fred Allen (no relation). But Carson had the martini recipe---he was just dry enough, just cutting enough, and with just enough of a buzz.

More importantly, Carson's show was more than just a vehicle for cardboard cutouts to sell their latest fluff. Who today would have devoted 30 minutes of a show to interviewing Jim Garrison at the height of his JFK investigation? Carson actually wanted to have conversations with his guests, unlike today--where the "conversations" are planned out in advance and meant to lead to the plug. Look at his dubious namesake, Carson Daly. There is a perfect example of how far things have fallen.

So while Leno and Letterman have continued the tradition of having shows late at night--with the same formats Carson used--they lack the essential ingredients that made Carson worth watching. Letterman probably is the more worthy successor to Carson in terms of fundamentals---a fact demonstrated by Carson's walk-on and by his contributing jokes. Leno's been nothing but a guest host for 13 years.

But it's a different climate today. Entertainment across the board is more synergized, more of an efficiency product than anything else. Americans just don't have time for mirth and wit anymore. Carson knew the change was coming--and bowed out. You have to admire that, too. He knew the amount of stupid annoying crap he was willing to put up with in life and drew the line. Tell that to, well, anyone.

In closing, L.O.'s favorite Carson moment. Dean Martin and George Gobel were guests. George Gobel was a dopey, corny clueless Borscht Belt comic. Dean Martin was one of the great, fearless b-s detectors in showbiz. He was another brave man who knew his limits. Dean Martin sat in the chair next to Gobel. And Gobel is going on and on and on. Meanwhile, Martin, sitting silently, expressionlessly, is surreptiously tapping the ashes from his cigarette into Gobel's cup. Carson knows it and can barely contain himself, while Gobel goes on and on obliviously. The studio audience is hysterical. The message got across.

So long Johnny.

A Thought

The President went to Harvard Business School.

Thinking of the previous quote, L.O. can only imagine what fun it must have been to have sat next to him during class.

"Mr. Bush? Why don't you explain to us this concept from our readings?"

"Well.....it, it, it's a little muddled. But....it will help on the red. Does that make sense to you?"

"Yes. Yes, it does. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had aphasia. What a brave little boy."

Profiles In Courage

Our president is a strong leader. A visionary. That is why we chose him--he knows that we must march down the path of greatness.

The latest evidence of his vision:

"Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."---The President, in Tampa, Fl.

p.s. Those are not typos.

Administrative Note

Please look below the February 6th post for the most recent posting---the reason for this will become clear.

And stay tuned for more blogposts from the edge. It's a maaaaadhouse.

Blastoff!

The first post of the New Year!! Chinese New Year, of course! Loyal Opposition is back after more than a month when L.O.'s attention was demanded by several crises. Like Dick Nixon, L.O. plans to write a book about each and every one of them. For those of you puzzled by that last statement, L.O. can only mildly reprimand you for not reading Nixon's Six Crises where he tells the world just how good a Dick Nixon can be when the going gets tough. He only started talking to portraits when it was HIS OWN crisis that he had to deal with.

Loyal Opposition is raging, raging at the manifold ways in which the nation is tra-la-la-la-laling towards decline. It's enough to make one weep. And rend clothing. Sometimes L.O. feels like making like Laurence Olivier in The Jazz Singer and screaming "I HAVE NO SONNNNNN!" Which, incidentally, is true. L.O. does not have kinder.

L.O. is, however, possesed of a renewed vigor to take on the many things that annoy and undermine us all. Really, L.O. means it---Loyal Opposition is back in business.

And just to make sure that L.O. is back with a bang--here's a quote for the Sunday paper:

Those who cravenly acquiesce to the lying and misleading involved in the current struggle over Social Security are doing nothing less than selling the nation's future down the river and deserve to be tarred and feathered.