Bush ad remake--well done sir!

Very smooth remake. "George Bush has a plan. To find out what the plan is, vote for him in 2004."
Hat tip to Hunting the Muse.

Day 3--the lawsuits cometh

Another busy day in Stumptown for the gay marriage story. KGW reports the three day total of 1,237 licenses issued, which means today was the highest volume day of them all, 447. The report also estimates 300 marriage ceremonies performed by local clergy at that new hotbed of sin, the Keller Auditorium. I thought that looked like Satan sitting on the steps as my bus rolled by the Keller tonight!

On the legal front, the opponents finally got their paperwork together and filed some lawsuits. Somebody's been busy; originally they were slated for filing on Monday. The Oregonian article is fine if you want to know generally what the charges are, but Communique does a very detailed job of running down each of the accusations, along with their interpretations of the merits of each claim. There's also a bonus post on legal standing, which I alluded to yesterday while wondering why the Commissioners were so worried about injunctions as to work on the sly. Excellent work. Also, the end of the news article notes that the Christian Coalition has filed to gather signatures for a recall of the MC4. Get ready for the annual spring blossom of the signature who-a!

The Oregonian does have several other decent stories; they're doing pretty good work as well. They've got human interest covered in the story of a young female couple from Washington, for whom one set of parents was willing to drive ahead to Portland to hold a place in line for their kids. Now that is parental support, made more poignant by the fact that the other woman's parents do not approve.
Another couple go the empathic route, discussing their trials in seeking interfaith marriage in the Jewish tradition. The ka-ching angle gets another mention, and why not? It couldn't have come at a better time, seasonally and economically. One wonders whether the decision by the County, both at the commissioner and attorney levels, seems likely to have been affected by the challenges enumerated by outgoing City Attorney Jeff Rogers, charging Portland to take the offensive in important matters and to generally ignore the media; and Vera Katz, long a supporter of gay rights. There's a commentary coming to the defense of the MC4. And finally, one of the paper's undecided voter bloggers weighs in on the subject.

In the local blogosphere, much of the focus is on the process as well. TOB worries over measures that might otherwise have quietly died, now being revived as a result of the anger towards the MC4 on process. But the author eventually assumes a common theme in the sphere today--that worries aside, it's very hard for supporters of gay marriage to see the joy that is obviously resulting, and not be pulled by their hearts to worry a little less. Worldwide Pablo is right in the middle of it, attending services and parties, and just soaking in the celebratory atmosphere. Both of these entries are why I'm trying to keep up with the flow of information--the experiential nature of the reporting is truly relevatory, and brings the story much closer to home. Jack Bog is still sounding a note of caution, but I think he and many others have been impressed with the impassioned way that Randy Leonard has stepped to the plate to defend the MC4 and gay marriage in general. Jake has a copy of his letter to Goobernor Kulongoski (scroll down a bit), and nitecrawler takes the Catholic Church over his knee to spank them for being so petulant on gay marriage, especially given their contribution to the new rules of intimate companionship (cough). Unrelated, but his post on the February jobs report has some great stale WonderBread metaphors, so keep reading on past the marriage thread. I'm not sure if I like the unauthorized use of the word "torrid," however. I'm thinking of trademarking it like Tillamook. I don't want anyone making any Torrid Cheese without me making a buck, right!

Not off to a roaring start

So the re-election campaign started about a week ago for Bush, and the election was set on Tuesday. I'm not sure how well it's gone. One massive bombing, one delayed and now unfirmed constitution, one lousy jobs report, and now this--firefighters and 9/11 victims' families are ticked off at the opening wave of Bush's ad campaign. Even if their criticisms aren't legitimate (which I think they are, for the most part), there's very little wiggle room for Bush. Firefighters and 9/11 victims are pretty much off limits, politically. They have too much ingrained public support, and even though the victims' families have been accused of greed for settlement money, and the firefighters for moving in on their fallen brethren's spouses, it will be hard for the White House not to capitulate. At best, the ad buy is basically ruined. I wonder if plans for the GOP Convention in NYC are being quickly reassessed, events-wise. It was going to be this elaborate, multi-site extravaganza, possibly even FROM Ground Zero. That balloon was floated and didn't seem to catch on--but you can bet it won't be in there now. Since the calendar turned, BC04 has looked staggeringly inept.

Shout free TV

How is it that people somehow manage to not scream at each other when they do The News With Jim Lehrer? Are they all drugged before the show starts? Sometimes Jim looks like he stopped off for a wee dram before finding the studio. No matter; it's always a crisp, in depth look at the news.

Today's news held the job reports for February, which had been highly anticipated. A bump in the last month to over 100,000 made it appear as if things were consistently trending up after several hiccups. Analysts were tempering their predictions slightly on the advice of the Beige Book, but continuing to rely on leading indicators that had always predicted job growth shortly thereafter. It's been bugging me for months--when are the economists going to finally admit they've never seen this type of behavior before?

I finally got two of them on the record:

REBECCA BLANK: Well, I wasn't surprised in the sense that it continues the trend of recent months of bad news in terms of the job side. But my colleague is absolutely right. All of the other indicators suggest much higher economic growth and in past recessions we've always seen a substantial increase in the job market by this time, so this is a real mystery, something different we've seen in any recent recovery post-World War II.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Mr. Achuthan, if basically economists as good as the two of you are as forecasters are somewhat baffled by this, then do you have any theories on what it will take to get new jobs being created in the kinds of numbers we are talking about to even keep pace with working-age population?
LAKSHMAN ACHUTHAN: Well, I think that we are on track, at least in the near term, to having steadily increasing, not as fast as we would like, but increasing job growth in the next quarter or two. The leading indicators of employment are pointing in that direction. If you look at separate leading indicators of the economy, they actually remain quite robust. So it doesn't look like there is any new downturn ahead.

Note how Achuthan skims right over the admission of bafflement--to offer exactly the SAME leading indicators that had made his predictions look foolish not 2 minutes earlier. It's the Annie approach to negative economic news: keep focused on tommorow's report! It'll be much better.

Achuthan also thinks manufacturing jobs are predominant in outsourcing:

To put it in perspective, since the beginning of the recession, the manufacturing sector has accounted for 111 percent of all the jobs lost in the United States.

Wow, so manufacturing is responsible for 11% of lost jobs not even lost! Harsh!

Sullivan links to Noam Schreiber's apology for the President on job losses. There's truth to it, but that's going to sail right over the heads of the typical American voter. Job losses are a poison pill to any presidency at any time. With rapidly rising fuel prices, the window for extra cash in hiring is quickly closing in a variety of industries. Petroleum prices cause all kinds of companies to charge a direct customer fee for increased fuel costs. To avoid that, they'll make cuts or hold off expansions first. If jobs aren't running at least above workforce replacement levels in mid-summer, Bush will be at a serious disadvantage.

Gettin' hitched--Day Two

Well that sure did the trick--information begets information. Post a bunch of local links, tell a few people with high traffic, and all of a sudden I have many new places to look.

It didn't really occur to me until last night that there were OTHER Portland bloggers, although that's of course absurd--if anything we probably have more per capita than most places. When it rains 6 months of the year, you get a lot of time to blog. It's mostly reading anyway, and Portlanders are famous readers. So of course there are plenty of other people in town watching fascinatedly at the happenings at 501 SE Hawthorne and elsewhere around town. Realizing this, I've begun a separate category for Portland area bloggers. I'll be reading them closely these days, and I hope some of them come around here now and again.

Communique has the look and feel of an opinion leader in the sphere, but unless one of us has quit their day job I figure we're pretty much among equals. They keep well up to date with news and reviews. Plus there's a pretty extensive set of weblog links on the issue. [Am I thus needlessly duplicative? Uhhhh...] One of the places they led me was to The Oregon Blog, which does some great work culling editorials from newspapers NOT located in Portland. If you thought the Oregonian was dismissive, check out some of the others. TOB also runs a quick survey of their portion of the PDX sphere, showing fairly strong support for the point of the decision if not the tenor. They take a look at Illusionaire, who in turn points out the clearinghouse for Oregon blog listings, ORBlogs. Illusionaire also has a meetup listing in town at e-lounge Backspace for tomorrow. I was also reminded of the seminal state news source Oregon Public Broadcasting, featuring my all-time favorite name for a correspondent (Kristian Foden-Vencil), who is keeping a watchful eye.

Others include:

• Hunting the Muse, who is valiantly trying to stay civil in this potentially most uncivil of public debates. The object of his restraint? Dishpan Dribble
  
• Blue Hell, a gay former Jehovah's Witness with a theoretical, theological approach to the issue (no surprise there, I guess).
  
• Blarg has a good post on the role of the Attorneys General in helping decide where gay marriage goes, and when.
  
• Jack Bog, who notes the financial silver lining if you happen to have passed the bar at some point.
  
• Chuck Currie gives us an ecumenical view in the liberal religious tradition. While I said yesterday that Oregon is one of the least churchgoing states in the nation, that doesn't mean people aren't religious. Heck, the last time Oregon made big spiritual news it was Bhagwans and ashrams.
  
• Pacific Views has a blog much like mine in its political content, of which gay marriage is just one topic. (Mine will go back to being that way sooner than later; right now this story deserves compiling). Very nice blogger rundown there, too.
  
• I gave the link yesterday, but Worldwide Pablo is another PDX heavy hitter. At the moment he's got some great photo albums from the scene at the county building, and fair caution expressed over the way the decision went down.
  
• Ben Henick has many of the same concerns, although he essentially supports the ends in the same way Linn and Co. did.
  
• Jeff from TOB has Notes on the Atrocities which is also very good. The photograph that accompanies this post is really striking.
  
• Jake is Straight Like Me, but like me he knows an issue of heart and freedom when he sees one.
  
• FuzzyPuppy is relatively new to the game, and she has a really nice choice of Blogger template (cough). Aesthetics aside, she also takes Oregonian columnist Steve Duin to task for huffily sounding the recall horn on the county commissioners.
  
• Nitecrawler, who makes an excellent point about the TV coverage and how guys kissing still just doesn't make good TV for most stations. I think I've seen women kissing in the coverage, although I'm not 100%.
  
• My Whim is Law, who covers some of the same review ground I am doing right now, and like Muse, is dealing with adverse commentary. Occupational hazard, I suppose.
  
• Toaster Oven, who's on the ground and in the trenches, to use two metaphors with more mileage than Madonna's zipper.

Let me know who else you see out there.

Among the non-blog sites there are some useful places to go as well. Basic Rights is heavily involved in putting a good political/PR face on the process. It's their job, and based on the media brochure they're doing a fine job of it indeed.

For slowly updated straight news, The Political State Report may help you organize your friendly-venue newsgathering paths to find out if that hunky New Paltz mayor is available, I suppose. b!x from Communique is a contributor.

In a perverse sort of way, this is maybe my favorite site of all the last couple of days: Gay Portland from the Portland Oregon Visitors Association. Not for nothing, but we could use a few hundred gay people with disposable income to breeze through town and pick up a marriage license. Any city could, really--I'm just proud that we're clever enough to embrace them and welcome them to town. Check out the hotel packages!

On the news front, the Oregonian is putting aside its editorial disgust to bring a full range of stories to the public. One interesting story is the East County commissioner Lonnie Roberts, who got the Stu Sutcliffe treatment when the four ladies reached their decision. What's unfortunate is that he sincerely sounds like he would have swallowed hard and supported the commission if they'd just let him be a part of it like he was entitled. On the other hand, he doesn't deny he would have likely alerted opponents to the plans, who might seek a preemptive injunction. The reader mail is also not sympathetic.

Attorney General Myers released a statement saying essentially, "Hang the heck on! Give me a couple days to write a brief, or something!" He's not the only one up nights lately reviewing the lit, either.

Editorially, David Reinhard is again very harsh, turning the tables on proponents as the ones being divisive and hateful. That's an attack I would take personally if I were one of the people running for city offices, some of whom are either gay themselves or have gay family members. All four major mayoral candidates seem to approve of the gesture at least in principle. The clergy do not, unsurprisingly. They'll file for an injunction tomorrow, which I don't expect will help. Protesting groups around the country have had little success in proving direct harm to them of any kind, much less that of an irreparable nature that would merit an injunction. But they'll try anyway. Here's a decent article on the legal issues at hand. I think the tension in the marriage law itself is important, but others see a better shot at approving them based on equal protection laws recently passed that essentially give gay people every right heterosexuals do in the state. And that's just a sampling! Keep an eye on the special section for updated stories.

Also, I linked yesterday to the queer column in Willamette Week; I neglected to direct you to the cover stories, which went to bed as the decision was first announced, but whose editors luckily chose very topically for their subject this week. That oughta move some papers. The Mercury had the benefit of an extra day, so they've got an online story. Next week they should have more.

That's a pretty good outline of what's out there. As the days go, I'll move from citing as a general information tool, to skipping around and plucking the good stories from these and other sources as they come up.

Happy clicking!

Thank you Diane Linn; thank you Atrios

Just a few moments ago Torrid's World got its 500th visit of the day. Considering the previous high was 42, that's a nice jump. I owe it entirely to two people: Diane Linn, the chair of the Multnomah County Commission; and Atrios, who linked to my compendium of Portland gay marriage links this morning. I'll continue to update those stories as the news warrants, certainly on a daily basis for a little while. There's a link at right which will list the posts that update the news.

To everyone who visited for the first time today, thanks and welcome. Come back anytime; I'll talk about almost anything. Please feel free to drop an email with your comments. I've already published several. At some point I'll probably get a traditional comments engine, but for now just use the email.

Huzzah!

The day in Portland

I've definitely been doing some hunting around, and while there is plenty of network and local paper info coming out on the gay marriages in Portland today, there is surprisingly little net chatter, or else I'm not yet looking in the right places. If they're buzzing about it on Yahoo Groups, they're not doing it among "portland gay" groups. Some blogs tied to the area reference the news, but so far I haven't seen anyone trying to compile or at least provide a bit of a clearinghouse for relevant information on Portland's entry into the national debate. I'll make a separate page and copy this posting to it, and you may use it as a quick resource for any local information. Who knows how long it will be an active issue, but I have a feeling it will be continuous this year, here and elsewhere.

So here's what I've found:

As netrically tuned in as I am, I still end up at the same papers and wire services that feed the rest of the world--I just read the online versions. I can't really review the blogosphere until I've scanned the headlines from a few of the MyWay pages. So the first place I went to on this story was the Oregonian--or rather it came to me, as I walked past the box on the way to work. Zoinks! Here's their special section for the news on this. The main article discussing the first licenses and the runup to the decision is here. The Oregonian's blogger lives here. More blogs later. The first editorial is in from the surprisingly conservative Oregonian board--and they rip the decision. You can track the thoroughly non-scientific polling action off the gay marriage main section as well. Tonight it's running 50% for the marriages, for what that's worth.

Here are the local TV media, who are all also covering the news, of course. KGW, KOIN, KATU, and the Fox channel, KPTV. There's also KEX, the news/talk radio station.

Alternative media I should have more of soon; in the meantime here's Willamette Week's queer column.


There are two main documents that created the impetus for today's marriages. First, the opinion of the Multnomah County Attorney. She in turn consulted with one of the high powered private attorneys, who concurred. The decision was ultimately made by the Multnomah County Commission, currently chaired by Diane Linn. They all based what they did on this part of Oregon State Law. Note the basic requirement of age which says nothing about gender, and the section further down that requires being pronounced husband and wife. (Is the pronouncement all that's necessary? Or is that going to be the phrase that kills the validity of the marriage? That's shaping up to be the 10 million dollar question, clearly).

Plenty of people had things to say about the decision. City of Portland Mayor Vera Katz has really nothing to do with the process officially, but she stood firmly in favor of the move. Governor Ted Kulongoski was less enthused, particularly as regarded the suddenness of the timing, almost specifically to avoid debate (or more likely injunction.) The legislative response was even testier.

While all this was going on, 422 men and women got married to each other, 2 at a time. Here's some of them.
The first license was given to Christine Tanner, whose landmark suit helped not only to establish domestic benefits laws in Oregon, but in language to pave the way for today's decisions based on subsequent equal class rulings in favor of homosexuals. She is to Portland what the two longtime partners in San Francisco were to historic moment.

As I said, the Portland blogs seem quiet, or I've not found the buzzing spots. If you know of them on this topic--or anything bloggable that's related to the issue as it pertains to Portland and Oregon, please send mail. These are some decent ones to start.

Communique--comprehensive Portland news
WorldWide Pablo
1221 SW 4th
anti anti, kinda funny
(Pacific NorthWest ring)


An amazing day.

Are you the author of the blog at

this site? Drop me an email; I'd like to thank you for putting me on the blogroll, and find out how you came to find me. There is no comment or email link from your page.

Update--thanks for getting in touch, and thanks for the link.

Bursting with pride

I am thrilled to note that my hometown has begun issuing marriage licenses between members of the same sex. It's about time Portland stepped into the debate, given Oregon's status as a state without any statutorial prohibitions against them. I find the Multnomah County officials' statements revealing: not only did they not find law to prohibit them, the absence of any laws was interpreted to mean that NOT granting them is what's against state law. The headline was the first story above the fold in printed editions; it even topped Kerry's coronation.

I'll predict right now that Oregon will end up being the bellwether state in the country on this issue. Massachusetts would claim it, except that it's being done by judicial review over what appears to be significant opposition within the Legislature. The Oregon legislature is Democrat-run in the House, politically even in the Senate, but the GOP here is relatively moderate, especially socially speaking. Oregon consistently ranks as one of the least religious-minded states in the union, meaning that much of the opposition--faith based as it is--is taken out of the equation here. I forsee Oregon to be the first state in the union to formally sanction marriages between same-sex persons by legislative action.

Kerry's heavy artillery

A well-read California reader tipped me off to this a couple months ago, and I came across a blog report from the period in 2003 when former NSC counterterrorism adviser Rand Beers quit the Bush administration and signed up to advise the then-moribund John Kerry.

Remember it being said that "everything" could potentially be on the table? This strikes me as one of the things the Kerry people had in mind. With the release of books by both Beers and Richard Clarke, the conjoining of the 9/11 Commission, Senate Foreign Intelligence investigation, Plame investigation and the books could constitute a perfect storm this summer. Kos sure thinks so.

Juan Cole's Iraq updates

I have several places I like to go for information on the occupation in Iraq. The view from the ground is good at IraqNow, the intel and general military impact source is Phil Carter, and for a general overview on the political developments, it's definitely Juan Cole. He helps me keep my mullahs straight.

These are Juan's latest, on the bombings and the reaction, and the comments of an aforementioned mullah. Pay special attention to the entry about Sunni calls to donate blood and respond to calls for help from Shiite Iraqis in the wake of yesterday's attacks. The three internal groups of Iraq seem to be slowly but surely coming together in a unified attempt to make getting control of their country back the #1 priority. The reason for terrorist attacks against civilian targets is 50% based on the US occupation, and 50% in the interest of ethnic division in Iraq creating a vacuum for loose Wahabbism to flourish in--or hell, just to create the vacuum itself. The question is what happens when 50% disappears on July 1st. Do the attacks continue apace? Do the factions splinter on fear and mistrust from the tactics of al-Qaeda and their relations? Or do they, as they have shown in the wake of a deadly serious ethnic bombing, see the resistance as the Coalition does--as desperate attempts to break the peace? Unfortunately, there will be plenty of time for the factions to splinter on the basis of fear and mistrust, al-Qaeda or no.

I used to think this gradual quieting punctuated by occassional seismic shocks like yesterday's would be a net benefit to Bush politically. Now I'm not so sure. We'll be out, but the calm will allow voters to focus on other things. What has motivated Bush's appeal is fear and mistrust, and unless something reminds us viscerally of our fears, Iraq as an issue will dim for many here-and-now focused voters.

Who's the cotton candy candidate?

When I think of cotton candy, I think of buying something that is, more than anything else, whipped air. It looks good, it initially tastes pretty good...and that's it. There's no there, there. You keep eating it, you keep getting that initial little buzz that reminds you of candy, but then you're back to the cotton part, and you realize that you've been had, value wise.

Such, to me, is the presidency of President Bush. Once super-puffed and dazzling on the stick, we're starting to lick that pink crystal crust that's at the bottom--and George keeps grabbing it from us and running it through the maker again, trying to puff the floss back up to where it was.

Having flogged that metaphor about as far as I can take it, I'll let you in on why I bring it up. Ellisblog has made his eve of the general election pronouncement thusly:

Next, let's visit the issue of Kerry the brand. No one knows anything about him, other than the fact that he served in Vietnam and represents Massachusetts in the US Senate. His economic plan has already been dismissed by The Washington Post as a fiscal joke. His various stances on the War on
Terror are impossible to fathom. He has no coherent views on cultural issues. In other words, he's an empty net. Look for the Bush campaign to start working on its slapshot.

I like John's writing; he is just on the edge of bare partisanship, realistic but firmly convinced of his personal views. There's a certain symmetry between us that way. As such John, a lot of what you say politically I simply don't buy. Here's an example, above.

Let's start with the knowledge on him. Perhaps you mean that no one knows what you consider "the real story" about John Kerry, but clearly over the last month a considerable majority have come to both know about him, and have reached one conclusion or another. Refer to recent Polling Reports for a refresher. In the most recent Annenberg, 30 points were shorn from "undecided" and "haven't heard about" responses from a month ago, with 18 of those going to the "favorable" rating.

George Bush's economic plan has been dismissed as a fiscal joke essentially even by himself, at least regarding job creation targets. The pronouncement that deficits would be reduced in half under his plan was greeted with derision by econmist groups and fiscal news outlets, not just the Post.

Bush's stances on the War on Terror are also hard to fathom. Are the terrorists in Afghanistan, or were they in Iraq? Did we mean to stop them in Kabul or to fight them in Baghdad? Is Osama the priority as Bush said he was in September 2001, or not really of concern, as he said 18 months later? Was the rationale for moving quickly on Iraq the worry of WMDs available to terrorists, or the liberation of a people and deposition of a bad man? Is North Korea a threat to deal with, or a foe to stonewall?

On cultural issues, Bush favors the states handling gay marriage (2/2000, Larry King), and he favors an amendment to override them. He's against the use of stem cells, except for 60 lines of stem cells. He's for assault weapons bans, unless they're part of another gun bill.

I will not deny in the least the vulnerabilities John Kerry brings to his side of the table. But I found ironic the ease with which I could find equal vulnerabilities in exactly the same areas, relative to Bush.
Of most pressing concern if I'm a supporter of the GOP, is that in the space of less than a year the standard response has gone from "It's OK if the economy and Iraq don't go smoothly; the people trust the President" to "We'll stand on the economy and the war on terror." I think the former perspective is a winner; the latter--where we stand at least currently--is much more fragile. As with Kerry, for Bush once the inevitability of his re-election has completely faded he must stand on a record that is not nearly as solid as his supporters would hope.

Self-reflexive bias over self-reflexive bias

There seems to be (and I say that because I'm too lazy to link up any proof) a bit of a trend for those in the media to seek out instances of "liberal bias" in order to counter charges that the media are liberally biased. I'll let you take a moment to hop off the semantic cycle on that one...OK. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about, both for the content and the source--CBS, who are usually at the top of the "bias" list compiled by the right. (although it's actually a reprint of Chait from TNR). From the reading, I get the sense that Chait wants you to believe that he's really a watchdog for impartiality, and is eager to lay the slippers of bias at your feet. However, he makes what I think is a crucial error of connectivity, and also gets a major fact wrong.

First of all, look at the quotes that Chait uses to prop up his thesis that gay marriage bans are the dominant public opinion, and thus Bush's call to ban them represents a mainstream play for votes. Here's the money quote for what "the liberal media" are saying, according to Chait:

In recent weeks, on a variety of fronts, President Bush has done just that, trying to allay the concerns and stoke the spirits of his restive conservative base. His impassioned endorsement on Tuesday of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, after weeks of intensive lobbying by social conservatives, was the culmination of this rapprochement.

As I noted, what Chait wants to do with this and other references to Bush's strategy is to proffer that, contrary to media elite perception, the issue of gay marriage bans is one that plays well to the electorate at large. And there's no denying that overall, about 2/3 of Americans are not in favor of gay marriage. But I really don't think that's what the point of the articles that Chait cites, are about. They're not about testing the political winds at all--they're about political choices that reflect already-known factors in the election. In other words, Bush did not float the ban in order to hopefully draw new voters in. Clearly, the move was designed not to attract new voters, but to protect OLD ones. It was reactive--a response to erosion and fear from the right that a) Bush was losing steam, and b) the religious right had been antsy for Bush's support on gay marriage for months. . While Chait is correct about both the dominant play of the story, and the reality of the polls, he misconnects the two. It's not bias to suggest that Bush sought to lock down his base, since that's almost assuredly what he did. You can make decisions based on only a small slice of the electorate, and Chait seems to ignore that.

The other thing he does is claim that there's no basis for gay marriage being a less than important issue nationwide. Polling Report says otherwise--there's a host of issues more important right now.

Final Democratic debate? A rolling blog report

I finally got a chance to watch a whole debate at once and track my thoughts as it went. Whatever else one wants to say about CBS, they put the entire video transcript online almost as soon as it was over, and for free. So as I watched it, here's what I saw:

• Opening question from Rather about God--"what do you believe?" I am reminded of the REM song; only Edwards would have a ghost's prayer of knowing this, and that's a weak prayer even for him. I am omniscient; sure enough, no one steals Stipe's lines. Kerry says God and redemption (been to see Passion, John?). Edwards says Two Americas. Right off the bat! Kucinich gives the Biblical verses of what I'd call Purpose, although it came off like "as the Bible says, where's my handout?" Al believes in God, God's Purpose(tm), and the importance of treating others right. The two guys not in the real running have the better answers; Edwards is closer than Kerry.
  
  
• Kerry is solid on Haiti as a statesman; handles the issue well. That's the only way to spin out of charges on his record--resell them as experience. Edwards starts off well from an assuredly rehearsed script, then gets interrupted and challenged and ends up flustered. You can tell he's trying to get to his signature line on the topic (or what he hopes will be the signature)--"doctrine of prevention." For that payoff, clearly he worked too hard on it. For once Sharpton is probably the best informed of the four on the situation, and he is rudely cut off by Elisabeth Bumiller of NYT, but fights his way through it. And why not--it's the only one Sharpton can sound presidential responding to. Kucinich uses Haiti to pull out the Department of Peace piece, which flops here about as well as it would have flopped anywhere.
  
  
• Rather throws Edwards the "make your case or hold your peace" question--how are you different? Edwards goes into his trade position, one he's clearly keen to make...and is promptly cut off by Bumiller, who asks a dumbass question about what he'll do if he loses all ten states. The man is trying like the dickens to give a policy answer, and he's cut off to answer a horse race question. I am not liking this woman. At all. Kerry steps in and takes on Edwards' claim of being an outsider, then gives probably his best explanation of his trade credentials.
  
  
• Edwards looks uh, overgestured. What works very well for him at a podium, where he can confirm and deny (see Eddie Izzard) to his heart's content doesn't work when seated at a table. All you see is an oft-pointed finger, which makes him look more pedantic and less embracing. Kerry is the opposite--all stiff behind a lectern, he is more relaxed and human-looking in a chair. He ought to try to get a sitting debate with Bush. Good luck on that, though.
  
  So Kerry is doing OK here, then gives a lame, lame excuse about why his budget proposals won't make the deficit bigger, despite a WaPo article to the contrary. Saying the money you spend is off-budget so it shouldn't count, is lame. Then Al tries to give an answer and gets cut off by Bumiller. Al does not back down, and I have to say that what came to my mind, right or wrong, is that she looked genuinely frightened of Sharpton, like he was a crazy black man who just might jump the table. Like I said, that's just what her expression said to me. But I've seen that look before.
  
  At the very least, Sharpton makes her look foolish for trying to move the debate along, using the time to launch a broad attack on CBS and anyone who won't give him (and oh yeah, Dennis) the same consideration the others get. Rather responds that people aren't voting for them, so why should Dan care? Lost in all this is that Kerry's lousy answer on Edwards' charge is entirely forgotten. Thanks Al, says Kerry! Sharpton says some technically correct things about trade, but looks otherwise lost. Andrew Kirtzman asks a trade question to Edwards in order to cut off Sharpton (about 10 seconds after he complains about getting cut off again), and Edwards dismisses the question. Can you quantify jobs you'll create? Heck no!--good answer.
  
  
• It's Bumiller's turn again, and she uses it to ask Kerry whether he's a liberal--and then chases him about the theatre trying to get an answer: "Yes or No? Yes or No?" Are you a liberal?" It's another useless question, but Kerry does a decent job playing up votes as conservative, and calling Bush's votes not conservative either. An odd strategy. Anyhow, he pleads the pointlessness of labels, and Sharpton bails Kerry out. Kucinich says he's liberal and proud, and why should we call these guys liberals when they voted for the war and NCLB and whatnot? Edwards takes advantage of the now-free pass on liberalism and runs his populist line of empathy as a presidential ideology. Kerry piles back on, having taken the pass from Edwards. This is a solid few minutes for the Democratic party in general; they all get a chance to dismiss the callousness of labels (except Kucinich, I suppose).
  
  
• Rather another stupid question, this one about the vice-presidential slot and/or the prospect of a Kerry/Edwards ticket. What is Edwards supposed to say? I hate this question, because it begs for a lying answer. Whether he wants it or not, he's sure as hell not going to tell you so while he's still running AGAINST the guy. Kucinich has a minor score trying to claim he'd be the best VP, since he offers a real difference to the ticket. Yeah, you'd be different all right, Dennis.
  
  
• Another dumbass question--do Edwards' supporters know he's rich? Of course, this plays right back into Edwards' active hands, letting him tell the mill worker story again. Kucinich defends Edwards on it, thank you Dennis. Kirtzman then presses the question again, in the exact same terms--do your supporters know you're rich? Edwards hits it out of the park in disgust, showing off the limousine populism that has gotten him this far. But despite the effort, the "disaffected rich guy" tag doesn't seem to stick to Edwards very well.
  
  
• Yet another dumbass question--not anything substantive about Iraq and any budding civil strife or terrorist insurgency activity, but about whether June 30 is most important. Kerry dismisses the question as less relevant, but is hammered by Bumiller with "Yes or no?" I now want to put this woman into Saddam's hole and park a Hummer over it. Kerry does well staying with his view of the problems in Iraq, and parries several challenges on his thoughts on the region. Interestingly, no discussion of his defense voting has come up so far. Kerry has done very well as a studied citizen of foreign policy tonight.
  
  Then Bumiller interrupts him with yet ANOTHER dumbass question--about military funerals, and should Bush go to them. Then it becomes, should he go to all of them, or just some and make a statement to apply to the rest? Or should he allow photos of caskets? Kerry was right in the middle of a vaguely substantive statement on post-Iraqi policy, and she starts in with the funerals. WTF?, I keep writing. What is this woman doing? Al does get in a good dig at Kerry and Edwards, noting that "you can't cash a blank check and then wonder why there's no money in the account."
  
  
• Finally, a decent-ish question: are we safer? There have been no major American attempts since then. That's good, right? Edwards begins a fairly rationed response about his disagreement, and is pressed for specifics, which cuts off Edwards' attempt to deliver a fairly rationed response. He soldiers on with a fairly effective critique of homeland issues like port containers--but that's too wonky for Kirtzman, who moves on.
  
  
• Well, one good question in a row. The next one is about likability. Kerry does reasonably, and Edwards starts in on how it's not a personality contest--and then knocks over a water glass with his hands. He gets over it quickly, but his hands have finally caught up with him, and I firmly believe it's because they don't have as much room on camera to help in a seated situation.
  
  
• With 13 minutes left, Rather complains about not having enough time, and too many topic areas to cover. Hey Dan, how about you and your people SHUT THE FUCK UP for a few seconds, and let the candidates answer your inane questions? How about you stop interrupting talk of new ideas, for clarification on horse race issues? Shove it, Dan. You and your colleagues are holding this debate back.
  
  
• Gay marriage finally raises its head, and Kerry dodges the question of "what's wrong with it," reasonably well. Of course, it's a losing position among Democrats, and Sharpton and Kucinich make the front two look hidebound and crusty. Sharpton says the message to gays is, "Just shack up, don't bother getting married." Bingo.
  
  
• With time running out, it's time for...North Korea? I know this is a vitally important piece of our national security, but let's face it--95% don't know where Haiti is, don't know where Liberia is, don't even know where Korea is, so why is this getting play when so many questions have gone unanswered? Edwards does turn it his way, exposing it as another example in a pattern of failed Bush foreign policy. Kucinich goes twice as far, pledging to do no harm. That would have been Dean's line, and frankly it would have been best if Dean had delivered it.
  
  
• A quick question about Israel's fence/wall. Entirely non-revealing.
  
  
• A bookend question to the first Q--"Is God on our side?" Kerry gives a good answer, but Edwards' is well planned and easily the best. Lincoln quotes always seal the deal.

I think having Sharpton and Kucinich in the debate clearly helped Kerry and Edwards. Heck, they both spent a fair amount of time cheering for the varsity to do well. They framed issues from the left, and defended the top two against some truly pointless questions.

Edwards changed tactics as I suppose he had to, but he didn't come off any better doing so. Kerry held his own, which is all that he really needed to do. The race won't be over Tuesday, but a large set of blowouts on Tuesday will cripple Edwards' chances. It's now or never, unless you're Elf-Boy or the Crazy Preacher, in which case you (and we) can enjoy their hilarity all summer long.

Oh, the shock!

Robbins--making dinner, missed it (comes on way early in the West)
Zellweger--called it
Coppola--called it
Jackson--called it
Theron--called it
Penn--called it
LoTR--duh

I am not the divine spirit of Gene Siskel, so clearly this just had to have been a mind-numblingly obvious selection of choices. You knew Jackson had director when they gave Sofia Coppola (mamacita!) the screenplay award. Screenplay is what your movie gets if it's not going to get anything else. Voila. Women always get the Oscar if they're pretty and they play an ugly woman, so Theron was in. Penn was the "due" actor this year--the only one to get a standing ovation for their award. Spicoli--who knew?--but very, very well deserved.

They might as well have billed it as the "Lord of the Rings Is Best Picture 76th Academy Awards" in all the primetime shows they fed Oscar references to. Not a soul there or anywhere, believed that the other four films had any better odds than the prospect that Renee Zellweger would exhibit actual eyeballs. And where was the new and exciting format to counteract the chill of five second delay? I thought Susan Sarandon was Girl Most Likely to Experience Wardrobe Malfunction, but she came through heavingly.

I have a buddy who writes screenplays--good ones--and I wonder what he thinks when he sees this show (if he does). I played a little music "professionally," and I wouldn't watch a Grammy commercial, much less the show. The highlight for me was Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara doing one of their folk songs from the movie A Mighty Wind, a close personal 2nd to LoTR last year. Interestingly, they were the only people who actually acted at anytime during the entire show. And while I didn't expect the song would win (it's Michael McKean and his wife's, actually), I figured one of the Allison Krauss songs would make it. The worst of the lot was Annie Lennox's lame LoTR tune, which won.

My after-party invitations got held up for security reasons, so that's why I'm here to write about the show for you now. Lucky!

Did we mention the Oscars are on Sunday?

The tie-ins between "news," "entertainment" and flat out "promotion" become tighter and tighter. It always seemed worst in sports, possibly because there was plenty of down time to fill with ads and tie-ins to other shows on the network. Who can forget the visits by TV's Coach to the booth on Monday Night Football? Then stars just coincidentally started showing up at baseball games put on by Fox--and they sat with other stars from the same Fox TV shows they worked on together! It happened so many times, I began to wonder if they weren't doing it on purpose. I know, crazy, right? The reality shows have spawned interview tie-ins with the morning shows the following day, as the new week's ousted loser gets their 5 follow up minutes of fame with Katie Couric. Or why wait until the next day? Fox routinely mentions the TV show that just finished, as a news story in the 10 O'Clock rundown. "Welcome to the 10 O'Clock News. Tonight: Average Joe Millionaire picks from dwarf bachelorettes who had to convince their families to show up and sing for a record contract! Film at 9."

But this has got to be the worst single case of shameless promotional hammering that humans have ever witnessed. Look at the carpet bombing ABC is doing for the Oscars:

ABC will have separate Oscar-related episodes for nine of its series: "I'm With Her", "The Practice," "According to Jim," "Less Than Perfect," "Married to the Kellys," "It's All Relative," "Hope & Faith," "Alias" and "8 Simple Rules." And the network will "stunt cast" some of its series by putting film stars who are past Oscar winners in guest roles.

The network plans Oscar themes and segments for more than a dozen shows, including "Good Morning America" and 'The View," which will air features on Oscar fashions and how to throw an Oscar party.

In addition to ABC, a number of other Walt Disney Co. platforms will have tie-in programming and promotions. ESPN's morning talk show "Cold Pizza" will do segments on sports-related movies that have received Oscar nominations or awards, such as "Chariots of Fire" and "Jerry Maguire." A&E, partly owned by ABC, will air a special two-hour "Biography" about the Oscars. "

That's just sad. The "news" shows maybe I can stomach a little bit better. Even the former-Oscar-winners-in-the-sitcom thing is vaguely justifiable--they are supposed to be good actors, after all. But writing your hyped show directly into the scripts? Again, sad. "You know honey, since your dad John Ritter died, I'd like us to all come together as a family more often. How about this Sunday at the Oscars?" Or "Your honor, this witness is hostile. He is worthy of being onstage accepting an Oscar this Sunday night at 8!" :maximum rolleyes:

Before you ask--yes, I'll probably watch it. Thankfully on the West Coast it doesn't run so freakin' late. I'm curious to see what well meaning but poorly delivered liberal rant Tim Robbins has planned, and see if the network hits the panic (delay) button. Maybe someone from Middle Earth will come on stage and announce that Peter Jackson is rejecting his Oscar in order to call attention to the worldwide plight of the Hobbitts. Save the Hobbits! Call 1-800-BAG-GINS and....oh, there's the music, Goodnight!"

Seinfeld signs on through 2011

Why are Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David still working? I'm glad they are, but given the kind of cash cow they co-created, I think even Jimmy Carter would finally take a load off and say, "Screw it, Rosalynn--get me a lemonade and turn on the Masters, would you?"

I finally got sick of M*A*S*H after the 30th rerun. Not there yet with Seinfeld. Call me in 2011.