A lot of gun control advocates were understandable discouraged when the recent Manchin-Toomey Bill failed to pass in the Senate, thinking that if something this weak and fully-supported by the public couldn't pass, what ever could?
I've long felt that what will change things in the gun-control debate is when politicians realize that having a high NRA rating actually hurts them -- and losing an election holds more concern for them than the joy of getting money from the NRA. After all, what good is having a full treasure chest of campaign money if having that chest means you lose? Will such a thing happen? Hard to say at this point, but in the recent Chicago election to replace Jesse Jackson, Jr. in the 2nd Congressional district, the prohibitive favorite, Debbie Halvorson, a former member of Congress, got repeatedly slammed in the primary for being pro-NRA -- and she ended up losing. (The winner of the primary, Robin Kelly, ended up winning the special election.) In fairness, that was in a heavily Democratic city district, so it may not be typical. Yet now we see something similar happening in a totally different environment, the state of New Hampshire. In a Public Policy Polling result, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has dropped 15 points after voting against background checks for firearms, and that's without an unrelenting ad campaign against her, such as Ms. Halvorson faced. Sen. Ayotte previously had a 48-35 percent approval rating. Now, she's at 44-46 percent. Is the turnaround because of that one vote? Well, given that nothing else significant has occurred in her agenda since the previous poll and giving that PPP also says that three-quarters of New Hampshire voters support background checks, it certainly seems reasonable to think so. Kelly Ayotte will be running for reelection in 2016 when she is expected to face Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan. Though Ms. Ayotte won her previous race by 23 points, current polling has her behind the governor 44-46. Of course, bills passing the Senate are only half the equation, and getting through the House seems the bigger challenge. But again, if candidates there see what happened in Chicago and sense that they have a better chance of winning by voting for gun control, no matter how much the gun manufacturer-owned NRA gives them -- indeed, specifically because of what the NRA gives them -- them perhaps we can see some change there, too, over time. On the one hand, yes, this is an uphill battle. On the other hand, it's a battle where polls show an amazing 90 percent of the public actually supports the issue, in some form.
0 Comments
I like Stephen Colbert, though don't watch The Colbert Report regularly. However, fortunately I happened to be watching on February 23 last year when he happened to introduce a new sponsor, Wheat Thins. If you don't have a box, get one now. We'll wait. The Colbert Report From the ridiculous to the sublime. Hat's off to Google, which is saluting Ella Fitzgerald today on the 96th anniversary of her birth with one of their Google Doodles. There's nothing flamboyant about it, just a nice graphic and some good links, but if you were planning to do a Google search anytime soon, today's the day to it.
I love Ella Fitzgerald's work, and even got to see her live on stage in an intimate setting at Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen, when I was but a kidling on an American Youth Hostel bike trip. In honor of her birthday, here's a song from the lady. It's from my favorite of her "songbook" collection, this The Rodgers and Hart Songbook. I’m not a fan of Kathy Griffin. I find her smarmy, holier-than-thou and mean-spirited. As a result, her humor isn't the kind I like, and I only find her moderately funny on occasion. The further problem is that she's tough to respond by those she attacks because that’s what she does, so it would just be unending. Finally, though, someone actually sort of has a response.
The Huffington Post has printed an excerpt from an upcoming book, Maybe We’ll Have You Back: The Life of a Perennial TV Guest Star. by a successful perennial TV guest star, Fred Stoller, who had a disastrous date with Kathy Griffin and also some bad professional work with her. The excerpt isn't smarmy, it’s not especially deep and insightful, it’s just pretty straightforward and human, and ultimately is damning for that. And it’s nice to know that my perception was pretty spot-on. Here's the excerpt. There are a few ways you can tell that a political candidate is in deep, serious trouble during an election. One is that they're nine points behind in the polls two weeks before the election, as is the case with former governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) in his race for Congress against Elizabeth Colbert Busch in South Carolina's First District. Another is that they've dropped heavily in the polls, as Mr. Sanford did, seven points since the last poll. A third way is that they take out long ads that details the troubles they're having in their campaign, which again is precisely what former governor Sanford did on Sunday in a 1,200-word personal message in the Charleston Post & Courier to explain (or whine about) his "rough week." (That his "rough week" was due in part to his ex-wife's lawyer filing a complaint of trespassing, didn't help. Nor did his timing about his "rough week" that coincided with Boston's worse, rough week.) A fourth way you can tell a campaign is in big trouble is when the national committee of your party pulls funding for you, which the Republican National Congressional Committee has done. But the fifth and most visible way is when you resort to goofy stunts that beg of desperation, like when Mark Sanford debated a cardboard cutout. Worse, it wasn't even a cardboard cutout of his opponent, but rather (for some reason) Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who represents a district 3,000 miles away on the other coast. Mr. Sanford's contention seemed to be that his opponent won't "articulate her views publicly." As it happens, though, on that same day, Ms. Colbert Busch had two public appearances, a rally at a local high school, and a meeting of "Republicans for Elizabeth Colbert Busch." Further, the two have a debate scheduled for Monday.
But still, even if you think you're making a really great point by debating a piece of cardboard, wouldn't any rational campaign try to make that point with a cutout of the candidate you're running against?? Maybe the Sanford brain trust thinks voters in the First District hate Nancy Pelosi and are trying to connect the two women. But still -- if the whole point is to have a Big Visual that will get attention for your floundering campaign, this visual that they used totally misses the far, far bigger (and far, far, FAR more obvious) one. You'd also think they'd learned something from Clint Eastwood's disastrous, wildly-ridiculed appearance at the Republican Convention when he debated an empty chair. But hey, who knows, maybe this is the future for the GOP. Maybe there's some Republican Election Handbook that suggests debating inanimate objects. At least they won't answer back and ask you tough questions -- or any questions. Like, "Seriously, Mr. Sanford, what in the world are you doing?" Add it all together and you get major desperation and incredible stupidity. And how you know a campaign is in serious trouble. The election is May 7. Set your DVR to record The Colbert Report on Comedy Central May 8. You'll likely be seeing Stephen Colbert discuss his victorious sister, and perhaps have her on as a guest. The other day, when writing about an unknown British musical, The Four Musketeers, I mentioned that the composer Laurie Johnson had also written an earlier musical on the West End, Lock Up Your Daughters. That show, staged in 1959 -- and also largely unknown on this side of the Atlantic for the very good reason that it too never played here, for some reason -- is based on a novel by Henry Fielding, who wrote the book, Tom Jones. What I didn't mention is that the lyrics for Lock Up Your Daughters were written by a fellow involved in his first major stage musical -- Lionel Bart. The very next year, his life would change when he went on to write both the lyrics and music to Oliver! But for this, his first major West End production, he only did the lyrics. And they're absolutely wonderful. Clever, lively, funny, whimsical, tender and fresh.
(I keep saying "major" because that same year, 1959, Bart had written a very small musical, Fings Ain't Wot They Used to Be, that opened about two months before Lock Up Your Daughters. But I'm pretty certain it didn't play on the West End, and was the equivalent of our off-Broadway. If not very off-Broadway...) A movie of Lock Up Your Daughters was actually made in 1969, and had a very good cast, including Christopher Plummer, Susannah York -- who'd been in Tom Jones -- Glynnis Johns (the mother in Mary Poppins and star of A Little Night Music) and Jim Dale. Oddly, though, the cut out all the songs! Whether any of the music is used as background scoring, I don't know. This isn't the first time that's happened. When Billy Wilder made the film, Irma la Douce, based on the Broadway musical, that was done without the songs, as well. I'm sure there are other cases. Anyway, I'll post a couple of the songs from Lock Up Your Daughters -- not just because it's a fun score that few people in the U.S. have ever heard, but also for the sheer history aspect of Lionel Bart's first stagework. But the begin with, I figure it's best to start with the title song. As I noted, it's filled with lively and clever rhymes, but one of my all-time favorites comes at the 1:00-minute mark. And as you'll note, this is an auspicious lyrical start for Mr. Bart and boded well for what was about to come. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|