Political consultant Stuart Stevens was on MSNBC a couple days ago. Back in 2020, Stevens wrote a book, It Was All a Lie, about his time as a major Republican political consultant in the past.  The subtitle was, “How the Republican Party became Trump,” and the book laid out in detail how the Republican Party machinery had a foundation of lying, which has brought it to being the cult of Trump today.  As the New York Times review of the book stated, “In his bare-knuckles account, Stevens confesses to the reader that the entire apparatus of his Republican Party is built on a pack of lies... This reckoning inspired Stevens to publish this blistering, tell-all history... Although this book will be a hard read for any committed conservatives, they would do well to ponder it."
 
Ever since then, when left the party, and has been an analyst I've liked what Stevens has to say about today's GOP, openly and brutally.  What I don't like is when he blames today's GOP, as he did again in his MSNBC appearance, on starting when they accepted Trump and says, too, how before, when he was a consultant for the party, the GOP was based on the principle that "character counts" -- all of which conveniently ignores the whole point of what he wrote in It Was All A Lie," because a party whose foundation was “all a lie” – let me repeat, in case that’s not clear, ALL a lie -- is not the definition of character.  And further, given that it came immediately right before Trump ran to lead the party, that is where today's GOP started.  Trump may have taken control of the party, which subsequently “became” him, but that foundation of lying is what opened the door for Trump, allowing him to walk right through and be accepted.
 
When you are a party whose “entire apparatus” is “built on a pack of lies, you’ve helped create a party whose base is willing to believe what is literally a totally anonymous “Q” voice as its main (or even sole) source of information.  A party whose base is literally insane – something I mean clinically, not hyperbolically – because it’s able to believe that a dead JFK, Jr. will not only come back to life, but will then run with Trump on a presidential ticket.  And believe that news host Anderson Cooper eats babies.  And believe that Joe Biden now is a clone.  That actual craziness doesn’t suddenly pop out of the blue.  That requires being weened on getting told all lies for years.  And accepting lies as truth, to the degree that they can’t tell the difference.  And will accept an anonymous QAnon source and will accept a Trump, who made over 30,000 documented lies during his time in office.  And will believe, despite losing 60 court cases and despite all 50 states certifying the results, and despite a total lack of admissible evidence to the contrary, that the presidential election was stolen, just because they were told the Big Lie over and over and over that it was.
 
That’s what’s really weird about Stuart Stevens – in many way, he’s incredibly admirable in his total openness about the past when he consulted for the GOP being based on lying, to the extent that he wrote a book about it and even titled it that way. It Was All a Lie.  But when he's interviewed about today's politics and has to deal with it in person, face-to-face, he oddly gets very reticent about it.

Here's an even better example of what I mean. A few years back, when the book had just been published, he was a guest on Al Franken's podcast. It was an excellent interview about today's GOP, and Stevens was outspoken in his blunt assessment of the Republican Party.  But I remember Franken very politely nailing him on this same point of Stevens' own part in setting it all up.. And when Stevens tried to dance around it, not taking any responsibility, Franken put his politeness off to the side ever-so-slightly, and he said something in a light-hearted but pointed voice along the lines of, "But wait, just look at the first lines of your own book!!!" And then he read them:  "I have no one to blame but myself.  I believed. That's where it all started to go wrong." And then, as I recall, an incredulous Franken added -- "You wrote that!"

Stevens mumbled something, and Franken politely let him off the hook, but his point was made.
 
My friend Michael Shoob is an astute observer of politics.  Needless-to-day, that means I usually agree with him.  Though not always, but even when I don't, his reasoning and insight is sharp.  Among many other things, he made a terrific documentary in 2004, Bush’s Brain, about Karl Rove, based on the New York Times bestselling book by James C. Moore and Wayne Slater.  (It's available here on DVD at Netflix.)  And he took my point about Stevens and brought it to another level, writing to me that –
 
“Every time I see or hear Stevens interviewed, I find myself admiring the fact that he has the guts to speak out against the current GOP when so many do not. But, then I can't help remembering (as I do with Nicole Wallace and others) that he was part of the legacy of lies, deception and cruelty perpetrated by Rove and Lee Atwater and others long before Donald Trump came along. Did they light the match? I think so.”
 
Not shockingly, I agree with everything Michael said  -- including about Nicole Wallace and Steve Schmidt and some others, being GOP operatives when the fire was burning.  I've written about that here in the past, as well.  In their favor, they absolutely deserve great praise for being outspoken in their blunt criticism of today's GOP.  And no, they weren't at the dark end of the worst GOP operatives when they were there, nor do they always have to beat their breasts and regularly add that they were a part of what got us here.  But -- I do think that just mentioning their part in the lie-machinery and then moving on is unacceptable.   Saying on occasion, as they do, that “when I was in that Administration,” isn’t the same thing – they’re weren’t just in the Administration (the secretaries, doorman and guy who brought coffee were in the Administration) they were important parts of the apparatus, they were spokespeople and top consultants pushing the agenda that Stuart Stevens writes “was all a lie.”  And they should periodically address it to put their current efforts in context.  Wallace comes closest, but she always stops short of acknowledging how it helped lead to Trump.  Doing so doesn’t detract what an admirable job they’re doing now, it gives it strong perspective and substance.  Otherwise, it's just whitewashing their part enabling it all. There's a balance where it managed properly.

After all, Robert Byrd had a horrible past in the Ku Klux Klan, as a local leader, but later become a strong advocate for Civil Rights – and what Byrd said about his past was, "I apologized a thousand times...and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
 
I want to be very clear:  I love what Stuart Stevens, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson and others say about today’s Republican Party.  They are strong, impressive, important, almost noble voices in their outrage, and I have great respect for them.  But they shouldn’t try to bury their part in the past’s “It was all a lie” apparatus that enabled the worst operatives in the GOP and prepared the base to accept a Trump.  Saying offhandedly, periodically, "I was there," isn't enough.  They should follow the Byrd Rule and not mind apologizing over and over again.  Because it’s not just part of the GOP’s horrific past, but a past which has bled to the present.

 
The assignment was to "write something like 'Hello, Dolly!' but dirty" – something that most definitely not in my wheelhouse.  (To this days, friends are shocked that "er, you wrote that??"  But that was the job.  And I was able to placate myself by coming up with something that at least is totally clean on the surface, although is filled with fairly crass double-entendres underneath.   (At least by my standards.  Perhaps "risqué" to others.)  When my parents wanted to hear it, I reeeeeally didn’t want to play the recording for them, and when I was pretty much compelled to, I was hoping that my mother at least wouldn’t get all the suggestive "puns" -- but alas she did.  I was sort of mortified when I played it and could see their taken-aback reaction.
 
The only thing that I wish were different about the version used in the film is that it’s much too fast.  It’s supposed to be performed at the pace of – as was the assignment – "Hello, Dolly!", which is a strutting cakewalk.  But after hearing the recording we sent Jimmy while the movie was in production, he said he needed it faster to move the scene along quicker. 

And so, I’ve embedded the song below.  But a couple of additional words first.

The two singers are Lynn Mills (the wife of Jimmy Huston, and a terrific vocalist) and “the Lady Shellington,” Shelly Goldstein (a good Northwestern friend whose wonderful cabaret career I’ve written about here often).  They were both very good sports for putting up with this.  Also, just think of it being sung one-third slower. Hopefully you'll be able to understand the words.  (Or, actually, maybe, hopefully not...)  But I’ve included the lyrics for those who feel compelled to follow along…    
 
And this, with an apology to the G-rated folks out there (like me) – following up as a proper, though odd and unexpected  bookend to on my article yesterday – is "One of the Girls."

​If you want to sing along, here are the lyrics --

"Just One of the Girls"
​
Sometimes ladies want to be
Petite and demure.
But sometimes we are wild and free,
And far less than pure.
A lady is a sister,
Whether quaint or lewd.
We know that when a man has kissed her
Ohh, someone gets screwed.
   (Oh, yes!  Oh, yes!  It's true.)
 
I want to sing out loud about it
Covered in ermine and pearls,
Tell the world I'm proud about it
As every flag unfurls. 
When all is finally said and done,
I could not have had more fun.
And I'm so glad that I'm just one
Of the girls.
 
Life's meant to be filled with play.
Come one and come all.
You can simply have your way;
We'll sure have a ball.
Life is grand, astound me.
Let down your guard,
Wrap your arms around me,
Ooo, it isn't that hard.
   (Oh, yes!  Oh, yes!  Please do.)
 
I'll float up to a cloud about it
Covered in ermine and pearls,
Tell the world I'm proud about it
As every flag unfurls. 
When all is finally said and done,
I could not have had more fun.
And I'm so glad that I'm just one
Of the girls.
 
            Women speak with many voices,
            I'm thrilled for each of mine.
            We're better the more the choices:
            Thank god that I have sixty-nine.

Everyday I'm so excited.
Life is the best.
What I do is undecided.
I'll keep you abreast.
Here I am, the new me.
Pleasure's mine to keep.
Put your life into me.  
Oooo, I want it more deep.
   (Oh,  yes!  Oh, yes!  It grew.)
 
I'm glad I'm well-endowed about it
Covered in ermine and pearls,
Tell the world I'm proud about it
As every flag unfurls. 
When all is finally said and done,
I could not have had more fun.
My life is the best, bar none.
And I'm so glad that I'm just one...
Oh, I'm so glad that I'm just one...
Yes, I'm so glad that I'm just one
Of the girls.

Yesterday, I sent the following tweet to Kevin McCarthy. I know this will shock many people, but I don't expect him to answer.  However, a guy can dream.  (More to the point, it was really just to get the issue out in the fullness of light.)  I wrote --

As I wrote back here a couple years ago, I’m a big fan of the TV series Ghosts.  I first discovered the British version, and was very pleased with what an excellent adaptation was done of it for U.S. television.  While I ever-so-slightly prefer the British show, there are things about each that I favor.
 
One especially-good thing about the American adaptation is that there are currently new episodes to watch.  The British version (which streams on HBO Max) hasn’t had anything new for a while – although the show is still being made.  Its new episodes began airing last September.
 
However, though there aren’t any new British episodes available here in the U.S. yet, this is the best next thing.
 
England, you see, has a “Red Nose Day” Comic Relief telethon every year to raise money for children poverty.  In fact, I’ve posted clips from it over the years.  And this, happily, is one more.  It’s a short film where the cast of the British Ghosts got together and did a 7-1/2 minute sketch.  It’s wonderful for American fans of the British original to finally see something new, but also a nice introduction for people over here who haven’t ever seen the British show.  While this sketch isn’t the show at its height, it's still a lot of fun.  (And features a guest appearance by singer Kylie Minogue.)  And you’ll get to see how close the American adaptation comes to the original.

This is great.  It's video from 2018 of Joe Tacopina – the attorney now defending Trump in the Stormy Daniels case (the one who got into a confrontation with MSNBC's Ari Melber last week and tried to grab a document the host was holding) – saying on CNN that Trump likely committed "fraud" and made "an illegal agreement."
 
I’d think that’s never a good thing for a client.
 

It's hard for me to imagine any GOP strategist thinking that "banning drag shows" is a winning issue for a political party -- especially one that tries to be seen as "keeping government out of our lives" -- and in fact may instead be counter-productive and damaging.
 
Going further, although “banning drag shows” won’t be a significant issue in the national presidential campaign, it will be something that helps color the perception of a party.  Especially if one of the candidates is Ron DeSantis who has been outspoken and active in making it a big state issue.  It’s the sort of thing that shows “This is what we stand for.”

It seems to me that “banning drag shows” as a political position is the sort of thing that even a great many people who don’t particularly like drag shows would be bothered by.  Actually, I suspect most people have never attended a drag show and have absolutely no interest.  But even they likely don’t want to see drag shows banned.
 
“But the children!!” is generally the cry from supporters of “banning drag shows.”  Think how troubling it is for little children to see sexually explicit drag shows!!  Actually, I suspect that most little children have never, ever seen a drag show.  (And by “most,” I mean as close to none as you can imagine.  Or just round off and make it “none”.)  Even non-sexually explicit ones. 
 
Further, if there ever is a case where a child attends a sexually-explicit drag show – or a sexually-explicit anything -- there are laws on the books that deal with that already.

To repeat, because it’s really important:  there are already laws about exposing children to sexually-explicit anything.  It doesn’t have to be a drag show, it just has to be an anything.
 
“But…but what about when a drag queen holds a story hour for children!!  What about that?!”  Yeah, what about that?  Because not only is that not a drag show, nor is that anything that is sexually explicit, all we’re talking about now is making laws about what a person can wear.  Or more accurately, laws about what costume a person can wear when putting on a performance!
 
By the way, I understand why some people don’t like drag shows and don’t want someone in drag reading stories to their children.  And even being outraged by it.  That’s fair and their personal choice.  But what we’re talking about is making it a crime.  About what someone wears.
 
So, then, if that’s the standard Republicans want to go after -- banning a performer in drag where children are watching – where does that leave Barry Humphries playing ‘Dame Edna’?  Jonathan Winters when he played ‘Maude Frickert’?  Or Flip Wilson’s ‘Geraldine’?  Or reruns of Johnny Carson playing ‘Aunt Blabby?”
 
Or what about performances of the classic stage comedy, Charley’s Aunt.  Or the Frank Loesser musical based on it, Where’s Charley?  Or the movie Tootsie?  Or the renowned Some Like It Hot?  Or the TV series Bosom Buddies?  My goodness, every community theater putting on the Tony Award-winning musical La Cage aux Folles might risk most of the cast going to jail if there are kiddies in the audience -- which there usually are.  For that matter, what to do about the hit movie, The Birdcage, based on it?
 
Or any play, movie or TV show where a character gets dressed in drag to hide from someone or for a comedy gag, or for any imaginable reason?  Should those fall under the GOP “banning drag shows” laws?  Because children likely may watch all of those.  And if they’re not banned, why not?  Why only in-person or during story time?
 
The long-running TV series RuPaul’s Drag Race airs in the living room of homes across the United States (and 15 more countries around the world).  Children can turn on the television and watch that at any time they want.  In fact, they don’t even need to be in their living room watching TV, since it streams on tablets and mobile phones.
 
In Shakespeare’s time, women couldn’t appear on stage, so men had to dress up in drag to play the female roles.  If that was done today, would they all fall on GOP illegal dominion.  And don’t think it’s just 500 years ago we’re talking about.  British “pantomime” shows are based on cross-dressing.  Just this past year, Sir Ian McKellen appeared in a British panto as ‘Old Mother Hubbard.’  If they brought the show across the seas to tour the U.S., would that be illegal?  Especially since it’s, of course, meant for children?
 
If not – and we have to assume “not,” even to today’s Republican Party – then why are drag performers reading to children at story time singled out for arrest?  Or any time in public a child might be present?  Why is that so different from any of these other situations?  And “It just is” is no answer – because it isn’t so different.  Indeed, it may not be different at all.

In fact, here's a question:  are people dressed as clowns okay for reading stories to little schoolchildren at story time?  I would think so, I've never heard otherwise of any clowns banned, let alone had laws created to throw clowns in prison for reading stories to school kids.  (Or for performing in public when children are present.)  The thing is, though, I suspect more little children have been terrified by clowns and had nightmares over them than than from drag queens.  And hey, in the end, it's all about protecting children, right?  Actually, I'd say that even adults have had more nightmares of clowns than over drag queens -- probably from being traumatized by clowns as little children.  Because clowns can seem pretty creepy.  "Killer clowns" is a familiar phrase.  "Killer drag queens" is not.
 
Nor are drag shows particularly different than any other production that has an actor wearing a dress.  Yes, there are more people in drag during a drag show than a single actor in a stage play or movie, but that’s the only difference.  So, then, what is the allowed number of people who can be in drag for a drag show if children oddly are present?  (If someone’s answer is “one,” then that means a drag performer reading books to children might be okay, as long as it’s considered a show, not story time.)  Are four okay?  Is 10 too many?
 
Further, and here’s a dicey question, what about when women dress up as men?  That would wipe out Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night because of the character of ‘Viola.’  And all the movies and plays about women dressing up as men to allow them to get ahead in A Man’s World.  Like Glenn Close’s Oscar-nominated performance in Albert Nobbs.  Say goodbye to them, because that’s all drag, even if you call it “cross-dressing.”  But if it’s okay – why?   And could a woman dress up as a man to read story time books to children?
 
And what is drag?  Republicans at least have to define that. 

Seriously, what is drag?  Is it a man who puts on a dress?  Or only if he also wears a wig?  Or just a wig?  (Does a toupee count?)  Or are lipstick and makeup needed, and high heels?  Or do you have to wear all of that to qualify as being “in drag”?  Or pick any three things from the list? Or what if a man wears all of that except a dress.  Does a skirt count?  What if you call it a kilt?
 
And what if a woman wears slacks – or a sport coat and tie but over a dress– or cuts her hair short – or doesn’t wear makeup?  Or wears a tie and slacks but no sport coat?  When does she qualify for being in drag?  And then reads a story to schoolchildren.
 
Which again, as mentioned, makes the GOP the wardrobe police creating laws about what you can wear before it becomes illegal.
 
But most important, let’s get back to the original point.
 
“Banning drag shows” seems a really horrible issue for a political party.  And not just because it’s intrusive, empty, near-impossible to identify what’s permissible and what isn’t, hypocritical and more.  But it identifies what the party is and stands for.  In a party that creates laws to ban men dressing up as women to read stories in school, but fights to protect semi-automatic weapons used to massacre schoolchildren in their classroom, it’s a horrific look.  It’s a worse look for a party that tries to pretend it’s against Big Government and keeping government out of people’s live and creates laws on what clothes you can wear.  And all the worse, still, when you get stuck at the starting gate simply defining what actually qualifies as drag is and why some “drag” is perfectly okay, but others make your head explode.
 
“Here is what we stand for!!”

All political parties want to talk about most of the same issues, and it’s how each want to address them that creates differences.  But when you’re the only party that wants to talk about “banning drag shows,” that’s how you risk being singled out and identified for who you are. 
 
Because, in the end, when you’re already on record as being against what books schoolkids can read and against teaching about race in America and against abortion, then “banning drag shows” and making that one of your campaign issues is, in fact, what you stand for.