Yesterday I wrote about the musical Harmony, and that one of the people who will be starring in this NYC production is Sierra Boggess. As I noted, she's probably best-known for starring as 'Ariel' in the original Broadway production of The Little Mermaid, however I have the feeling that she's lived in England for a while (and still may, for all I know) because I've seen a lot of videos of her performing at the BBC Proms. In many of those videos, she does duets with a wonderful British actor Julian Ovenden. I first became aware of him on a Masterpiece Mystery series Foyles' War that's one of my favorite British series. (He played Foyles' son who wasn't a weekly regular, but a recurring character.) He also was a semi-regular in Downton Abbey and Bridgerton, and played Capt. Von Trapp in the live TV production (in England)of The Sound of Music, that was later shown here on PBS. And was in the PBS production of Show Boat, as the rakish gambler Gaylord Ravenal. I mention all this because when I was doing a search of videos for a friend to show her who Sierra Boggess was, I came across this one that I've embedded below. Apparently, she and Julian Ovenden just recorded an album of duets that they did apart during lockdown, "Together at a Distance." And despite their soaring voices, this is one of the funniest lockdown videos I’ve seen. Not because it makes a joke, because it’s actually as dry and unfunny and matter-of-fact as could be -- but that’s clearly intentional, with no reference to it being anything other than normal, which I find as hilarious as they most surely meant it. Basically commenting on “This is our life during COVID.” I’m sure not everyone will find it as funny as I do, because it’s bone dry, but…that's fine, because I think it’s a hoot. The wonderful singing of the lush romantic ballad, "Stranger in Paradise" from the musical Kismet is, for me, only a bonus. By the way, as easygoing as this all looks, I suspect it took a lot of rehearsal to get the timing just right so that everything looks nonchalant without even a hint of rushing.
0 Comments
And so it begins…
Okay, in fairness, it probably began in earnest 60 years ago or so, although that organizational racism was more around the edges of the Republican Party, not the foundational base. However, such virulent racism did take a huge leap in the GOP when Nixon pushed out the Party of Lincoln and pushed his “Southern Strategy” in 1968 and did all he could -- very successfully -- to attract the most racist voters of the South. And it’s built to the point where not only is this racism the foundational base but pretty much permeates every nook of the party. That sort of thing happens when you have a white supremacist as your leader, doing all he could to attract white supremacist groups throughout the country. So, it’s not actually beginning. But the hair-burning of frantic Republicans on the awareness that a black woman is going to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and almost certainly be approved, has caused angst amid the brush fire of the party. Probably the most-pronounced case came on Wednesday from Ilya Shapiro, the brand new executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for the Constitution. (I should write, “the current executive director as I write this,” just to cover my back and be safe.) He sent out three tweets, apparently because his racism couldn’t be contained in just one. Or even two. In the first he wrote – “Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog and v smart. Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesn’t fit into last intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors?” Yes, the executive director of Georgetown’s Center for the Constitution actually used his outdoor voice to write that publicly. And for all the gushing racism in his words, for me the funniest part of a very unfunny tweet may be the first word, “Objectively.” I’m also not sure what “prog” is, but my guess is it’s short for progressive. Though given today’s GOP, it could mean almost anything derogatory. Which, to be fair, “progressive” is to most Republicans today. And because Mr. Shapiro still had more racism to ooze out, he sent a second tweet. “Because Biden said he’s [sic] only consider black women for SCOTUS, his nominee will always have an asterisk attached. Fitting that the Court takes up affirmative action next term.” Ohhh, I get it. It’s fitting – because a black woman doesn’t actually deserve to be on the Supreme Court, since it’s only an Affirmation Action pick. Because, being black and a woman, in Ilya Shapiro World, she’s “lesser.” Though, yes, she will have an asterisk next to her name – it will be for “First black woman ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court in 246 years.” His third tweet (because, hey, why stop at just two, when you have so much to get off your chest?) included a poll where Shapiro asked his followers if President Biden is racist, sexist, both or neither for having committed to nominating a black female. It’s telling that in his poll, the only adjective options are “racist” and “sexist,” and not other words like “correct,” “proactive,” “humane,” “far-sighted,” or “normal.” It’s worth noting that prior to getting hired by Georgetown, Mr. Shapiro had been head of the very far-right Cato Institute. So, his opinions shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone. And by “anyone,” I include officials at Georgetown University. Even if he didn’t have a full interview, which I assume he did – though at this point, who knows? After all, it’s a fair bet that one doesn’t become head of the Cato Institute by having a career that tolerated a thought that wasn’t rigidly inflexible and founded on the principle that even a hint of liberalism in a person’s genealogy was evil. And it should also be reiterated that Mr. Shapiro, who views a black woman to be lesser in her abilities by virtue of being a black woman, wasn’t just hired to teach at Georgetown, a law school with an excellent reputation, but to be executive director of the Center for the Constitution. The irony of that is almost too deep to mine – unless Mr. Shapiro is an “originalist” and insists on adhering to the Constitution’s initial words as written, that blacks only counted as three-fifths of a person. And that neither black people or womenfolk could vote. If there’s any great humor in this, it’s that Ilya Shapiro isn’t just a “brand new” executive director of the Center, as I wrote, but – since that term can be flexible – was hired a week ago! Man, talk about not getting off to a good start. The good news is that he may not have done much unpacking yet. In his favor, Shapiro apologized the next day, yesterday. Uncertain is if he had woken up with a hangover and cried out, “Oh, my God, what did I do??!!!” – or if there was a pounding on his office door by the entire Board of Regents. I suspect the truth falls more on the latter. He also deleted the tweets, calling them “inartful.” This gives new meaning to the word “inartful.” And to phrase “A total absence of accurate words to describe what was expressed.” His full apology, by the way, was a tweet that read, “I apologize. I meant no offense, but it was an inartful tweet. I have taken it down.” This also gives new meaning to the word “apologize.” Of course he meant offense, what else was he traying to say by “lesser black woman” and his “affirmative action” crack? And while it’s swell that it took it down, he doesn’t explain why he put it up in the first place. And what was “inartful” about it. And why he won’t ever do it again. Actually, he probably will do it again. After all, he’s done it before. Really! When Justice Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2009, Shapiro wrote in a CNN column, “In picking Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has confirmed that identity politics matter to him more than merit.” He argued that regardless of her achievements, she was only nominated because she was Hispanic. Apparently, he didn’t feel that that was “inartful” or that any offense was intended, either. Apparently, too, Georgetown University missed that column in their due diligence. (By the way, I’m still trying to figure out what he meant by it only being “inartful.” Because that’s just saying that he didn’t phrase very well what he was actually thinking. So, he was thinking this, that a black woman wasn’t qualified and she was only selected because she was black, he’s not apologizing for that – just that he didn’t phrase his racist thought properly.) And it can’t go unmentioned that (and this is very important) there isn’t even a nominee yet! Shapiro is arguing that someone isn’t qualified who isn’t even nominated. So, again, that can only mean his complaint is purely because this future nominee will be black. But, oh, no, please, no offense was intended. Georgetown Law School Dean William Treanor did a better job finding those missing words, and said in an email yesterday that -- “The tweets’ suggestion that the best Supreme Court nominee could not be a Black woman and their use of demeaning language are appalling. The tweets are at odds with everything we stand for at Georgetown Law and are damaging to the culture of equity and inclusion that Georgetown Law is building every day.” That’s finding the right words. And it’s blunt and proper. I just wish that Georgetown University figured out who Ilya Shapiro was before they hired him. And that’s the one other part of the story that takes it to another level. The “hired” part. Earlier, I mentioned how Ilya Shapiro was brand new to the job. And that by “brand new” I meant he’d only been hired a week ago. But here’s the kicker – though he was only just hired… he hasn’t yet started working at Georgetown! He’s not scheduled to begin until next Tuesday, February 1. My comment about him not having unpacked yet wasn’t just a quip. I have no idea what Georgetown will do. I only know that it seems like it would be incredibly hard to have someone as head of your Center for the Constitution who publicly wrote all this. Three tweets are not a typo. Not a mistake. You mean to write three tweets. No matter how “inartful” you call it, no matter that you deleted them, you said truly racist things. And have said them before. And only apologized in three short sentences – with your only explanation being that it was “inartful.” Not even wrong. How does Georgetown explain him being the head of their Center for the Constitution if they keep him? I’m not saying he must be fired. I’m just trying to figure out what they can say to justify why he isn’t. And that’s today’s Republican Party. Ilya Shapiro. Yes, it’s only one person, and not fair to define a political party in that single person. But the issue in defining a party isn’t just what that one person said, or that it’s what many others in the party say or think. It’s that we have seen no outrage for what he said by officials and leadership of the Republican Party. They’re silent about. Because that’s today’s Republican Party. There’s a point to all this. Bear with me. But some background helps put it in full perspective. As longtime readers here know, I’ve been writing about the musical Harmony here and on the Huffington Post ever since I saw it in its world premiere production in San Diego about 25 years ago. The show was written by Barry Manilow and Bruce Sussman, who reworked the musical and it got a brief revival in Atlanta and here in Los Angeles at the Ahmanson about nine years ago. The show is based on the real-life singing and comedy group the Comedian Harmonists, who were wildly popular in Germany during the 1920s, and toured Europe, even coming to the United States, but because there were several Jews in group, that all came apart when the Nazis came to power. It was a very good musical in both versions I saw, with some flaws in the second act, but overall extremely well done. And an excellent score, with songs that fit the time and place. You may recall that I did an interview with Manilow and Sussman (which you can read here) when the show opened in Los Angeles. That came about for an odd reason – As I said, I’ve always liked Harmony a lot. And one day in February, 2013, I decided to revisit the show and wrote a long piece about it (which you can read here) explaining in detail my praise of and embedding one particular wonderful song from it, “Every Single Day.” To my great surprise, only a couple months later it was announced that a new version Harmony was going to play in Atlanta the next year, and then come to Los Angeles. Eventually, I got in touch with the P.R. rep for the show, sent her a link to the article, and when Harmony finally got to Los Angeles, a phone interview was set up with Manilow and Sussman. (A funny story came from that. At the beginning of our talk, I just wanted to confirm that he’d see that long article I’d written a year earlier, raving in detail about the show and its score. "Oh, so you know about the article?" I asked. Manilow replied lightheartedly, but bluntly -- "I know everything about this show." But the thing is, it turns out that when he read it, he assumed that the whole reason I’d written the article was because I already knew Harmony was being done again, thinking that that's what had prompted me. After all, why else would someone write in such depth about a show that hadn’t been done in about 16 years? I corrected him, though, explaining that, no, the article came totally out of the blue, that in fact I had been completely unaware about this revised production. And in a stunned voice he almost cut me off, “Wait, you didn’t know we were doing the show???!!” I answered, “No, I wrote it before I had any idea you were reviving it. I just thought the show was wonderful and wanted to write about it.” To which he said -- “Robert, I love you even more than I did before!”) I’ve continued to think about the show since then, and periodically track down videos I can find out of. And tracked down the 1997 German movie, The Harmonists, on Netflix that was named Outstanding Feature Film at the German Film Awards – the same year, as it happens, that I saw Manilow and Sussman’s musical in San Diego. And only just this morning, something was posted on social media about Manilow, so I posted a link to that 2014 interview. Which in turn got to do some more searching, which brought me to a recent interview with Barry Manilow on Kelly Clarkson’s talk show, where they discussed the musical – and where something was said that got me to sit up…and then check it out be sure it was accurate and still valid. And it was. And that’s the point of all this. After 25 years, Harmony is finally going to be staged in New York! In less than three months, on April 14! To be clear, it’s not going to be on Broadway – however, they’re putting it on at the renowned National Yiddish Theatre Folksbiene -- which is an inspired place for it. This is the same company that did the acclaimed production of Fiddler on the Roof three years ago, directed by Joel Grey, in Yiddish. I even posted a piece and video on it here. So, even if it’s not Broadway, it’s New York theater and a really high quality company. Also, the show will be performed in English. And it will have at least one pretty-big name performer in it, Sierra Boggess, who I’ve posted videos and who starred as ‘Ariel’ in the original Broadway production of The Little Mermaid. (There are some other known Broadway actors in the show, as well, who’ve been announced so far, including Chip Zien who was in the original production of Stephen Sondheim’s Into the Woods, and the original productions of such musicals as Caroline, or Change, and Falsettos.) And it’s being directed by Warren Carlyle, who won a Tony award for the choreography of the musical After Midnight, for which he also got a Tony nomination for directing. The point being that this is not a “Well, we at least got a theater in New York” thing. It’s a serious New York production. Finally. After 25 years. I’m very happy for them. And for this very good, even if flawed, show finally and very deservedly getting seen. And so, after 25 years of me yammering about the show, saying how good it is and deserves to play in New York -- as I always say, I tries nots to steer ya wrong. This just took a little longer than usual. I’ll end all this with a video. In my 2013 article about Harmony, I singled out particular song, “Every Single Day.” I had earlier noted that Barry Manilow admirably sublimated his style to write songs that fit the period. And for years he never even performed them in concert, so they wouldn’t be seen as “Barry Manilow Songs.” Though eventually, since Harmony hadn’t yet made it to Broadway, he did put out an album with many of the songs, and began to perform “Every Single Day” in his concerts, albeit with a much bigger, Barry Manilow-style arrangement. I wrote – In fairness, despite what I said above, "Every Single Day," is the one song in the show that does sound like a Barry Manilow Song. It's a power ballad, as the expression goes. But just know that it fits the moment in the show so perfectly that my recollection at the time of first hearing it in San Diego wasn't that it stood out as incongruous, like, "Oh, yeah, okay, there's his Barry Manilow number," but rather a love song that was absolutely right for the character and what he needed to say right then. The musical arrangement was also much more subtle, intimate, and deeply personal than the one now-used (and used appropriately, I think) for a Big Barry Manilow Moment in his concert that gets his fans cheering. It sounded enough like something from the 1930s, not a modern-day, 1997 chart-buster. For years, when I’d write an article about Harmony, the only video I could find of songs from the show was Barry Manilow singing (actually, more like acting the number as it was performed on stage) “Every Single Day” in concert, with that big musical arrangement. It was still very good, but not the more intimate song as done in the show. But today I found the song being song from the show – sort of. I don’t think this was a concert-version of the show, though it could be. More likely it seems like a revue of sorts, done by the New York Theatre Barn I 2013 (whimsically the same year I wrote the article above). But…I don’t know. It could be a low-key concert production, and even has the lead-in dialogue that sets up the scene from the second act. At the very least, there’s an audience there, giving it enthusiastic applause. So, in dramatic and musical context from the show itself, as the woman he dearly loves – and who loves him – explains why getting married at that dangerous period in Germany would be a terrible mistake, here is Shayne Kennon’s response singing “Every Single Day.” [UPDATE: It turns out that this video and my article about Harmony being the same year may not be as "whimsical" as I thought. It turns out that Shayne Kennon, who sings the number here, actually was in the Atlanta and Los Angeles revival -- and therefore, I assume, sang this song in the show. So, whether this was a sort of press event or workshop or promotional event or something else, it clearly wasn't just a pure coincidence that he was singing the song here when the revival was about to go onstage. So, what you're seeing is how it was performed in the show.] I was a bit bemused by some of the discussion yesterday about who President Biden might select to replace the retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. One of those had some people pondering – since Biden had committed to nominating a black woman – that he would name Kamala Harris. The argument was not that she was well-qualified (which as a former Attorney General of California she is), but that this will solve a pesky problem of President Biden deciding whether to drop her as his running mate in 2024.
I feel totally comfortable saying that Joe Biden will not nominate Kamala Harris to the Supreme Court. For starters, Joe Biden likes Kamala Harris. And though she’s had a few rough patches during her first year as Vice President, she’s also had strong actions. And as far as I can tell, she and Biden work well together. Further, he has said publicly that he plans to run for re-election in 2024 and that Kamala Harris will be his running mate. I sense that most people postulating how troubled she’s been are Republicans and especially those Republicans who don’t like a black woman as Vice President of the United States. (Side note: I find it hilarious that people upset at Kamala Harris being a black woman as vice president, a position that has the potential to be very important but has famously been described by former Vice President John Nance Garner as “not worth a bucket of warm spit,” are instead trying to promote her for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court! One of the most meaningful jobs in government.) But beyond that, the Senate is split 50-50. The deciding vote will be cast by the presiding President of the Senate, who is Vice President Kamala Harris. If she was the nominee, I’m sure she’d had to recuse herself from voting. Which means the Senate would be split 50-50. And I have no idea what the next step would be, but it does seem that that would make it extremely difficult to get her confirmed. Basically, Democrats need her sitting as President of the Senate to cast a deciding vote. Kamala Harris is not getting nominated for the Supreme Court. Another discussion centered around Joe Manchin, pondered by Democrats who feel pummeled by his vote against changing the filibuster. This theory is the concern that Sen. Manchin will move to make 60 votes needed to approve a Supreme Court Justice. I feel totally comfortable saying that Joe Manchin will not be moving to make 60 votes needed to approve a Supreme Court Justice. First of all, Joe Manchin has voted to approve every judicial nominee that President Biden has made. He’s not going to suddenly vote against a Biden judicial nominee for the very first time, when that nominee is for the Supreme Court. He’s not a far-right conservative Republican. He’s a moderate-conservative Democrat. And secondly…he can’t. It’s a Senate rule that only 50 votes are needed to approve a Supreme Court nominee. (A rule instituted, by the way, by Mitch McConnell.) And there is no way on earth that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is going to permit a vote to change the rule. So, no, Joe Manchin is not going to move to require 60 votes to approve a Supreme Court Justice. As for the rest of it all – I have no idea what will happen next. The list of names I’ve seen all day all seem very good. I am sure Republicans will do all they can to undermine the process. At most, I suspect they’ll be able to delay the process a little. But eventually there will be a vote, and it will most certainly pass – maybe even with a with Republican votes, depending on if the nominee is someone they’ve approved for other judgeships, though I wouldn’t expect it. There is only one serious hurdle I can see. And it’s that the Senate requires a member to be present in order to vote. There’s no proxy votes or use of current, normal technology like Zoom. And with the possibility of COVID-19 infection, if even just one Democratic Senator tests positive during the voting process, they won’t get to 50 votes. However, I suspect that Majority Leader Schumer will be scheduling it all early enough that any delays won’t be roadblocks. There have also be a lot of analysts making sure that people understand that no matter how good a Biden nominee may be, it won't change the balance of the court, which will remain 6-3 for conservatives. And that's very and importantly true. But -- it misses the larger point. And that's that by having an opening now, Democrats will be able to keep the balance at 6-3, and to have it turn to 7-2. And finally, related to that, good for Justice Breyer for announcing his retirement now. Because even if Democrats hold on to the Senate after the mid-terms, there is no guarantee of that, and keeping even just one of the three liberals on the bench is not to be risked. The wonderfully elegant, screwball comedy My Man Godfrey was on television this afternoon, and it prompted me to post my favorite scene. Not just favorite in the movie, but one of my favorites in all movies. Terrific as the full sequence is here, the famous shower scene, that’s not my favorite, but rather the 30-seconds at the end of the clip. For me, the joy of it isn’t just that love what’s going on, but also how it’s impeccably filmed, framed in a doorway with William Powell in the foreground and Carole Lombard in the back. A very brief set-up: Carole Lombard, the goofy daughter of a very rich family has fallen in love with their new butler, the even-keeled and highly-capable butler Godfrey, played by William Powell, who has repeatedly fended off her declarations with with graceful, but direct rebuffing. The audience has previously learned that he comes from a well-to-do, old family himself but after his difficulties has found comfort in this work keeping the off-beat household in order. Lombard’s very spoiled sister, played by Gail Patrick, has always distrusted Godfrey and tried to get him fired – although Lombard is concerned that her sister wants to steal him away. The 1936 film got six Oscar nominations, including for William Powell (who I've come to the conclusion may well be my favorite actors) and Carole Lombard. The two had been married, but divorced in 1933 -- however, Powell only agreed to be in the movie if they cast Lombard. It's pretty clear why here. Sixty years later, in 1999, the movie was declared "culturally significant" and preserved by the National Film Registry. What's especially interesting about the movie is not just that it got made this well, but at all. Especially at Universal at that time. When I worked at the studio, I was the head P.R. writer, and had to write the history of the studio for it's 70th anniversary. And back in 1936, they largely made B-movies and horror films. To make such a classy comedy as My Man Godfrey -- and get six Oscar nominations -- was almost unheard of, a diamond in a mound of coal. Powell and Lombard weren't even contract players with the studio, but were lent out. But they studio made it...and did it ever pay off. All of which brings us to the sequence that, in turns, leads to my favorite 30-second scene in the doorway.
The Republican faux-outrage reaction to President Biden saying under his breath that Fox “News” reporter Peter Doocy was a “stupid son of a bitch.” – after Doocy asked a stupid question – is on the edge of demagoguery so pathetic that I suspect most Republicans other than the most virulent Trumpers understand how pathetic it is.
To be clear, it’s not that Republicans had a faux-outraged meltdown, but the profound level of hell they took it to. Keep in mind that whatever President Biden said, it was said under his breath, thinking the microphone was off. And for the sake of perspective, since most people have only read Biden’s line, the question Peter Doocy asked, after the press conference ended and reporters were filing out was -- “Do you think inflation is a political liability in the midterms?” To which President Biden sardonically replied “No — that’s a great asset.” And then, under his breath, thinking the microphone was off, because the press conference was over, Biden muttered to himself, “What a stupid son of a bitch.” And to bring to story its even fuller perspective, since many, if not most people think it ends there, there’s more. After the story, I wrote on social media that I wouldn’t be surprised if Joe Biden apologized, because that’s who he is. And not only did Mr. Biden indeed apologize, but he didn’t just have his press secretary announce it, or release a public statement – but he called Peter Doocy directly. Because that’s who he is. They had a short conversation, and near the end, Doocy said to the president, "I'm always going to try to ask something different than what everybody else is asking." And Joe Biden replied, "You've got to." Which is even more gracious. He could have told the person he’d just called a “stupid son of a bitch” and who daily battles with the president’s press secretary by asking stupid questions that he should be careful about not asking such stupid questions because that this is a deeply serious job with so much quite literally at stake, since the world listens to every word said, but Joe Biden instead reinforced the importance of being challenged, a free press and speaking openly to power by telling Doocy that he’s got to keep asking things different from others. Appearing later on Fox “News,” Peter Doocy told viewers, 'And that is the quote from the president, so I will keep doing it.” The thing is, I have no doubt Peter Doocy will take this to mean keep asking stupid questions. And I have no doubt that he will keep doing so. And yet Republicans pretended that their collective heads were on fire, about to explode. Not just mere criticism (which would have been over-the-top), but at a level you’d think were joke quotes from the satirical The Onion. For instance, Rep. Jim Banks (R-N) – one of the Republicans who refused to certify the election – posted a tweet that read (and I swear this is true): “Have we ever seen a President attack and malign the free press like Joe Biden has??” “Ever” usually requires one to think back over several decades, not one year. And let’s even forget for the moment that Joe Biden did not attack and malign the free press, but merely muttered something to himself about a stupid question from a single reporter, thinking the microphone was off and then called to apologize. For Jim Banks to oppose liberals and the political policies of the White House is fine – but to treat the public and most-especially his own voters as if they’re total idiots and don’t remember Trump calling reporters stupid directly to their faces for four years and relentlessly calling the press the “enemy of the people” is venal demagoguery at its purest. And demagoguery made all the more so by trying to seem faux-outraged (!) at a fictitious effort to “malign the free press,” when maligning the free press -- to the extent of truly putting their lives at risk -- is what we ALL KNOW Trump did for four years. All know. All of us. Since the point of Trump was to outrage his base up by chanting “enemy of the people” at his fascist rallies repeatedly. And then there’s Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX). The Ronny Jackson who, as Trump’s doctor in the White House, declared him in the greatest shape imaginable of any human who ever lived. And parted ways upon charges of drunkenness and abuse. He said on TV that President Biden should actually be removed from office for calling Peter Doocy Doocy a “stupid SOB,” because – yes, he really said this, it proves that he is cognitively unfit to be president. What I would love someone ask Dr. Jackson is if swearing out loud (like, oh, say, Trump) makes a president unfit -- or if it’s just when he swears at a reporter, under his breath to himself? Or even out loud? And in any of those cases -- why? And also, I would suggest that an elected officials who says that a president swearing under his breath at a reporter (or even out loud) is "cognitively unfit" for office is himself far more unfit for office. There’s oh-so much more of this breast-beating faux angst from the same party that was outraged when President Obama wore a tan suit. But putting aside what Joe Biden said, under his breath or even out loud, to one reporter he called a stupid son of a bitch before phoning him to apologize, let’s once again put all this Republican faux-horrified indignation in even more perspective. And that would be five years ago in 2017, when the same Peter Doocy asked a question to Republican John McCain who, on camera, to Doocy’s face, repeated told him how stupid the question was.
Fun fact: no Republican – no Democrat either, and indeed no one in America – cried out in fury (or laughter) that Sen. McCain was maligning the free press, or that he was cognitively unfit to be in elected office. My guess is most people agreed with him. My guess is most people agreed with President Biden. I wouldn’t be shocked if most people at Fox “News” agreed. Both times. But they liked the questions anyway. And loved the faux-outraged fascist demagoguery. Because this isn’t about Trump. This is about the Republican Party that enables it all. Acts on it all. And has become fascist. |
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
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|