February 13, 2017--Jack On "Sane Republicans"

"I read what you wrote the other day about how ridicule has the power to bring Trump down."

Once again, Jack was calling. "That could be true," he said, "It can be powerful when it gets under the skin of someone as thin-skinned as Trump."

"That's what I'm thinking," I said.

"On the other hand," Jack said, "a lot of Democrats are thinking it has to be 'sane Republicans' like John McCain and Lindsay Graham who need to step up and begin to openly take Trump on. Everyone knows they hate him, but so far they have been muted in their criticism. This makes sense to me. You can see them seething and at some point Trump'll do something so outrageous, there will be some sort of smoking gun, maybe from the Russians' secret files, and that will signal the beginning of the end."

"You're beginning to sound like one of us," I said.

"Not one of your kind, but maybe I'm one of those sane Republicans." I knew if we were seated across from each other at the Bristol Diner he'd be winking at me.

He added, "I watched Saturday Night Live on Saturday, knowing they'd be going after Trump again, to check out how potent their humor is."

"So what did you think?"

"I thought the Melissa McCarthy takedown of Sean Spicer was the best of the three political sketches. He's a very angry man and she got to the heart of that. And was savagely funny. One more week and Trump will ready to pull the plug on him. Not just to end the mocking but because he's jealous of Spicer stealing the spotlight. I read some place that his daily press briefings, which the cable news people are carrying live, are getting higher ratings than General Hospital and the other soaps. Not too mention Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. All are seeing their ratings at all time highs"

"People can't seem to get enough of Trump," I sighed. "In any form."

"But then the skit about Kellyanne Conway, where she goes after CNN's Jake Tapper the same predatory way Sharon Stone did to Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct, was so vicious that it went beyond humor and came out on the dark side. It wasn't really as funny as Steve Bannon the week before when he played the Grim Reaper. That was very dark but funny. I guess with comedy there are no limits. But if I'm thinking about political effectiveness--and I do think the SNL people are out to bring Trump down--for me that bit didn't work."

"I felt the same way," I said, "It crossed too many lines to have much impact, though I did think it was bold."

"You're getting to my main point and the reason I called."

"I was wondering about that."

"Take the last sketch where Baldwin played Trump appealing his travel ban to the courts. Not the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court but, of course, The People's Court. A reality show court. This should have been funny but I felt it was predictable and more manufactured than inspired. To be consistently funny you need to avoid slipping into into routines and cliches. Things have to be fresh and the Alec Baldwin version of Trump is getting to be overexposed. My sense is that after another week or two people will begin to tune out. Ditto for McCarthy's Sean Spicer. This week the innovation was to motorize the podium. Pretty thin stuff."

"I also was thinking been-there-done-that and started to nod off."

"So, from an effectiveness perspective, SNL, as fresh as it seemed three weeks ago, is feeling stale and a little boring. Boring is the opposite of funny."

"Here's one more thing," Jack said, "I'm thinking that the Trump act is also wearing thin. He too is in danger of slipping into predictability. His act is wearing thin. This could be a good thing--to rein Trump in--or a bad thing--we'll stop paying attention to what he's up to. He might be more dangerous out of the spotlight than basking in it."

September 26, 2016--Debate Preview

When I saw that the cable news networks were planning to begin their debate coverage today at 4:00 p.m., five hours before the actual debate commences, I wondered out loud to Rona why they would be doing something this seemingly ridiculous, "How much is there to talk about?"

"Easy," Rona said, "They are expecting at least 100 million to tune in--an all time record, nearly half of the country's adult population--and that means big-bucks ratings. These are Super Bowl numbers and it's all because of him."

"So it's all about ratings and money?"

"What else is new. Some companies are actually making special TV commercials, including the Mexican beer Tecate, which will make fun of Donald's wall."

"Amazing, though not really. But as always with these kinds of mega-political events--the State of the Union or the Inaugural address--the media folks spend hours in advance speculating about what will be said. In the case of the debate, I'm sure they'll talk endlessly about who will get under their opponent's skin first and who will make the biggest blunder. Like poor Gerry Ford who stepped in it when he said in 1976 that the Eastern European countries are free and not captive Soviet nations."

"When he did that, the moderator, I think he was from the New York Times, was so stunned that he said, 'I'm sorry, what?'"

"So," I said, "here's my preview."

"Spare me," Rona said, but did not leave the room.

"First of all, can it be true that 100 million will watch? How could that be since at most a few thousand voters are genuinely undecided. Do you think at this point there are more than that who haven't made up their minds? In spite of what most polls report about them. Like Trump said, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and none of his supporters would as a result vote for Hillary."

"If he did, considering what's going on in the country, his numbers would probably go up."

"This then means," I persisted, "that almost everyone who'll watch will be doing so for entertainment reasons. Since both candidates are thin-skinned, there's a good chance that there will be fireworks and the real possibility that someone will say something politically calamitous. It doesn't get to be more fun or high stakes than that. Better than House of Cards. More like Veep."

"I think that not since Kennedy/Nixon in 1960 will a first debate be so decisive. Yesterday morning the Washington Post poll had Clinton and Trump in a statistical dead heat. So tonight could be even more conclusive than what happens on Election Day."

"I assume you mean that after tonight the results will in effect be determined."

"That could be. So millions with their minds already made up can say they were 'there' when the tide turned decisively in one direction or another."

"But getting back to the entertainment issue. Did you see that Trump invited Bill Clinton's former mistress, Jennifer Flowers to be his guest and sit in the front row? Maybe just a few seats away from Bill himself?"

"She tweeted that she plans to be there."

"How about Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky?"

Getting into the theatrics of the debate, Rona said, "To retaliate Hillary could invite all of Trump's former wives and girlfriends."

"Between Bill and Donald that could fill up the entire first row."

"If Flowers or any of the others show up, do you think the moderator, Lester Holt, will ask about that? It would take great restraint on his part not to do so since he's a newbie to presidential debate moderation and could probably benefit from the notoriety like Megyn Kelly did."

"Or will the NBC folks put Jennifer on camera? How about a split screen of her with Bill?"

"Anticipating that alone," Rona said, "would keep me watching for the full 90 minutes."

"Really?" I said, "I thought you might not want to watch at all. You've been so consistent in feeling disgusted with the whole process."

"But it's perversely brilliant," Rona said. "I hate it but I get it. Our politics has been morphing into an ongoing reality TV show. Obviously, with Trump propelled into public consciousness from that world. So it's not unexpected that he would have Jennifer Flowers there. Jerry Springer would if he were staging it. As for sure so would the Kardashians."

"The full apotheosis of this debasement of our political culture--not that even with the Founders it's been that high (Jefferson and Adams, for example, and Hamilton and Burr among others went at it in hurtful personal, even deadly ways)--the full flowering of politics as schadenfreudian fun--forgive the pun--would be if Trump somehow managed to get elected. I suspect that a majority of the voting population might very well be ready for that. Just as Oprah helped pave the way for Obama, Springer and his spawn may wind up doing the same thing for Trump."

Signaling that she had had enough, Rona sighed, "Save us. Please."

"Amen," I said.

"But I admit it--I'll be watching."

August 30, 2016--Let's Vote Already

Jack said, "I'm not talking about early voting," though in some states, more than two months before Election Day, early voting is underway, "I'm saying let's move Election Day to Friday. This Friday. Three days from now. I'm sure everyone has made up their mind who to vote for. Let's put all of us out of our misery."

"It's true, "Rona said, "This election is making me miserable. But doesn't the Constitution say . . . ?"

"I know what it says. But what it doesn't say, and should say, is that when you have two candidates, one worse than the other, Election Day gets moved to September 1st."

"I agree," I said. "That way too we could enjoy the return of Dancing With the Stars without having to have it preempted by the debates or feel pressure to watch them. Can you imagine what the first debate this time is going to be like? A train wreck."

"That at least should be good for a few laughs or groans," Jack said. "But seriously, will anything happen between now and November 8th that will cause anyone to change who they plan to vote for?"

"Maybe if North Korea fires a nuke at Japan or . . ."

"If Hillary is indicted or . . ."

"Or if Trump actually shoots someone on Fifth Avenue."

"Even if any of those things happened I don't think it would change anything. Both the Hillary and Trump people are locked in," Jack said, "And are suffering from overexposure to the point that when we get to Election Day half the people will be hoping that Ralph Nader was in the race."

"Or Al Gore or . . ."

"Or Sarah Palin or . . ."

"Herman Cain."

"I love Herman Cain," I said, "He was so funny. 'Nine-nine-nine.' Remember that?"

"At least the primaries were amusing,"Jack said. "especially on the Republican side. Though Bernie also made things interesting."

"I drive around town here and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say there are no lawn signs for anyone. Four years ago there were tons for Obama and Romney."

"And almost no bumper stickers," Rona said. "What do you think's going on?"

"It turns out that they're both terrible candidates with absolutely no sense of humor. Even when they make gaffs they're not amusing ones. In Trump's case, giving him the benefit of the doubt that the stupid things he says are gaffs, all of them are more disgusting than either interesting or unintentionally satirical."

"And in Hillary's case when she says something careless or gets caught in not telling the truth--I'm being nice--she always responds by whining as if she's being wronged by the right-wing conspiracy. Neither of them is ever seen to be smiling about anything. I haven't been watching, but I can only imagine that Saturday Night Live, which the past three or four elections only had to quote candidates verbatim to crack everyone up--Sarah Palin case in point--must be struggling for material."

"So what happened?" Rona asked. "This should be a fascinating, historic campaign. What with the wife of a president and the first woman running against a true non-politican, both with the potential to interest the electorate, are turning out to be as about as boring and insubstantial as it gets."

"Hillary does talk about policy," I said.

"But in an excruciatingly uninteresting way," Jack said, "I think she knows she has a big lead and is playing it safe. Saying as little as possible, none of it unscripted or in press conferences, so she can run out the clock, avoid mistakes, and stumble to victory."

"And Trump, no matter what you think of him, was an amusing and unpredictable primary candidate. By now he's turned into a bore. Like a TV reality show that is out of gas and about to be cancelled."

"His show ends November 8th. But, as I said, I wish it could happen Friday."

"At least it looks as if Derek Hough is returning to Dancing, I said, "That'll help get us through September and October."

January 21, 2016--TRUMP and the Palins

Sarah Palin is back and everyone is having fun with her. Or making fun of her.

Not just because her son, Track, two days ago was arrested for domestic violence and on the same day her Dancing-With-Stars daughter, Bristol Sheeran, gave birth to a second out-of-wedlock baby.

It was because she bounced up on stage in Ames, Iowa on Tuesday to give a semi-coherent speech in support of Donald TRUMP's candidacy.

Seeing her again, still looking hot, I was reminded just how much I miss Sarah and her wonderfully-named dog-patch brood. Other children of Sarah and Todd ("First Dude") are Willow Bianca Faye, Trig Paxon Van, and Piper Indy Grace. The latter named for the Indy 500.

If politics these days is about entertainment as much as policy, she's the perfect reality-show complement to The Donald.

And on the political front, she may help tip the Iowa caucuses to TRUMP, which in turn would lubricate his path to the ultimate nomination.

Pretty much all the liberals I know are chortling about the TRUMP-Palin roadshow. The jokes are flying, very much including in The New Yorker's "Borowitz Report." A humorous column that appears on-line.

The one the other day was, "Palin Endorsement Widens Trump's Lead Among Idiots," with the snarky title telling it like a lot of us think it is.

But is it?

There must be an increasing number of idiots out there among the electorate because even before the Palin encomium, TRUMP's lead among almost all demographic groups was widening. Most interestingly, according to Tuesday's New York Times, with evangelicals.

They seem to be feeling that God will take care of TRUMP's personal indiscretions (three marriages and who knows what else) but are saying that among the candidates he is most likely to bring about needed, radical change.

To my Manhattan friends this is just more evidence that there are a whole lot of idiots out there. I feel compelled to mention these friends also believe anyone who is religiously devout is by definition an idiot.

But, I wonder, are TRUMP's and Palin's supporters idiots because they are idiots or idiots because they don't agree with us?

Those of us who think of ourselves as liberals should be the first to be feeling good about widespread political participation. Haven't we traditionally been in the forefront of advocating the expansion and protection of voting rights? But, for idiots too? That's a push. But, to be consistent  . . .

Look, I've been having a lot of fun at various candidates' expense, very much including TRUMP's, but those of us who would prefer to see Bernie or Hillary elected or Jeb Bush, Joe Biden or George Pataki, in addition to enjoying the fun and scribbling of the likes of Andy Borowitz, we also had better be working hard to elect the candidates we support or we will wake up literally a year from today with Donald and Melania TRUMP in residence in the White House and Sarah Palin nominated to be Secretary of Defense.