If nothing else, President Obama will go down in history as the coolest president ever, or as Jimmy Fallon called him the "Preezy of rhe United Steezy"---on a recent appearance by Obama on the late night show. Oh yeah, there he was, our very hip leader of the free world "slow jamming" with Fallon and the band, saying words set to music but fit for a campaign speech. The music was hot, Fallon was funny, and Obama was cleverly and on sync spouting his talking points across to those who like their President served cool with slow jam and a rap beat. It was mesmerizing and awkwardly entertaining. There was something disturbingly wrong with this picture---a bad mix of presidential dignity and the ha-ha party time setting. It was a disconnect moment for our president to be showing off his talk show chops, while much of the country is still wondering how to pay the bills. Probably the majority of people watching at that time of night were those out of work, and they could have used a bit more than a tune and a rap from the eager to be funny "preezy". He needed background singers doing, " Show me the money, honey. Get me a job, Jack. Pump us some oil, Mr.O."
But Obama may think it's the only way to reach the masses, the "folks", the ones who may just dig the prez with the gig---never mind that the country needs less flash and more cash. To be fair, Republican politicians have also been seen on late night talk shows, but they don't seem to be trying so hard to be entertaining. Maybe it's because they don't find much to laugh at these days, and when you're running against an incumbent, it's very important to stay on message, and less on beat.
And let's face it, Republicans aren't known to be particularly hip or comedic. Somebody really should tell them to loosen up, and learn a little rap---it's what sells, baby---not Santorum's religious morals, and certainly not Gingrich's intellectual prowess and creative ideas. Romney? Jury's still out---but cool, he's not. Yet, media bias aside, I think he's pretty hot. He's an ex-governor, savvy, successful business man, bright, well mannered, articulate, tested and tried under unbelievable pressure. He believes in a much different America than Barack Obama---he's not extreme right, but he sounds right enough to me. I can't visualize him yukking it up with Letterman or Leno, but I can see him leading us out of the mire we're in. Too rich for your blood? Please---rich doesn't equal bad. We could use a little know-how in that direction.
In this very visual age, it's not uncommon to see a president or wannabe as a featured guest on late night shows, talking points in hand ,well edited , and anything but spontaneous. But watching them trying to wow the audience with their "let me entertain you" shtick, be it Clinton's sax number, or Obama's rapping seems ---well, just this opposite side of presidential. Or do we now require a resume talent category for those wishing to run for president? Please check off, rock star, comic, a song and dance man? Has entertainment become the commonest denominator, the one avenue to our attention span? Pretty sad, if that's the case, but I hear that the Leno or Letterman show is precisely where many people get their news. After all, who wants to listen to Charlie Rose explore great minds, after a hard day at work, or A.C. Anderson of CNN trying to ply the news by his "keeping them honest" segment ---is he kidding? Who can we really believe is being honest these days? Most all of the major news channels are liberally slanted. Standing pretty much alone is Fox news, supposedly fair and balanced, but is conservatively owned and operated. So, why bother?
No, the talk shows are the place to be---but wait---Letterman is unabashedly liberal, as is Jimmy Fallon. Leno at least plays it down the middle most of the time, but the Republicans are so much safer to ridicule, and he does, because that's show biz, folks. But it's double whammy time when Obama is invited on the Letterman show---pity the poor Republican politician who tries to politely explain his views with Letterman, who seems to have tongue firmly in cheek even while asking a serious question---it's set up time, and guess who's the fall guy. It's not Letterman and it's painful to watch an unsuspecting politician not even realize when he's being baited. But when Obama makes his royal appearance, it's gush, mush, and 'let me help you campaign', time. Letterman usually looks like a fawninng fan, stroking, grinning and flattering, ad nauseam.
The night that Sara Palin appeared on Saturday Night Live was the pinnacle of embarrassing moments for me---why, oh why, did she allow herself to be mocked, humiliated, and targeted for even more hostility from the liberal crowd at SNL?? Or is TV or movie fame the ultimate ambition for everyone--even politicians? Can they not resist the aphrodisiac of celebrity? Maybe they should all form their own reality survival show and see who wins by public acclaim based on cool, looks, and talent. Smarts matter, but only if they are accompanied by all the rest. Oh, but---aren't they/we already doing that? Yes!! It's Obama, the cool one, vs. Romney, the rich one. The show down is in November. Should be a doozy of a run-up.
Maybe that's why they call this "the silly season"---anything goes, just beg, borrow or steal those votes any way you can. Personally, I prefer my presidential contenders to stay off the entertainment circuit. It's like hearing that Alec Baldwin might run for public office. Huh?? Yes, Ronald Reagan did it once upon a time, but there are exceptions to everything. In general, I really have trouble taking anybody running for the most serious office in the land seriously, when the winner is whoever can be the most fun. So, now that we're down to just two possibilities, let's bring on the debates again. I'm ready for some pithy back and forths, some challenging questions, and clarifying answers as to how to get this economy purring again. This is real life, and the show is not about ratings---it's about the election and who can best serve our interests, which are considerable and the consequences of incredible importance to our destiny---or have we all gone mad, and care only for someone who can make us laugh, thrill to their quick repartee wit, and admire their ability to wail on a sax--- until we no longer remember that often it's the quiet, reserved, some may think unexciting, kid at the back of the room who knows all the answers? Does that sound like Romney, now that Gingrich has finally left the room? Maybe. But please, Mitt---stay off the talk shows. And if you do go on, don't try to be funny---- it doesn't become you,----and no slow jamming.
Hey, you might ask, what does "slow jamming" mean anyway? Originally coined to mean slow, romantic rythym and blues music, it is now a colloquial term too new to be absolutely defined---but seems to imply a sort of spell binding technique, used by those seeking power to lull and charm. It's street talk for " sweet talkin".Barry White, the deceased singer, used to do that very well. Personally, I'm in no mood---got a major headache, and want my president like my tea and toast. Straight up---skip the cream and definitely no jam.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What's your response to Joe Biden's comment about gay marriage?
ReplyDeleteOH, way off topic aren't we?? This is one that's rarely discussed in public. But it too, need airing--so let's give it some. I'm quite sure that Biden's comments were vetted and cleared by Obama---in fact, he may have been the appointed messenger boy for this hot issue, so that Obama could have it both ways--he didn't have to change his "I'm still evolving" stance on gay marriage, which was a clever way of sitting on the fence , but could subtly allow people to think via Biden that he's finished evolving and agrees with his v.p. On the other hand, we all know how Biden is a loose cannon, so we could also think it was yet another slip of the vice presidential tongue. Take your pick---and everybody's happy.
ReplyDelete"I think she's got it!"
ReplyDeleteFrancois Hollande, France's president-elect, has proposed raising income tax on the wealthiest to 70% and raising the minimum wage to the U. S. equivalent of $22.00/hour. Don't you think it will be interesting to watch how this plays out in the next few years?
ReplyDeleteYes---but I hardly think we should use them as our model---zee French---zay are just a leetle too Frenchie fried for my taste.
ReplyDeleteI once had a very good French girl friend, who loved to criticize our country, bur didn't want to live anywhere but here. They tried moving back to her husband's home in Sweden, but returned to the U.S. very quickly upon learning they had to wait months to acquire a ocndo---there was a waiting list. They had become "Americanized", and though they continued to extol the virtues of Europe, they settled down here, started from scratch financially, worked very hard, and now live in a lovely home in Santa Fe, New Mexico. They lived the American Dream, which unfortunately is now fading, due to our trying so hard to live someone else's dream.
ReplyDeletePlease explain what you mean that the American Dream is "now fading".
ReplyDeleteWell, duh---the economy is certainly not bright and promising anymore. There are still way too many people out of work, and many more have given up looking. I feel it's a very different America than even 10 years ago---more people on food stamps than ever before, adult children living at home, unable to find jobs, a broken govt. budget, with more going out than coming in. But I still have hope that while the "dream" may be fading, the American "can do" spirit is alive and well---we just have to perhaps re-tool ourselves, figure out how we will fit into the global picture, and clean up our act. That may mean we must get leaner and meaner in some respects, and that means cutting spending, becoming more "austere", as we face the fact that we cannot be all things to all people. The dream was different things to different people, but mostly it meant the freedom to pursue our individual dreams without first being drained by an over zealous government---playing God and casting all who find the dream as villains. My hope and prayer is for perhaps not the same America that we grew up in, for nothing ever stays the same, but that we will learn quickly enough from our mistakes, correct our faults, and be tough and wise enough to survive and remain still the beacon of hope and freedom we've always been. You can and probably will argue that the middle class is dying, and that more needs to be done for them---that may be true, but the answer lies not in suffocating the spirit and incentive of those who create the jobs.
ReplyDelete"Becoming more 'austere'" doesn't sound like the American dream to me. Your last sentence sounds like a prescription for low paying jobs for almost everybody and the end of upward mobility as the common definition of the American Dream. How do you propose that "those who create the jobs" pay a fair wage with acceptable benefits, and that they create the jobs in the USA instead of overseas? How can "spirit and incentive" survive as long as the "have-nots" make too little to realize their dreams, start their own new businesses and hire more people? How can the economy as a whole flourish if you allow the buying power of the majority to dwindle? What incentive do the bloated mega-corporations (who made record profits last year) have to reverse a trend which benefits them at the expense of the country? Their astonishing success is not what most people think of as the American dream, but it is definitely not what's fading. It's alive and well and swelling as we speak, sucking the hope out of hard working American people. Even so, this administration has brought unemployment down. Obama admits it's not enough, but it's more than his predecesor managed, and it's been accomplished in the face of an extremely obstructionist Congress. BTW: The growing number of people using food stamps are working people. I know YOU wouldn't deny them food as well, but there are those so insulated by wealth that they wouldn't notice, who create and operate "think tanks" to figure out ways to so construe the facts that people like you think they're on your side. Hey! I'm on your side--not them!
ReplyDeleteWow---what an indictment against a system that has worked better than other for a long time. But you always fail to tell us what you would do to fix things the way you would like them. Nor do you address the fact that under Obama, the economy is still extemely weak, unemployment hardly something to feel comfortable with, and the housing market making very little progress. He had not made things better, and is, in many an opinion, way over his head. And how do you respond to the fact that we are spending more than we make---other than taxing the rich, which would at best help a little but not solve them. What would you actually do to see that workers made, in your view, a more acceptable wage, without creating a merit-less work force with negative consequences resulting from diminished incentive. We already have that with our educational system, sad to say, and other government agencies and union controlled businesses. I have nothing against everyone making more money---and perhaps even raising the minimum wage to a point---but the fly in the ointment is the tipping point of how much and at what point does it result in closed businesses, fewer hirings, and inferior workmanship?? Somehow you always bring the converation round to this topic---you are passionate, I get that--but tell us how you would create the society you wish us to be. I submit that while your ideals are nice, they are also too heavy with blame and discrimination, and light on remedies. I also submit that you are dismissive on the possibility that perhaps some of the blame goes to our having become perhaps too much an entitlement country, creating a top heavy government that demands more than we can supply, and an attitude of what it can do for us, rather than our doing for ourselves---thus almost half of us not paying any taxes at all. So, tell us---how would you change us, without re-inventing us--- or imitating other nations that have much bigger problems, including proverty, than we??
ReplyDeleteOn one thing we agree: raise the minimum wage, but wisely so as not to get too close to that tipping point you mention. The rest would require a book.
ReplyDeleteHow about a preview, or a short synopsis??
ReplyDeleteI don't intend to write that book. Words just don't override experience. When you meet people affected by policies hammered out without their input, you may be changed. Statistics and such should guide our opinions, but personal anecdotal experiences are what does it. You and I are surrounded by reinforcements of our previously arrived at opinions. Then we stake our reputations on their validity and our ability to defend them in one-on-one conversations and blogs. We want to appear consistent, when flexibility might be more appropriate. What we both want is a strong economy, vibrant enough to allow even the weak to live decent lives. But not all participants in society share our views. They want winners and losers. Their positive regard for words like "competitive" reveal their distain for those not endowed with the ability to keep up with their peers. Someone has to come in last, but at what price? My opinion is it ought not be misery. It ought to be modesty. I think that's your hope as well, but it is not the position held by the extremists now in power and especially those contributing to campaigns across the country. Either through inexperience or crassness, they simply do not care. We need antenae to pick up their hidden agendas, because they all talk about a concern for jobs, but for many of them that's simply a smoke screen for policies that benefit only themselves and their desires to win, be it money, power or prestige.
ReplyDeleteI think you should write a book---you speak eloquently and articulately. You've defined clearly why you feel the way you do---a convincing and passionate argument. But, I, like you, in a reverse situation, don't completely trust those who would put in place a more equitable, fair, and just society. They, like the big business chiefs, all have human flaws. The system, itself, whereby everyone has more, but nobody has a lot, does not work. We've seen it fail too many times. Does that mean we shouldn't try again?? Yes, I think so. The free market, or capitalism, is not built on altruism, true enough, but it has been proven that the concept works --take away the incentive for people who invest, take risks, build businesses, hire people, etc. and what do you have?? Goodness and light don't bring home the bacon. So there, we have both remained true to our ideologies-- but keep writing. You are masterful---and there is always room for a change of mind and a tweaking of beliefs.
ReplyDeleteYou, too, are a fine communicator! A question came to me this morning that faith in the unfettered, wealthy "job creators" may be pre-globalism thinking. Suddenly, U. S. industry is free to produce goods and even services outside our own borders to an unprecidented degree. Naturally, laissez-faire free enterprise gravitates toward the least compensated, least regulated labor pools on the planet, resulting in lay-offs at home and injustice abroad. Perhaps the capitalism as you conceptualize it was a good thing that is now obsolete. That is not to say it is completely misguided--just more needy of more and better guidance. You may not trust the politicians, but at least we still have the power of the vote in government which is missing in private enterprise.
ReplyDeleteScott Walker managed to retain his office as gov. of Wisconsin--by an impressive margin! It just goes to show what big money can do. Walker outspent his opponent 7 to 1, a feat made possible by "Citizens United". But even 37% of union members voted for Walker. What were they thinking? I think people covet the benefits unionized government workers receive in an era when unions in the private sector have become stunningly weak. They resent good pay for teachers, police officers, etc. rather than fighting to reclaim collective bargaining for themselves. There was a time when a good union job provided a middle class living for non-professional workers. Even non-union shops had to meet the standards of the union shops just to keep employees. This generation doesn't even remember that. They've lost the sense of possibility. Taft-Hartley has slowly but steadily eaten away workers' muscle since it was passed during the Truman administration (over his veto). It was the death knell of his "Fair Deal" in my opinion. In any case, this victory for the right is important on a national scale. The Obama campaign has its work cut out for it in the next 5 months. That's long enough at least to put this behind them. He's still ahead of Romney--even in Wisconsin!
ReplyDeleteOr---one could say that the Wisconsin victory for Scott Walker was a bellweather event---as Wisconsin went, so may go a weary, but finally wary nation---tired of permitting and supporting unions who have abused their power by becoming too greedy and asking too much of their members and employers. It was obvious---they broke the bank, in this case the state----game over. What was once a good idea, has become part of the national problem of spending money we don't have. Kudos to Scott Walker for having the courage to do what needed to be done--stop the bleeding and save his state from the fate of others who refuse to listen to the alarm bells clanging everywhere----Calif., New York, etc.---listen up---or man up, and do likewise before it's too late. Fairness for workers is a good and vital issue, but unions need to dial it down or become themselves irrelevant in a time when what we need are more jobs, not unions who insist upon wages, bonuses and pensions perhaps once affordable, but unsustainable during these lean times. Heard the old adage---'You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip"?
ReplyDeleteI think I follow your argument and I'm glad you support fairness for workers. How that can be done without collective bargaining, I don't know. Would you rather it be by government regulations? I fear you are right that such as California and New York will follow suit and I think it's a scary time for workers.
ReplyDeleteHaven't you anything to say about Obama's executive order re immigrants and his speech on gay issues?
ReplyDeleteIt isn't what he did, but how. Going around the laws of the constitution negates whether this was a noble move-doing the right thing the wrong way doesn't make it all right. It looks and smells like political expediency again---big surprise.
ReplyDeleteDid not hear Obama's speech on Gay rights---but presume he has "evolved" to whichever way the election winds are blowing. I believe the Gays should have all the same rights as everyone else, and wish we would stop this incessant chatter about the private lives of others, and get on with the things that are much more concerning regarding the future of this country---the economy, and the very rotten political system which seems to have rendered itself completely out of control and governed by one thing--make that two-- power and money---and as close to a dictatorship as we have ever seen.
ReplyDeleteWhoa! That's pretty inflammatory language! What do you mean by "close to a dictatorship"?
ReplyDeleteWe agree that the government is now in the hands of power and money. Do you see a remedy? Your opinion on gays is indicative of the disconnect between all the people who call themselves Republicans and the current leadership of the GOP. It has been captured from the inside, disguising issues with sophistic code words.
Democrats, with a few notable exceptions, are also "bought and paid for". They no sooner get to DC than they're surrounded by some of the smartest rascals on the planet-- lobbyists--who mix "reason" with irresistable perks of all kinds.
You seem to be disturbed by Obama's use of "executive decisions". I think those are his constitutional perogatives often used by past presidents. Do you see more than that?
What have you to say about Boehner and company's oaths to thwart any compromise that might give some credit to the President regardless of the good of the country? Isn't it partisanship run amock?
I heard on the radio this afternoon that food stamp allotment for a family of four is $133 per month.* If that's so, I personally am shocked. It's no wonder we have non-profits scrambling to feed ever more numerous hungry people! And the other day I heard that 60% of all public school children are receiving subsidised or free lunches--the only real meals they get. Do you think that's accurate? If so, we are completely ignoring a huge moral imperative.
*Rep. Jeff Sessions has recently proposed that be reduced to $44 per month to help reduce fraud. What?!
So what's the "Fast & Furious Scandal"?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you know what it is, but a lot of people are unaware---one of those things that the media seemed to ignore, but it's blowing up again, as congress has demanded to have related documents turned over. Obama, in another excecutive order move, has refused, and declared them sealed. Little heavy handed, dont'cha think?
ReplyDeleteAlso rather suspicious. In the meantime Eric Holder's job is in jeopardy. Selling guns to the Mexican drug lords is the charge---what in the ----for?? No good reason has been offered---we're getting stonewalled on this one, and Obama is blowing us off.
Obama's use of "executive power" is being called by many an abuse of power. Laws are laws, otherwise why have them? Don't like them? Simply over ride them. Other presidents may have used this technique, but Obama's " my way or the hightway" style is scary. First, his healthcare bill, then the revising of "No childe left behind" by lowereing the test standards, his new immigration rules,a national and security matter, not to mention the consequences of allowing jobs to be taken away from legal citizens, inc. other minorities and now the sealing of the "fast and furious" documents. There are other cases, incl. arrests ofanybocy suspected of terrorism, without due process, which I believe was made by executive decision, while congress was "on recess". This man is a president on steroids, and appears to believe he's omnipotent. What next? Again, it isn't always, what he does, but how he does it---arrogantly, He's not leading because he's not a leader, and he knows it. So, he's pushing from behind and hopes his crony base will carry him through the election. Problem is, we don't like being pushed--even by someone who thinks he knows best----we kind of like our concept of separation of powers, and don't like our laws, especially those concerning our health and security, changed by the whimsy and willfulness of one man. November, you can't get here soon enough----
...Interesting points, all. But I think you'll be disappointed in November. A lot rides on what the Supreme Court does regarding the Affordable Health Care Act, and now it looks like Roberts will make us wait until Wednesday to find out. You are right about the unpopularity of it, but if it receives the Supreme Court's stamp of approval public opinion will follow. A profound shift of values in the direction of shared responsibility for one another would occure. Next week's decision will have ramifications far beyond health care.
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts about the Supreme Court's decision today?
ReplyDeleteA blog's worth---but still distilling my thoughts. Did you do a "happy dance"?
ReplyDeleteI think Roberts is counting on repeal since in the same week he loosened regs on big doners. A happy dance for now, but it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.
ReplyDeleteHave you distilled your thoughts, yet?
ReplyDelete