Politicking Versus Voldemort?

Behind a backdrop of the Statue of Liberty, former Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT) announced his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States.  Huntsman  had already been campaigning in New Hampshire and his announcement was no surprise.  The lamestream media has been a twitter framing the field as needing another moderate candidate, or a RINO as the conservative base would call it. Of course, Huntsman’s recent service as the U.S. Ambassador to the Peoples’ Republic of China for the OBAMA Administration does not help shaking off the RINO label.

Instead of focusing on his foreign policy experience, Huntsman concentrated on “leadership that trusts in our strengths” to make tough decisions to preserve a powerful, confident, compassionate and compassionate America.  Such platitudinous rhetoric sounds soaring until presenting specific policies.

The interesting aspect of the Huntsman’s campaign is his commitment to a campaign of civility. Huntsman promised not to run down his Republican opposition to the nomination.  It is commendable to observe Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment.  But Huntsman has also has pledged not to mention his former boss (President Obama) by name, even when contrasting their visions for America. This is one step further than failed 2008 Republican Presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who made mentioning his opponent’s middle name verboten, even though Obama used it during both attempts to take the Presidential oath of office.

While the boomlet for Donald Trump’s bid for the Oval Office fizzled after forcing President Obama to release his birth certificate in April, it is thought that much of his support stemmed from his pugnacious sensibilities to bring the fight for the Presidency.  After the recent New Hampshire debate, former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) was roundly criticized for pulling his punches on “Obamney-care”.  Should we rally behind a prospective President who dares not speak the name of the incumbent opposition?  This is reminiscent of the paralyzing fearfulness at Hogwarts of mentioning Voldemort.



A winning campaign for Republican Presidential candidates must have a positive message that addresses the pressing problems which threaten America’s vitality. Those challenging President Obama need not demonize him or name call yet they can not afford to pull their punches or utilize a no-name strategy when opposing Obama, as the incumbent is not raising an estimated $1 Billion to campaign on achievements of improving the economy or a record of popular accomplishments.

More Weiner Weaseling?

After three weeks of twisting in the wind over  prevaricating over sending risque Twitter messages to women over the internet along with  his unseemly package photos, Rep.  Anthony Weiner (D-NY 9th) announced that he would give up his seat...in Congress.  Instead of quietly resigning in disgrace, the lewd legislator made a campaign like press conference at the venue where he first announced for public office.  Some political pundits opined that Weiner might have intended the occasion as a sort of political relaunching.  But this rebranding exercise was marred by a shock jock heckler who offered a fond farewell to a “freak”.  After this botched presser, Weiner left for the Hamptons in a limo with his wife riding alone in back.  Perhaps gave truth to Weiner’s contention that his lovely wife Huma was behind him.



Perhaps it is understandable that Weiner did not send a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH 8th) immediately on late Thursday afternoon, as his Capitol Hill staff had evacuated the day before with their belongings. The assurances that the Weiner offices will be open for business makes some sense to continue to pursue constituent services.   But where is the letter of resignation?

Weiner does not have discernable skills other than being a political animal.  Weiner’s education was in PolySci, he worked as a legislative assistant to then Congressman now senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY 9th), served on the New York City Council and won Chuck Schumer’s seat.  Weiner had been a fiesty partisan, both on the House floor as well as on talking heads shows. But the prurient problem combined with a lack of friends among his partisans make his future private sector job prospects tenuous, unless he gets hired as an act to follow Keith Olbermann on Al Gore’s CurrentTV or takes that job with Larry Flynt and Hustler.

Each day that passes increases Weiner’s future pension, much to the derision of the public.  It is dubious that Weiner is trying to hold on to his post for nickle and dime supplements for his retirement. After all of his lying about his Tweets, the shamelessness of holding on to the post and brashness of his campaign like relaunch resignation speech, Weiner may be weaseling for political advantage.  

Ordinarily when a Congressional Seat is vacant in New York state, the Governor calls for a special election, where the party bosses pick one candidate and it is a winner take all stakes.  In recent special elections in the Empire State, country Republican bosses have picked RINOS or weak candidates which lost what should be safe seats.  But due to serendipitous timing and the need for Governor Andrew Cuomo to fill open Assembly seats, there way be an off-year election.  In that procedure, candidates would need to file valid petition signatures by July 14th, the Democrat primary would be September 13th and the general election on November 8th.

Weiner and friends may be working the Governor out of the limelights to call for an off-year election instead of a special election. This may include the Clintons. After all, Huma is close to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ex-President Bill Clinton married the couple in 2010 and Gov. Cuomo was Secretary of HUD during Clinton’s Presidency.

If polls are to be believed, a solid majority did not want Weiner to go.  Moreover, Weiner has the campaign infrastructure to get his name on the ballot and he certainly has name recognition.  If the timing for calling the off year election is right, other Democrat candidates could have trouble getting their petitions in on time.  And Cook Report rates the 9th Congressional District as D+5 which is an easier row to hoe for the randy representative.  If it works out, Weiner would only lose about four months pension.  As our 42nd President might say–“Hot Dog!”

But this political ploy might inspire the New York legislature, which needs to eliminate two Congressional seats (including one downstate) to eliminate the boundries of New York 9.  That would be quite the Weiner roast. But in the short run, that prospect may discourage other candidates from running for the seat.  Which would be the gift that keeps on giving, having a dispicable, discredited Democrat who has no friends in the donkey caucus and little prospects be the poster boy for the House minority in the 2012 election cycle. This prospect would cause the GOP in Fantasyland on the Potomac to hum “Hot Dog” too.

Via: New York Daily News

UPDATE  6/20 16:45  Weiner sent his two line resignation letter to Gov. Andrew Cuomo & the NY Secretary of State that he is resigning as of midnight Tuesday.

But is this resignation official? A heads up to the State officials who are deciding whether to hold a special election or an off year election to fill the seat.  Surely a POLYSCI major and a former L.A. to the House of Representatives  should realize that an official resigning in disgrace needs to notify the Majority Leadership of the Chamber from which Weiner is withdrawing.  

Maybe Weiner will try to  tweet his resignation to Speaker Boehner and bring a tear to his eye.

UPDATE 6/22  Gov. Cuomo called for a Special Election on September 13th, which means that there will be no primary election and party bosses choose the candidates.  Hence,  any Weiner comeback will likely be elsewhere.

The Mitten Tightens In Michigan Redistricting

Michigan is the only state in the union that actually lost population after the 2010 Census.  Remarkably, the Great Lake State is only losing one Congressional seat in the redistricting process. Since the population evacuation occurred in and around Mo-town, it was inevitable that southeastern Michigan would end up on the short end of the mitten when it came to reapportionment.   

The Congressional District likely to be eliminated is 2nd term Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI 9th) who represents much of wealthy Oakland County.  Rep. Peters was gerrymandered into a district with 15 term Congressman Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI 12th).  Both Levin and Peters jointly issued a  philippic which bewailed the “unprecedented" gerrymandering:

Instead of drawing fair lines that follow community and county borders in a logical way, the Republican legislature has drafted a map so skewed that it exploits every trick in the book to gerrymander districts in ways that benefit Republican incumbents...The legislature and Governor Snyder should reject this gerrymandered map and draw congressional boundaries in a way that puts Michigan voters' interests squarely ahead of flagrant partisan advantage.

But Peters has vowed that he will not run against the 80-year old Rep. Levin, which is a wise move considering that being the ranking member on House Ways and Means has its privileges.  Hence one can deduce that Sander will not ride off into the sunset quietly.

While Michigan Republicans and Democrats were supposed to release their plans at the same time, but the Democrats withheld their map for over the weekend, hoping that public outcries will change their fate.  But the Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of the State House along with Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI) retaking the governorship after the Teanami in 2010. In addition, Republican justices have a majority on the State Supreme Court.  So unless the DOJ can muster some mischief via the Voters Right Act, Michigan’s redistricting should basically mirror the GOP plan.

While the redrawn district lines in the Detroit Metropolitan Area represent splotchy ink art, the population evenly proportioned, with two districts that remain Majority-Minority districts.  The redrawn lines gives media savvy conservative 3 term Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI 11th) a much more staunch yet splotchy district.  The proposed 14th Congressional District of 24th Term Representative John Conyers (D-MI 14th) would jump the infamous 8 Mile Road line which divides Detroit from its northern suburbs. The new 14th would unite the old money of Grosse Pointes with some of tony West Bloomfield, while still maintaining a 57% minority demographic.  

The twofold problem for Conyers is that he has not previously represented significant portions of the redrawn district and it would be less blue collar. This will force the 83-year-old Congressman Conyers to campaign hard with a different message than he has previously used.  If the lines for the redrawn 14th CD stand, this could create an opportunity for a Tea Party Type to be quite competitive, since much of the district had been conservative stomping grounds for seven term Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI 9th) prior to his loss in 2006.

This Redistricting Cycle has seen several states, like Virginia, Florida and California idealistically endeavor to create nonpartisan reapportionment. But redistricting is an inherently political process which does not make for a pretty process.  Anyone thinking otherwise just needs to talk to the hand. 

Movie Review: The Green Lantern

Summertime is the cinematic season for big budget superhero action flicks.  This year, Warner Brothers reportedly spent $300 million to bring  The Green Lantern to the silver screen. Between the Beltways, there is the notion that some enterprises are too big to fail. Alas, that does not apply to bloated blockbusters from Tinseltown.

From the opening credits, a Green Lantern viewer can tell that the filmmakers dumped a lot of money into special effects.  The action packed space opera start of the film is much more effective when 3-D glasses are supplied for a 3-D film.  While the glasses made seeing the cataclysmic cosmic battle clearer, the affectated exposition of the history of the Green Lanterns called to mind the intellectual onanism of the Architect scene in The Matrix Reloaded.  Combined this alluvia of information with scenes of aliens who strut and fret their time on the screen and heard no more is confusing to all but the comic book cognoscenti.

Since there have been a half dozen humans who have donned the Green Lantern’s garb in the DC Comic’s 70 year franchise, comic book purists should not complain that screen writers Michael Green and Greg Berlanti chose the Silver Age Green Lantern Hal Jordan (originating in 1959) as the superhero and they drew inspiration from the Secret Origin and Emerald Dawn storylines for the script.

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is a second generation test pilot who is scarred by a tragic childhood who witnessed his father crash and burn.  Hal is a maverick flier and fearless in the cockpit but when he’s down to Earth, he is undisciplined and undedicated.  When Abin Sur, one of the 3,600 Green Lantern protectors of the universe crash lands on Earth, the extra-terrestrial alien’s ring chooses Hal Jordan as its successor.  Jordan must come to terms with the new responsibilities that accompany his new powers. Eventually, this human Green Lantern embarks on a mission to defeat Parallax, which feeds on fear, and save the universe.

Green Lantern Director Martin Campbell included several thrilling action sequences, but the disjointed storytelling did not allow the audience to develop emotional investment with characters to enhance empathy.  The opening cosmic battle  was spectacular, but the epic battle with unidentified aliens seemed inconsequential without a closer connection to the protagonist.  In 1977, George Lucas started the original Star Wars with a two minute crawl that gave background to the epic space opera along with a triumphant musical theme.  In the first reel of the Green Lantern, there was little connection with the protagonist and no musical cues from James Newton Howard’s original score to draw us into the storyline.

The script should have been reworked because of the conflicting portrayal of Hal Jordan. The daredevil pilot is shown to have a concerned extended family but they disappear after one sequence.  Jordan’s chosen family comes from his employer Ferris Aircraft, with his on-again-off-again girlfriend pilot/boss Carol Ferris (Blake Lively) and his nerdy sidkick Thomas (Taika Waititi). While Carol Ferris visualy cuts quite a figure, the script gives Lively few memorable lines and her commanding initial presence devolves into coquettish cheerleader in the end.

Although Parallox is an unwieldy alien enemy, his human minion Hector Hammond was deftly portrayed by Peter Sarsgaard.

There were a few instances of subtle humor worked into the film.  When Jordan was trying to divine the Green Lantern oath, Buzz Lightyear would have been proud.  The Green Lantern initiation evoked memories of many boot camp moments. But the script jumped around and did not flesh out “the good guys” or give reasons to care.

There were a few action scenes that were best experienced on the big screen, especially the aerial dogfight. the first act of heroism by Jordan as the Green Lantern and the expensive opening sequence.  What was disappointing was the quick dispatch of the ending.  It seemed too simple but think of it what you will.

The Green Lantern’s special effects were wonderful but the plot did not seem cohesive, the audience could not deeply connect with the hero, there were not iconic scenes or quotable lines and the ending does not blow you away.  While it will probably gross more than Brenda Starr, don’t count on a franchise. On the other hand, at least it’s not Aquaman.

Movie Review: Mr. Popper's Penguins

Mr. Popper’s Penguins is a film adaptation of a beloved 1938 children’s classic which stars Jim Carrey and Angela Lansbury.   Some cineastes complain when a script embellishes on an original storyline, but this treatment honors the original’s love of language arts while presenting a plausible plot for a modern family.

Popper (Carrey)  is an elite, seemingly cold blooded city slicker realty salesman who forgoes all feeling for the thrill of success.  But an inheritance from Antarctica puts Popper’s fast track plans on ice.  His Gentoo Penguin wards warm his heart and helps Popper rediscover what he is worth.

Despite South Park’s bawdy parody, Mr. Popper’s Penguins manages to keep the scatological comedic scenes to a minimum, which is amazing in an age when Nickelodeon sliming substitutes for childrens’ comedy.  There certainly was quite a bit of physical comedy which is a natural for a Jim Carrey comedy and a screwball kiddie flick. The mayham at the museum was iconic. Yet  there was only one scene when Carrey employed his over the top manic comedic personal.  Carrey’s governed acting enhanced the integrity of the screenplay rather than being a virtuoso star vehicle held together with a gossamer plot.

The verbal comedy was epitomized by Popper’s alliterative assistant Pippi (Ophelia Lovibond).  Popper’s monetarily myopic doorman (Desmin Borges) stole the show with his smarmy sensibilities.

Much like a romantic comedy, those who have been around the block can accurately anticipate the denouement, the trick is how the film makers get there.   Director Mark Waters successfully combines a screwball/fish out of water comedy with elements of romance, coming of age and heartwarming family elements without being treacly or having things feeling forced.  While no one wants to see reality in a fantasy comedy, not all plot elements are idyllic.  The “villains”, such as the nosey neighbor, the over-eager Animal Control Agent (Clark Gregg), the partners and the hard to please client (Lansbury) serve more as boundaries than scary hurdles for the protagonist.

Cinematographer Florian Ballhaus shot Mr. Popper’s Penguins as a visual love letter to mid-town Manhattan.  The backdrops of architectural gems like the Flatiron Building, the Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge, Tavern On The Green and the Guggenheim Museum contribute to the feeling of a fantasy cityscape. Turning a penthouse into a winter wonderland was wonderful. Composer Rolfe Kent provided a playful, upbeat which also gave the right emotional cue with remaining understated.

Mr. Popper’s Penguins did not have obvious product placement or corporate tie ins.  The dialogue was playful, particularly with the alliteration but there were not notable quotable scenes.  In many respects,  Mr. Popper’s Penguins is reminiscent of a 1960s Disney screwball comedy which surreal circumstances collide with conventionality but in the end affirm the individual.  Perhaps the casting of Angela Lansbury contributed to this amiable aura.

Mr. Popper’s Penguins was a charming comedy that was a perfectly pleasant family film.  Yapsolutely (sic). However, it would be surprising if this is a movie blockbuster and not at Blockbuster in short order.



If you want a true taste of Antarctica, then check out the exhibit at the National Geographics Museum in Washington, DC (thru August 21st) that celebrates the Centenary of Conquering the South Pole.  A team of British explorers led by Robert Scott raced a group of Norweigian explorers headed by Roald Amuldsen for the arduous south end of the Earth.  Amuldsen had a one track mind to get to the terrestrial South Pole first while Scott’s team stopped to befriend the penguins and conduct scientific experiments.  Alas, only Amuldsen’s team was successful and brought them back alive.

Polishing Off The Granite State Debate

Seven candidates for the Republican Presidential Nomination debated in New Hampshire in an event sponsored by CNN/WMUR/Manchester Union Leader.   When there are so many candidates participating, a”debate” can devolve into a joint press conference, which this gathering mercifully avoided, but there was little adverse interplay amongst the candidates.  It was wise to not invite former Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM), so that he could whine about not getting enough time to promote legalizing pot.  

To keep things moving, CNN wanted answers to be 30 seconds or less, which may be perfect for short attention span theater, but the incumbent in the Oval Office can hardly clear his throat in that short soundbite.  Even though there were no buzzers or lights to cut off candidates, CNN moderator John King displayed an annoying tick to either grunt or  murmur after 15 seconds into a candidate’s response, stepping into any outstanding answers. To wit this might be chronicled as the CNN Grunt-It State Debate.

To keep things moving and interactive, questions came from the moderator John King, from the studio audience at St. Anselm’s College as well as from remote stand up sites scattered throughout the first primary state.  In addition, CNN promoted a social media angle, promising to take questions from Facebook and Twitter as well as streaming Twitter comments during the debate.  It did not seem that many questions that were answered came from social media, but a couple of comments were highlighted as well as the alluvia of information.  Considering the reputation of CNN and the Lamestream Media, it would be advised that for future debates candidates demand that the Twitter stream be eliminated, as this is rife for manipulation by the media or politicos.

Another experimental element of the Granite State Debate was “This or That?” when a candidate is asked to quickly choose from two options.  This was intended to show the softer side of a candidate but it was a wasted opportunity.  Asking Herman Cain “Thin Crust or Deep Dish?” was kind of cute, especially considering his experience as CEO of Godfather Pizza. Continuing in that vein, perhaps CNN could appealed to Hispanic audiences by asking “¿Que es más macho?”  à la Laurie Anderson. It is a pity that the opportunity to ask snap questions did not delve into more revealing subjects, such as  “What book most influences you?” or “What was the biggest challenge that you faced?”  At least ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich was able to quickly choose American Idol over Dancing With the Stars.

The Granite State Debate managed to make some news by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN 6th) announcing that she filed her paperwork with the FEC and would soon be announcing her candidacy.  Of course participating in a Presidential Primary Debate does kind of show one’s cards.  

What made news was the dog that did not bark.  After former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) threw down a label “Obamney Care” the day before on Fox News Sunday, the lamestream media salivated at the prospect of a GOP food fight, particularly directed at the perceived frontrunner former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA). But it seems that all abided by Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."  While the candidates did make some policy distinctions amongst one another, the rhetorical fire was aimed after the fecklessness and failure of the Obama Administration.

Lamestream Media commentators were quick to label Pawlenty a loser for not have the courage to continue lambasting the current leader Romney.  But perhaps the Pawlenty campaign remembered the acrimony between Romney and Huckabee which divided and dispirited the conservative base in 2008. Or even more contemporarily, Pawlenty might have looked at the bad press that Ed Rollins sparked as Rep. Bachmann entered the Presidential race by slamming former Gov. Sarah Palin, particularly since the candidates hoped to draw from the same base of support.   

Pawlenty should be mindful that New Hampshire is not his game as Romney has a “home field” advantage and currently a 32% lead.  Romney is not competing in the Iowa Caucuses while that is Pawlenty’s touchstone.  Pawlenty is probably cultivating a message of governing success in a Democrat state and implementing right leaning  policiesrather than serving up a plate of rhetorical raw meat.  That is the same demographic that Romney is targeting, along with an appeal of electability.   Why cultivate starting the struggle prematurely?  Should the internecine imbroglio be over National Health Care, when that should be a rallying cry for the Tea Party to charge against the incumbent.  While I certainly think that Pawlenty pulled his punch, it was a wise tactic.  The “Obamney” quip planted the seed, especially amongst the base who questions Romney’s conservative bone fides.  Pawlenty need to succeed in Iowa Caucuses using Minnesota Nice and positive conservatism stressing economic growth. If Pawlenty wins the Hawkeye Cauci (sic) then Big Mo will be the wave which helps him compete in the other contests. 

Rep. Bachmann’s almost official entry into the race along with her energetic answers brought some fight into the race against President Obama.  Bachmann’s political pugnaciousness along with a couple of fumbled responses from Herman Cain (Muslims in his Administration, command in chief issues) seem to have taken the steam out of the Cain boomlet among movement Conservatives.  But Bachmann is the only top tier candidate who is currently an elected official in the race and the responsibilities of office may force some tough votes to defend or great opportunity.  

After the meltdown of Newt’s campaign staff last week, Gingrich got off easy from niggling campaign questions during the debate, as he only needed to defend the “right wing social engineering” gaffe.  The ex-Speaker did well in answering questions succinctly instead of offering meandering musings.  But Gingrich should be commended for trying to thwart the liberal Lamestream Media false dichotomy of “This or That?” concerning wedge issues like immigration. That helped keep the tone of the debate adult rather than partisan soundbites.  May all candidates, including Newt, remember not to be suckered by media cheap shots or awkward answers.

Even though all of the players in the GOP Presidential Primary process may not have entered the stage yet, the Granite State Debate was a good start to framing the campaign to be a referendum against the fiscal and foreign policy failures of the incumbent. But winning the nomination is more than putting in a good debate performance. There is the matter of fund raising, not just from a handful of wealthy donors.  Even though Paulistinians (sic) have successfully deployed internet “money bombs” for their Libertarian leaning leader Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX 14th), money isn’t everything. Successful candidates must make wise tactical choices (e.g. Guilini putting all his marbles in FLORIDA in 2008), a cohesive campaign (not to mention any names, but Ed Rollins will savage others then savage his former candidate) and develop messages that catch fire with the electorate.  Those Republicans onstage in Manchester had the right instincts to govern well.  Just about all of them would make plausible Commanders in Chief (sorry Paulistinians and Cainiacs).  As the campaign progresses, may the participants keep their eye on the prize and develop policies which will address the pressing political problems which this country faces.

Newt-Run Bomb

Newt and Callista Gingrich   /Photo: Brian Matt

The implosion of the Newt Gingrich Presidential Campaign this week has been remarkable.  Sixteen senior staffers, including the Campaign Manager and Press Secretary, resigned en masse on Thursday.  Former Speaker Gingrich, who was off on a cruise to the Greek Islands with his wife Callista, indicated that he was not dropping out of the race despite the radical change in staff.  Newt's preliminary spin is that he is running an unconventional campaign and that the seasoned campaigners could not see the wisdom of a strong spouse.  But Gingrich will need more compelling responses on the ready for the CNN Presidential Debate in New Hampshire on Monday.

Many GOP partisans were skeptical about Gingrich’s chances to win the Republican nomination.  After all, Gingrich has not held elective office in 13 years, he has a complicated personal background  (three marriages with two messy divorces and now his conversion to Catholicism), Newt had alienated diehard conservatives with a campaign with now former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 6th) for Global Warming and Gingrich generally has a polarizing disposition. Still, it was thought that Gingrich would be valuable in framing primary issues and rejecting the accommodation inclinations of the Between The Beltway Republican establishment.

The launch of the Gingrich Campaign was not smooth sailing.  Newt chose to announce his intentions on May 11th via a Facebook video.  Alas, the sappy soundtrack scoring which accompanied the candidate’s preliminary pitch lent itself to mockery.  While doing the Sunday morning media rounds, Gingrich made news when position himself on budgetary issues by condemning Paul Ryan’s fledgling plans to bring solvency to Medicare and help balance the budget as “right wing social engineering”.  After letting that fester for a few days, Newt claims that he was taken out of context.  Be that as it may, an experienced politico who has been on Meet the Press 34 times should have been more careful when opining to the Lamestream Media’s gotcha game.  Smelling blood, the media dug up a story indicating that Gingrich had up to a $500,000 line of credit with Tiffany’s and linked it to potential lobbying by an ex Gingrich aide who worked for Tiffany's with Callista Gingrich, while Mrs. Gingrich worked on a relevant Congressional Committee.  Amidst the stormy campaign seas, the Gingrich’s took a two week cruise to the Aegean Sea.

Political junkies are trying to determine what is the rest of the story.  The campaign staff that jumped ship cited creative differences on how to direct the campaign. Since Gingrich’s Campaign Manager Rob Johnson, Spokesman Rick Tyler and Strategist David Carney all have ties to Texas Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), this may portent Perry throwing his hat into the 2012 Presidential contest.   There is scuttlebutt that Callista Gingrich’s close involvement with the campaign was not welcomed by the staff.  It may simply be a question about pay.

Gingrich has been adept at funding his post-Congressional professional pursuits with large scale donors.  It is dubious that he was doing well with garnering the an array of contributors that were limited to $2,400 a piece.  The staff is starving, the campaign is floundering and the boss is on a European Vacation might have been enough to abandon ship.

Mercifully, the 2012 Presidential Primary campaign has not been the grueling four year slog that it was in the last cycle.  While the Republicans have many hopefuls who have already jumped in, there may be more time for later entries.  But you have to be in it to win it.

Gingrich wants to have an idea oriented campaign. That would be welcomed by Tea Party types who want to find real answers.  However, Gingrich seems to want to be a part time candidate.  One would think that Fred Thompson’s lackluster performance for the 2008 cycle should have shown that unless you are Born Yesterday, there is No Way Out of the Necessary Roughness of a full time campaign.

Presidential politicking can be personally taxing (sic), but it can also be quite revealing of character.  The clumsily worded statements made after a long day on the hustings can be an opportunity for recovery or ruin.  The strategic choices that a campaign makes can also be quite telling.  Although the media would have observers believe that Barack Obama won the 2008 Democrat nomination in a landslide, it actually was pretty close in delegate/Super-delegate count.  The margin for victory was partly due to Obama’s dumping of resources in caucus states where Democrats had no chance of winning in the general election.  By mobilizing activities to do caucuses in states like Idaho, he won lopsided victories which meant more delegates and built a loyal following of believers of hope and change to use for national phone banks for the general.  That bond can not be done through wholesale politics in a war of ideas.

While Newt is down, he should not be counted out quite yet. In the 2004 Democrat Presidential Nomination Campaign, Senator John Kerry’s (D-MA) primary victory in 2004.  Kerry had initially relied on having top drawer endorsements from elected officials but was not winning the Super Delegate race and was having trouble fund-raising.  So much so that Senator Kerry, the man who married money twice, had to mortgage his Boston home for $6 million to stay in the race.


Now former Governor Howard Dean (D-VT) had won the “invisible primary” in 2004 by  pioneering internet fund-raising and had a warchest of $40 million earmarked just for Iowa.  Dean thought that he could influence Hawkeye caucus goers by sending an army of orange hat volunteers (mostly out of state college students) to knock on doors.  But despite the formidable war chest and the invading Dean Brigade, Dean ended up finishing in third place.

The poor performance of a supposed front-runner was bad enough but everyone remembers the Dean scream during the concession speech.  That prompted Democrat party activists to rally around an acceptable candidate.  Senator John Kerry was a three term Senator who had served in Vietnam (and was awarded three Purple Hearts) yet he based his campaign around voting against the war in Iraq.  In the end, Kerry won the nomination and chose his chief remaining rival first term Senator John Edwards (D-NC) as his running mate.


Another example of not giving up the fight and triumphing in Presidential politics is Senator John McCain (R-AZ) had great difficulty raising funds in the first half of  2007 as the Republican base was adverse to McCain’s Immigration legislation.  The McCain campaign had to downsize his campaign staff, he lost his campaign manager and chief strategist and he was fourth in the polls with 15%.  But McCain capitalized on his maverick status with the media, not competing in the Iowa Caucus where he would not win, and did intrepid campaigning in the Granite State.  Much to the consternation of the conservative base, McCain won the Republican nomination in 2008.

But in many ways, both of those paradigms were compromise candidates who won due to both pluck and luck.  If you are trying to educate the electorate and redefine the national agenda, there needs to be personal commitment and a roadmap of how to achieve that objective.  Otherwise, it is just tossing intellectual grenades that strafe the campaign battlefield but are sound and fury which signify nothing.

Ivory Tower Intelligent Cities?

The National Building Museum in conjunction with Time, IBM and the Rockefeller Foundation will hold a symposia to explore the convergence of data, technology and cities.

The Intelligent Cities planners seem set to scold suburbia.  When comparing American life from the 1950s to today, it is noted that the average American dwelling grew from 983 sf for 3.37 occupants to 2438 sq. for just over two occupants.  Consequently, Americans’ energy consumption has doubled.  The clear implication is that we would save money and save the environment by using less energy if we went back to living in Pleasantville.

Such a specious conclusion ignores several key factors.  Surface transportation, aided by the interstate highway system and the affordability of automobiles allowed many middle class families to have a house with a white picket fence.  The 1950 data still reflects many households which had made due during the Depression and the austerity of World War II and the post-war period.

Another factor which Intelligent City planners wanted to examine is how kids no longer walk to school.  In 1969, half of all children walked to school.  Today, only 13% of kids walk to school and 44% get chauffeured by their parents in a private car.  The symposia facilitators point to data that shows that childhood obesity has ballooned to almost 20% of schoolchildren.  Interesting data but not necessarily a causal connection.

Urban planners would hypothesize that children are not walking to school since suburban streets do not have adequate sidewalks.  In my recollection, the sidewalks were not reliable outside of subdivisions forty years ago either.  But there is a good reason for the phenomenon of helicopter parents–childhood safety.  In 1976-77, the Oakland County (MI) Child Killer  infamously abducted at least four children and created a panic for child safety which resonates to this day.  The notion of orchestrating a play-date for anyone older than a toddler would seem absurd.  But since there is so much mobility in neighborhoods and stranger danger, it is commonplace  to have planned and supervised extra-curricular activities rather than wandering home and playing pickup sports.

Another datapoint which Intelligent City planners consider is the cost of keeping a car.  Their research shows that if someone ditches a car, they can expect to save on average $8,400 a year.  That is a pretty compelling figure.  But it does not take into account a cost/benefit analysis.

It is great when you can walk to work but that is not practical for most of the workforce.  Even if one could make some ambulatory arrangements, since we typically change jobs seven times over a working lifetime, it is dubious that the arrangement would last for long. Indubitably, IBM will intuit that much of the transit in an Intelligent City will be obviated by telecommuting. But not everyone has the privilege of being a non-essential Federal worker on a snow day Between-The-Beltways.  Of course, urban planners will point to public transportation as being the answer to congestion, wasted energy and transportation expenses.

 Aside from some large cities on the Eastern Seaboard (New York, Washington, Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore) along with Chicago and San Francisco, public transportation is not the norm in America.  Progressive cities, like Portland, Oregon, which invested half of its transportation spending into light rail, without experiencing marked increases in ridership.  Portland supplemented the $1.5 billion that the city  dropped into the spending for light rail system by selling parks, school playgrounds and other land at below retail price to developers who promised to replace the open spaces with transit oriented development.  The forward thinking Portland planners zoned the land immediately adjacent to light rail stations for high density development, which had not materialized in a decade after the light rail was built.  It sounds like a failed strategy from playing Sim City.  This plan also discounts the allure that Edge Cities have in attracting business, but not enough density to necessitate mass transit options, much less making them financially sustainable.

A chataqua about city planning could be quite elucidating.  After all, Washington, DC was a planned city.  But Pierre L’Enfant’s plan to have two canals that run along the center of the city did not work out so well, but a century later allowed for the development of the National Mall. And L’Enfant’s idea to have the States center their interests around designated squares was ill fated.

Perhaps the Intelligent Cities symposia will surpass my skeptical expectations of meglomaniac architects who will sacrifice American consumer freedom to pursue pipe dreams directed by Big Government.

But that’s life in the big city.

Source: Intelligent Cities 

Theater Review: Ain't Misbehavin'

The Washington Savoyards latest production at the Atlas Performing Arts Center certainly will not be mistaken as a Victorian Gilbert and Sullivan light opera.  Yet their performance of  Ain’t Misbehavin’ was an superb swing singspiel celebrating the music of Thomas “Fats” Walker and the Harlem Renaissance.

There is nary a bad seat in the Lange Theater at the Atlas PAC.  In fact, the stage seemed so inviting that we joked that we should sit on-stage.  But the when actual invitation to sit on-stage with the cast and the band was issued, it seemed less tempting once the comfy chairs were taken.  The stylistic but static staging that evoked the Lenox Avenue nightclubs in uptown Manhattan was complimented by subtle background lighting that set a mood without upstaging the actors.

One should not expect deep plot lines from a musical revue, but Director/Choreographer Michael Bombitt did a good job in coaxing personality from the cast while putting on the show. While there were few costume changes, the impression was dapper and salacious, seemingly with the constant threat of a wardrobe malfunction ala Janet Jackson’s Superbowl show.

 Daryl Spiers energetic performance as the sauve “Andre” certain came through sweat equity.  Iyona Blake carried her role as a Harlem hussy.  Clif Walker made an impression with his comedic solo “Your Feet’s Too Big”.  Lauren Du Pree cut a rug with her jitterbug.  And Nova Payton was a standout with her vocal range.  The band led by pianist Darius Smith added to the toe tapping fun.

A light opera lends itself to Teppichfresser theatricality, but the carpet chewing scenes conveyed character and gave some semblance of story to Ain’t Misbehavin’.  A “Fats” Walker music revue  inevitably would be raunchy, rowdy and rib splitting funny to reflect Walker’s worldview that life is a journey of pleasure and play. But the libretto also included a couple of reflective pieces about the dichotomy of playing downtown and uptown and being “Black and Blue”, which showed off the cast’s harmonic skills.

This was a fun show which runs daily through June 19th and is well worth reliving Harlem’s heyday. Tickets are between $15 and $40.

When and if the construction of Phase One off the H Street Streetcar project is complete (it's supposed to be done by October, 2011), it should bring increased accessibility to the Atlas PAC and to  a district that was already in renaissance.