The Week: Sam Fragoso: How The Riveting Vidal v. Buckley Debates Paved The Way For an Era of Idiotic TV Punditry

Source:The Week- Buckley V. Vidal.

Source:The New Democrat

I think people need to be careful when they compare with Bill Buckley-Gore Vidal debates with modern partisan talk TV. Where the host of some so-called news talk show has a clear political slant and simply brings on guests to back up what they are already saying. And when they do bring on an alternative point of view, they cut the person off every time the guest contradicts the host. Buckley-Vidal, is not Bill O’Reilly, or Rachel Maddow. Buckley-Vidal, is also not the old CNN Crossfire either. Where you would have 2-4 all talking at the same time and not knowing what someone else on that show said during the whole. Because they were too busy spilling hot air out of the big fat mouth.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, were between two men who hated each other and yet respected each other enough to hear what the other said and actually think about what they said before they tried responding to them. These debates were sort of like the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960. Where the two leading presidential nominees, were at the top of their game. And knew exactly what they thought and wanted to do and what their opponents knew as well. And actually listened to each other.

The only placed that would put on a Buckley-Vidal debate, or that type of talk and debating show, would be PBS, or C-SPAN. Because the rest of the country when they get home from work, are only interested in mindless entertainment, like so-called realty TV and the other tabloid shows, for the most part. And if they’re going to watch something that presents itself as news, it has to be entertaining. Because if it isn’t, they fall asleep on the couch from watching it, because getting something out of a real news show, or news magazine, or documentary, requires actual thinking. And not thinking about which jail their current favorite celebrity is currently being held at.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, weren’t supposed to be that. They were brought on by ABC News, Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal to offer opposite points of view from the other about the 1968 Republican and Democratic national conventions. I guess ABC News, was small, or cheap, that they couldn’t afford a research staff. Because if they did their homework they would’ve known that Buckley and Vidal hated each other. ABC News’s lead news anchor, was supposed to moderate their discussion, but he acted more like a U.S. Senate presiding officer, (sorry for the Congressional joke) than a moderator. Because Buckley and Vidal did all the talking. But it made for every entertaining as well as intelligent TV.
Source:Movie Clips

The Week: Ryu Spaeth: 'Is To Kill a Mockingbird Racist?'

Source:The Week- Actor Gregory Peck.

Source:The New Democrat

I saw the To Kill a Mockingbird movie last night in preparation for this piece. And I’ve seen it before, the last time probably five years ago. And I haven’t actually read the book, so I can’t comment on that intelligently. But the movie, even though it certainly shows racist characters, it’s certainly not a racist movie. If Ryu Spaeth, is asking whether the To Kill a Mockingbird movie is racist, with all due respect, that is a silly question. It is about a young African-American man in the deep South in the 1963s, who is falsely accused of murdering a young Caucasian women. And the defendant, being represented by a good veteran Caucasian lawyer, who not only knows his client is innocent based on the evidence, but does what he can to get him acquitted.

Now where is the racism in this movie? This movie is about a town in rural Alabama in the 1930s. Where the people there are not well-educated and struggling just to survive. Where the town is overwhelming Caucasian and probably Anglo-Saxon at that and who probably sees African-Americans and that is not what they called Black people back then, but they saw Africans as their ancestors who owned African slaves did. As animals and property, not as human beings. And yet one of the members of this community is falsely accused of raping a young Caucasian women and one of the members of this Anglo-Saxon community, does whatever he can to defend Tom Robinson. An African-American man accused of raping a young Caucasian women.

The To Kill a Mockingbird movie, is about the times, essentially. What life was like in very rural Alabama in the 1930s for both Caucasian and African people in this community. And racism, is obviously a factor here, like it was everywhere else in the country and perhaps a bigger problem in Alabama and the deep South in general. But this movie doesn’t make one community look better than another community, or members of one community look better than another, simply because of their race. This movie was about showing what life was like for people in this community in the 1930s. And how justice was carried out and how the community responded when one of their members accuses someone of seriously hurting them. Nothing racist about that.
Source:Christopher Leps

The Week: Damon Linker: The Laughable to Get Mitt Romney to Run in 2016

Source: The Week-

Source:The New Democrat

Hubert Humphrey had a great line in 1968 when he and Richard Nixon were the Democratic and Republican nominees for president. Vice President Humphrey's line was about one of Mr. Nixon's campaign themes for president in 1968 which was The New Nixon. And talking about Nixon's multiple political comebacks in his career as well as attempted political comebacks.

The 1952 Checkers speech that kept then Senator Nixon on the Republican ticket for Vice President.

The experienced and ready to serve Nixon in 1960 when he ran for President the first time.

The New Nixon 1962 when he ran for Governor of California in after losing the 1960 presidential election to Jack Kennedy.

And what Hubert said about all of these new Nixon's was that "a man who has had as many political face lifts and touchups in his career can't be very new". I'm paraphrasing here but that is damn close. And you go to Mitt Romney and doesn't matter which Mitt you choose and I'll get into more of that later, but Mitt Romney has had a similar political career. One of the differences between Tricky Dick Nixon and Flip Flopper Mitt Romney is that Dick won most of his political elections. Nixon was 8-2 as a political candidate and incumbent which covers all of his Congressional, Vice Presidential and Presidential elections. Mitt is 1-3 not exactly a winner as a politician.

But let's take a look at Mitt Romney's political career because that should explain that 1-3 record. He was Liberal Democrat Mitt in 1994 essentially running as a New Democrat in Massachusetts (even though he is a Republican, go figure) for U.S. Senate against the progressive champion Senator Ted Kennedy. He lost that election overwhelmingly an election where he was a strong favorite going in. Then Moderate Mitt shows up in 2002 when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts. And of course that is still the only election Mitt has ever won in now sixty-seven years on this planet. Moderate Mitt managed to stay around as Governor until he ran for President the first time in 2007.

In 2007-08 Religious-Conservative/Neo-Con Hawk (even though he's a Mormon and comes from a religion that believes in multiple spouses) Mitt shows up to run for President the first time. Mike Huckabee deserves the credit for the best line about Mitt Romney in that campaign. When Governor Huckabee said that "Mitt looks like the man who fired your father". Mitt Romney has Wall Street country club Northeastern conservative establishment Republican written all over his chess and back. And yet he's never run as someone who is proud of his success in life. But the candidate who runs as the guy who tries to please everybody, but instead offends everyone at the same time.

In 2009-10 was probably the best part of Mitt Romney's political career where he was once again out of public office because he couldn't get a job in it. But that is a time when he did some real studying about current affairs especially foreign policy and learning about the United States Government and issues that the country was facing. The problem was that he didn't use that knowledge very well to communicate a reason for why he should be elected President in 2012. But instead focused on who does he need to vote for him and how to talk everyone at the same time with different messages for each group.

2012 is the biggest stain not only on Mitt's career and something the Republican Party is going to have a real hard time living down especially if they lose again in 2016 and fail to win back the Senate in 2014. Because 2012 at least based on history and the economy was an election they should've won at least on paper. Going up against a fairly weak incumbent (but not weak enough for Mitt Romney) in President Barack Obama who was somewhere around 45% approval nationally with a struggling economy that had eight-percent unemployment most of the year that was barely growing. With a high budget deficit and national debt.

But again we are talking about Mitt Romney here so what does he do, but of course changes his political appearance once again. Who is Mitt Romney? You ask Mitt and put him on truth serum and he might say "I'm who I need to be to accomplish what I want to accomplish at any given time". You ask him off of truth serum and you may get five different answers to the same question at the same time. 2012 was Flip Flopper Mitt because I'm still struggling to figure out what his campaign theme was about because he changed it multiple times. At best it was successful businessman with a history of turning struggling organizations around who would turn the American economy around Mitt. Not exactly inspirational.

When the main question about a politician or a politician wannabe in Mitt Romney's case who has spent only four years of his entire life in public office (not for a lack of trying) because he lost most of the elections he's run in, but when the main question is after twenty years on public life as far as being well known and the number one question is "who are you?" Or "who is he"? You know you are in trouble as a political candidate. And that pretty much summarizes the political career of Mitt  Romney. The man who didn't even have the guts to let voters know who is he and what is he about and why they should vote for him.
Source:The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon