The Harris campaign is trying some mind-fuckery with the former president over debate rules. Donald Trump is still looking for a way to back out and complained Sunday night about holding the next debate on ABC, reports The New York Times:
“I ask, why would I do the Debate against Kamala Harris on that network?” he wrote.
He continued, misspelling the name of the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile and using a disparaging nickname for the news anchor George Stephanopoulos: “Will panelist Donna Brazil give the questions to the Marxist Candidate like she did for Crooked Hillary Clinton? Will Kamala’s best friend, who heads up ABC, do likewise. Where is Liddle’ George Slopadopolus hanging out now? Will he be involved. They’ve got a lot of questions to answer!!! Why did Harris turn down Fox, NBC, CBS, and even CNN? Stay tuned!!!”
Hand the nuclear codes again to that infant?
The Harris campaign responded:
“We have told ABC and other networks seeking to host a possible October debate that we believe both candidates’ mics should be live throughout the full broadcast,” Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Harris campaign, said in a statement, referring to the scheduled Sept. 10 debate and to an additional debate in October that the campaign has said it is open to negotiating. “Our understanding is that Trump’s handlers prefer the muted microphone because they don’t think their candidate can act presidential for 90 minutes on his own.”
The Trump campaign insists it was Joe Biden who demanded muted mics. The Harris team knows this, of course. The prosecutor is messing with him.
It doesn’t require and advanced degree in psychology to see it. Donald Trump has grumbled his entire adult life that “the world” is laughing at “us” (meaning the United States). Mr. Bundle of Insecurities harbors deep anxieties about being laughed at himself.
He’s not very bright. He’s undereducated. He’s overweight. He’s a “tycoon” who sucks at business and cheats at golf. He got where he is with daddy’s money. Underneath the bluster and bullying in recesses of his psyche he dare not explore (self-examination is for the weak), he knows it.
Throughout the sad history of Trumpism, comedians have garnered tons of laughs at Trump’s expense. At the White House Correspondents’ dinner in 2011, Seth Meyers famously quipped, “Trump said he’s running as a Republican. Which is surprising; I just assumed he was running as a joke.”
The audience roared. Trump seethed.
“That evening of public abasement, rather than sending Mr. Trump away, accelerated his ferocious efforts to gain stature within the political world,” wrote The New York Times’s Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns. “And it captured the degree to which Mr. Trump’s campaign is driven by a deep yearning sometimes obscured by his bluster and bragging: a desire to be taken seriously.”
Until recently, the aging Democratic political class, including President Biden, thought it too impolitic to lampoon Trump as a political leader, and thus struggled to land blows that would undercut his support without also mocking his supporters. Call him a serious threat, yes. Call him an unserious fool, no.
The Harris campaign has less trouble learning new tricks, writes Michael Tomasky at The New Republic:
Harris’s campaign so far has been a work of genius on several levels, but maybe the most ingenious stroke of all has been the decision to mock Trump—to present him not only as someone to fear, but also to ridicule. Harris perfectly encapsulated this two-pronged attack in these memorable lines from her acceptance speech: “In many ways, Donald Trump is an unserious man. But the consequences — but the consequences of putting Donald Trump back in the White House are extremely serious. … Just imagine Donald Trump with no guardrails.”
But the emphasis has been on ridicule (Tim Walz’s “weird” comment, Maryland Governor Wes Moore’s jab at Trump’s bone spurs, Barack Obama’s hilarious hand gesture when he was talking about Trump’s obsession with crowd size). It’s great on three levels. The first is that it must drive Trump nuts, and when he goes nuts, he says especially nutty things. Second, it’s arguably more persuasive to swing voters than calling Trump a fascist. Trump is a fascist, make no mistake. But he’s also ridiculous. Mocking him over his Hannibal Lecter obsession will stick in apolitical people’s minds far more strongly than warning about his plans to wreck the Justice Department, and in its way, it’s just as disqualifying. Do we really want a president who thinks an eater of human flesh, however fictional, was misunderstood?
Trump the Cowardly Bully needs to be respected and feared. Calling him a fascist or an authoritarian empowers him, feeds his ego;. In his mind, it brings him one step closer to admission to the brotherhood of dictators whose acceptance he most desperately desires.
“Sustained ridicule has the potential to reinforce the downward spiral Trump is now in,” Tomasky writes. He fears being laughed at? Pummel him with guffaws.
But, I’d advise, spare his supporters the “deplorables” label. Insults may motivate them. Some are too far gone, yes. But others may yet either stay home in the fall or leave the top race blank.
Tomasky recommends:
Ridicule makes him weaker. Ridicule makes him small. Ridicule makes him desperate. He’ll try to respond with ridicule of his own, but he is not a clever man. He’s a stupid man. He has no wit. He has no sense of mischief. He doesn’t read. He doesn’t think beyond first reactions. These nicknames of his, which the press has made such a big deal of over the years—they’re nothing. They’re dick contests put into words. Little Marco, Sleepy Joe. There’s nothing remotely clever about any of them.
And now he reportedly thinks he’s come up with a great one in “Communist Kamala.” Well, it’s alliterative, I’ll give him that. But I doubt very much that it’ll play beyond the base. First of all, people under 40 barely know what a communist was. Even for older people who do know, is communism the specter it once was?
Exactly. It’s stunning that Republicans think branding an opponent “communist” or “socialist” still bites 35 years after the Berlin Wall fell. I’ve said before, if Republicans expect to lead in the 21st century they might first try living in it.
And after all the flag-waving at the DNC convention (I have mine here), “Communist Kamala” is sauce as weak as Trump’s other schoolyard taunts.
Trump may yet rally. That is, if his decaying mind is not already too far gone. With Trump, what passes for strategy is simply feral instinct. That may survive the decay of what limited higher functions Trump ever had.
Joe Biden’s departure resets the board. Tomasky writes, “Against Joe Biden, Trump looked credible to swing voters, simply because of Biden’s age. Against Harris, he looks old (because he is), confused (because he is), far less intelligent than she (because he is), and less genuinely patriotic (because he is).”
Trump is cut over the eye. Go out and work the eye.
The headline for this NYT review of David Rhode’s new is puzzling. It says
I thought the story was going to be about DOJ employees being afraid of getting in trouble if they spilled the beans to David Rhode. But it doesn’t really reveal anything like that except a passing reference to the fear for their jobs if Trump wins in November and to say that Merrick Garland wanted to preserve the norms of the Justice Department and that was hard because Trump is such a lying criminal.
Trump was the first president since Nixon to utterly reject the idea that federal law enforcement should operate independently of the president’s personal desires or prejudices. Rather, he sought to use the attorney general, special prosecutors, U.S. attorneys and the F.B.I. as instruments to help himself and his friends and to punish his enemies.
Although Rohde doesn’t hide his conviction that Trump undermined democracy with his salvos against the Justice Department’s independence, he nonetheless writes in measured, restrained language that should hold up well in the light of history. “Where Tyranny Begins” is a work of reporting and sober analysis, not polemic. While his title might sound shrill, it’s actually an allusion to words from John Locke: “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.”
Importantly, Rohde understands that there’s tension and ambiguity in the Justice Department’s charge: It’s expected to carry out the president’s policies yet simultaneously to investigate him and his associates neutrally. After Watergate, America enacted reforms to strengthen the latter part of the mission — to preserve the department’s autonomy. Gerald Ford’s attorney general Edward Levi issued guidelines for ensuring impartiality should Watergate-style criminality again pervade the White House.
That framework began to change under the first President Bush. In perhaps the greatest abuse of presidential power since Watergate, Bush issued pardons to six former Reagan administration officials indicted in the Iran-contra scandal, including Reagan’s secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger, in part so that Weinberger wouldn’t be compelled to give testimony at trial that would implicate Bush himself. The erosion of norms upholding Justice Department autonomy continued under the second President Bush, who in 2006 fired several U.S. attorneys for plainly political reasons — a scandal that led to his attorney general’s resignation.
There is a bit of a myth that “the guardrails held” and that nobody in the Trump administration actually let him get away with his crazy schemes. To be sure, they sometimes did and we know that it will be worse in a second term because he’s got people around him who have learned the system’s weaknesses and Trump himself is ready to take it to the limit.
But it’s a fact that they succeeded in many norm-busting assaults on the rule of law and just because Bill Barr finally balked at the end, it doesn’t make him a hero. Look at what he actually did do.
Apparently, Rhode got some of the DOJ people to spill how they were pressured into doing Trump and Barr’s will and hating themselves for doing it. And he spends a lot of the book looking at how Garland and his deputies have been trying to resuscitate the Justice Department’s credibility and reputation.
I haven’t read the book and so I can’t say whether ot not that speaks well of the Garland DOJ or not. Rhode writes about “the pernicious consequences of the department’s politicization, as Garland drew fire from the right, for being too partisan, as well as from the left, for not being partisan enough.” I would argue that the left wasn’t ever saying that Garland wasn’t being “partisan enough.” They were arguing that by being so cautious and deliberate he was giving Trump privileges that no other American would receive which is the opposite of the United States’ alleged dedication to equal justice under the law.
Rohde reveals that Garland felt pained that norms of impartiality meant that his department had “a hand tied behind its back, compared to a political actor.” But Rohde adds that for Garland to have discarded these venerable norms just because Trump had done so would have only made things worse. “We would not want to be a political actor,” Garland proclaimed. “That is the end of the rule of law.” As Trump advances toward a possible second presidential term, we would all do well to reread our Locke.
I get that this is a complicated call. And there are political actors who have even more responsibility for what Trump has done (such as Republicans who refused to convict him in his second impeachment trial which would have ended the specific threat of Trump in 2021.) But being a stickler for norms that the other side doesn’t recognize is a recipe for being run over. I understand the need to keep them alive but I’m not sure they couldn’t have survived more aggressive action to hold Trump accountable.
As we know, the MAGA cult (aka the Republican party) has epic piles of chutzpah and sheer gall. But their new attack on Tim Walz as a pathological liar has got to be the most audacious projection they’ve ever done.
Let us investigate the vast history of lying by Gov. Tim Walz as alleged by the Trump campaign:
Retired from the National Guard as a command sergeant major. He did rise to the rank of command sergeant major, but upon retirement his rank reverted to master sergeant.
Had children via IVF. Walz almost always refers only to “fertility treatments,” but a couple of times has used the term IVF. In fact he and his wife underwent IUI, commonly referred to as IVF but actually a different, more affordable fertility treatment.
Won an award from the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce (2006). It was the Junior Chamber of Commerce,
Taught in China for a year through a program at Harvard University (2006). It was a program affiliated with Harvard.
Earned the title of Nebraska Citizen-Soldier of the Year (1989). He did indeed earn this award, but so did 51 other people. I’m not sure how this counts even under the strictest definition, but I’m including it for completeness.
Referred one time to “weapons of war, that I carried in war” (2018). Has admitted this was a misstatement.
Denied he had been drinking when he was pulled over in 1995 for speeding (2006). Possibly the only serious falsehood, from 18 years ago. However, he corrected the record himself six years ago when he ran for governor.
To my knowledge he hasn’t done this:
PolitiFact published its 1,000th fact check of a claim made by Donald Trump. The publication, which usually refrains from wading into political discussions or weighing in on a politician’s overall character, took the opportunity to release an analysis of those years of work. Its finding? Trump lies a lot.
“American fact-checkers have never encountered a politician who shares Trump’s disregard for factual accuracy,” the authors wrote. “Ever since he descended the escalator at Trump Tower in 2015, we have encountered a firehose of claims.”
The analysis found in particular that Trump’s immigration-related claims tended toward inflammatory falsehoods and that more than 70 percent of PolitiFact’s checks on immigration, foreign policy, crime, COVID, and health care were largely false. It concluded, also, that “Trump’s falsehoods have fueled threats to democracy.”
Virtually everything that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth is a lie., but the biggest of all was that he actually won the 2020 election, which he began saying before the ballots were even counted.
It is utterly ridiculous that we’re even discussing Tim Walz at all in this context. Insane.
“You saw a hate fest full of insults. And Donald Trump said to Barack Obama, you’re a nice man after President Obama insulted and and jabbed President Trump continuously,” Graham said. “It was designed to draw him into an exchange of insults.”
“It was light on policy, heavy on insults. So I told President Trump, then and now, you’re going to win this thing if you focus on policy,” he added.
Graham then noted that people are not “joyful” on several matters including inflation and cost of living, and pitched a Trump second term. Democrats have been using themes of “joy” heavily since Harris became the nominee.
“I think President Trump offers the best solution to change the trajectory of the country. And finally, if you’re waiting on Kamala Harris to come up with new policies, you’re going to die waiting, because she will continue what they’ve been doing for the last four years,” Graham said. “That’s why she has no new policies to offer, because they’re going to keep doing the same old thing.”
This policy line is just hilarious. What are Trump’s new policies? Who knows? He’s just blathering about “drill baby drill” and “growth” being the solution to every problem. He makes ridiculous claims that everyone in the country wanted to return Roe v Wade to the states and everyone is very happy with it. (Has anyone asked people like Graham or JD Vance if they agree with that? I’d like to know.) It literally could not be more fatuous.
Graham is trying hard to get back in Trump’s good graces:
Graham also responded to a clip of Trump earlier this week where the former president said he did not care what the South Carolina senator has to say.
“I will be by his side in this election. I am proud of what he did as our president,” Graham said.
Even some of Donald Trump’s supporters are now asking the question that was the undoing of Joe Biden: is the former president fit for office? But while Biden’s run for re-election was largely sunk by a single disastrous televised debate before a national audience, Trump is ramping up doubts with each chaotic, disjointed speech as he campaigns around the country.
While rambling discourse and outrageously disprovable claims, interspersed with spite and vitriol, may seem nothing new to many of Trump’s supporters and critics alike, the former president appears to have been driven to new depths by suddenly finding himself running against Kamala Harris a month ago.
Trump has only grown more infuriated as his poll lead over Biden evaporated, with Harris opening up a clear, if narrow, lead. The vice-president’s tactic of mocking Trump more than arguing with him appears to have incensed him further.Since Harris assumed the mantle of the presumptive Democratic candidate, Trump has claimed to be better-looking than the vice-president, questioned whether she is really Black and attacked her laugh as that of “a lunatic”.
The former president has also characterised Harris as both a communist and a fascist, and described Harris as “dumb” but then told CBS he didn’t mean it as an insult because it was “just a fact”. “I don’t think she’s a very bright person. I do feel that. I mean, I think that’s right. I think I am a very bright person, and a lot of people say that,” he said.
Trump seems particularly obsessed with the size of the crowds at Harris’s rallies, drawing derision for falsely claiming she used artificial intelligence to fake the turnout.
When he’s not worried about size, Trump is vexed by Harris’s looks. After the vice-president appeared on the cover of Time magazine, Trump compared her appearance to Sophia Loren and his wife, Melania, before drawing a comparison with his own features.“I’m a better-looking person than Kamala,” he declared to an audience of thousands who were more amused than convinced.
Then there was the weird accusation at the Black journalists convention and his repeated nonsensical claim that he’s the Best president for Blacks since Abraham Lincoln.”
In a similar vein, the former president sometimes veers off the written script to have an open debate with himself about how to pronounce names, whether Kamala or the first name of the CNN presenter Dana Bash at a recent rally…
Even some of Trump’s most loyal fans were disturbed by that performance. Joan Long travelled from New York with her husband, Billy, to see the former president speak.
“I honestly can’t say I know why he starts talking about how to pronounce names. What does that have to do with the election?” she said. “And I wish he would stop talking about Kamala’s looks.”
Hmmm.
Trump, to no one’s surprise, has ploughed on regardless. He told reporters that he was “very angry” at Harris for calling him weird and was “entitled to personal attacks”.
Harris also appears to have hit a nerve with Trump by comparing her history as a prosecutor with his recent status as a convicted criminal. “Some people say, ‘Oh, why don’t you be nice?’ But they’re not nice to me – they want me to be in prison,” Trump told reporters.
You do the crime, be prepared to do the time, dude.
The article goes on to say that he acted very dignified and presidential for a while during the convention but come on. He did not. He’s incapable of it. He was just slightly less crazy for about five minutes because he was scared shitless after the assassination attempt. He wouldn’t have chosen that weirdo for VP if he was trying to reach out to the middle or be more presidential. It had nothing to do with his campaign advice because he never listens to them.
People are finally starting to ask questions:
Earlier this week, a JL Partners poll for the Daily Mail showed the number of American voters who have confidence that Trump is able to fully digest national security briefings, maintain attention in meetings and remember the names of world leaders he is talking to – and who have confidence that he will still be alive in four years – has dropped sharply since March. In just a few months, concern about fitness for office has shifted from Biden to Trump, who is now the oldest US presidential candidate in history.
He has never been fit for office and he’s become even more unfit since his mental acuity has gotten even worse. This should be a subject every news organization is investigating.
Study the #BrokenTimes home page this Sunday morning. You wouldn't know there was just a historic and momentous Democratic convention. No week in review. No reflection. Guess Sunday papers aren't want they used to be. pic.twitter.com/AaV7F5wqNq
— Jeff (Gutenberg Parenthesis) Jarvis (@jeffjarvis) August 25, 2024
That’s just a smattering of the commentary on this. Something very strange is going on and you have to assume it comes from the editors who earlier made it clear that they were unhappy with the Democrats for failing to give them the proper respect to which they believe they are entitled. (That would be, at the very least, adapting their electoral strategy to run to the Times whenever they are beckoned.) Combined with the “Both Sides” journalism which leads them to have to whitewash Trump’s outrages in order to balance their coverage, we have a serious problem. Donald Trump’s pathological lying and his party’s scorched earth tactics are not even on the same planet as the Democrats’.
Sadly, it’s not just them.
I guess the Democrats have no choice but to simply accept the asymmetry of the press coverage which is made many times worse by the fact that the right already has an extremely effective partisan media dedicated to pushing Trump’s lies. We’ll just have to maintain a critical eye through the campaign and beyond.
-Dozens of serious stories in major outlets examined Biden’s age and cognition as matters of “fitness to govern.”
-I still have not seen any such story about Trump. I welcome learning of ones I’ve missed.
-Instead, these are*all played as “campaign messaging challenges.” Politics, not governance.
Latest example, big front-pager in WaPo, with print headline “Aides seek to steady a swaying Trump.” Not “is he fit to govern.” Online hed shown below.
Biden: threat in governance. Trump: lost mojo for campaign. These are not the same.
But Trump has lost his more than his mojo. He’s losing his audience. Kamala’s comms team is trolling him relentlessly over it.
An underappreciated story from the DNC convention last week was how Democrats finally seemed to get their messaging act together.
Speeches at the DNC convention that ended Thursday night dwelled less on Donald Trump and his many crimes and miserable plans for this country. Democrats focused more on where they want to take America and everyone in it. As Vice President Kamala Harris said in her acceptance speech Thursday night, “we have so much more in common than what separates us.”
Freedom was the central theme of the convention. Freedom is a core American value. For conventioneers and viewers slow on the uptake, Beyoncé’s “Freedom” regularly blasted the United Center as a bumper between program segments.
Throughout the four-day convention, speakers invoked freedom not as an abstraction or as justification for stockpiling weapons. Democrats embraced freedom as the expression of personal and family autonomy, freedom as the catalyst for realizing people’s hopes and dreams for a better future.
It was a sharp pivot from President Joe Biden’s emphasis on saving the nation from “clear and present threats to our very democracy.” But people facing more immediate concerns of paying monthly bills and feeding their families have less bandwidth for saving democracy than members of the political class. Harris chose to energize her base with an uplifting message of where their dreams might take them rather than doomsaying about a second Trump term and the end of the United States as we know it. This was no accident.
Freedom has broader applications. The Washington Post on Tuesday noted the rhetorical shift:
Freedom, as Democrats have increasingly used it, can mean saving democracy from would-be autocrats. But it can also refer to protecting reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, access to affordable health care, a choice of what to read at school and safety from gun violence.
[…]
For decades, Republicans have adopted freedom as their rallying cry, amplified in recent years by the 2010 tea party movement’s “Don’t Tread on Me” slogan and the 2015 creation of the “Freedom Caucus” by a group of far-right GOP members of Congress.
Anat Shenker-Osorio, a liberal communications consultant, has been urging Democrats to reclaim the term “freedom” for several years. In focus groups she’s conducted with disaffected Democrats and swing voters, Shenker-Osorio said people respond more favorably on issues such as voter suppression or gerrymandering when they are “framed through the language of freedom than through the lens of democracy.”
“Where freedom sort of lives inside of the body, democracy is a more abstract idea,” she said.
A panel of progressive messaging experts participated in a panel, “Amplify: Getting Louder to Win in 2024,” at Netroots-Baltimore in mid-July. The messaging framework Way To Win, ASO Communications (ASO), Gutsy Media, We Make the Future Action (WMTF), and Amplify promoted was built around Our Freedoms | Our Families | Our Futures. When I asked Shenker-Osorio whether she had plans to be in Chicago for the DNC, she said no. A week later, Biden passed the torch to Harris and those plans changed. The messaging team held a reception nearby Chicago’s United Center on Thursday afternoon.
Within days of Biden’s endorsement of Harris, Beyoncé gave permission to her campaign to use “Freedom” as a campaign anthem. Harris released her first campaign ad featuring the tune days later.
Freedom’s appearance could not have been something the nascent Harris campaign just picked up on the wind.
Shenker-Osorio explained in an email Friday that Harris asked a close friend to send her ASO and WMTF messaging guides months ago. A member of the Harris communications team has been “plugged into” the progressive messaging briefings for some time.
It has taken years for progressive messaging experts to penetrate the Beltway Boys’ Club. Perhaps it took a woman presidential candidate to appreciate their value. If so, it came not a moment too soon.
In my 2011 review of George Clooney’s political drama The Ides of March, I wrote:
The art of seduction and the art of politicking are one and the same; not exactly a new revelation (a narrative that goes back at least as far as, I don’t know, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar). Politicians are seduced by power. However, a politician first must seduce the voter. A pleasing narrative is spun and polished, promises are made, sweet nothings whispered in the ear, and the voter caves.
But once your candidate is ensconced in their shiny new office, well…about that diamond ring? It turns out to be cubic zirconium. Then it’s all about the complacency, the lying, the psychodramas, and the traumas. While a lot of folks do end up getting ‘screwed’, it is not necessarily in the most desirable and fun way.
Once again, we are ensconced in a political season chockablock with pleasing narratives, promises, and sweet nothings. For those of us who have been around the block a few times (this November will mark my 13th presidential election), those are all best taken with a grain of salt (I’ve learned a thing or two since casting my ballot for Jimmy Carter back in 1976).
Full disclosure, I am no poly sci major; rather, I am (to paraphrase William Holden in Network) “television generation”, so I “learned life from Bugs Bunny”. Well, Bugs Bunny and I, Claudius:
For about a three-month period in the fall of 1977, every Sunday at 9pm, [my housemates and I] would abruptly drop whatever we were doing (sfx: guitars, bongs, Frisbees, empty Heineken bottles and dog-eared Hunter Thompson paperbacks hitting the floor) and gather round a 13-inch color TV (replete with Reynolds Wrap-reinforced rabbit ears) to rapturously watch I, Claudius on Masterpiece Theatre.
While an opening line of “I, Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus…” could portend more of a snooze-inducing history lecture, rather than 11 hours of must-see-TV, the 1976 BBC series, adapted from Robert Graves’ 1934 historical novel about ancient Rome’s Julio-Claudian dynasty, was indeed the latter, holding U.S. viewers in thrall for its 12-week run.
While it is quite possible that at the time, my friends and I were slightly more in thrall with the occasional teasing glimpses of semi-nudity than we were with, say, the beauty of Jac Pulman’s writing, the wonder of the performances and historical complexity of the narrative, over the years I have come to realize that I think I learned everything I needed to know about politics from watching (and re-watching) I, Claudius.
It’s all there…the systemic greed and corruption of the ruling plutocracy, the raging hypocrisy, the grandstanding, glad-handing and the backstabbing (in this case, both figurative and literal). Seriously, over the last 2000 years, not much has changed in the political arena.
So…is your media player of choice fired up, and ready to go? Excellent! Here are 10 politically themed films I officially endorse for the 2024 race.
Being There – Filmmaker Hal Ashby was an essential contributor to the new American cinema movement of the 1970s. He spanned the decade with an astonishing seven film streak: The Landlord(1970), Harold and Maude (1971), The Last Detail(1973), Shampoo (1975), Bound for Glory (1976), Coming Home(1978), and this 1979 masterpiece.
Like Sidney Lumet’s Network, Ashby’s Being There becomes more vital in the fullness of time. Adapted from Jerzy Kosinki’s novel by frequent Ashby collaborator Robert C. Jones, it is a wry political fable about a simpleton (Peter Sellers, in one of his greatest performances) who stumbles his way into becoming a Washington D.C. power player within an alarmingly short period of time (it suffices to say that stranger things have happened in recent memory).
Superbly acted; from the leading players (Sellers, Melvyn Douglas, Shirley MacLaine, Jack Warden, Richard Dysart) to the supporting roles (especially the wonderful Ruth Attaway).
The Candidate -This 1972 gem from Michael Ritchie (Downhill Racer, Prime Cut, Smile) centers on an activist lawyer named Bill McKay (Robert Redford) wooed by a slick Democratic political consultant (Peter Boyle) into challenging a three-term Republican California Senator for his congressional seat. The idealistic and progressive McKay is initially reticent, as he does not want to be perceived as trading in on his family name (his father is a former governor). Assured that he can set his own agenda, say whatever he wants, and is almost guaranteed a victory due to the lack of Democratic challengers, McKay accepts the offer to run. But you know what they say…if it sounds too good to be true, there’s usually a catch. In this case, it’s McKay’s realization that in the rough and tumble world of politics, the true path to victory is inevitably littered with a discarded ideal or two (compromise, compromise, compromise).
The perceptive, wryly satirical screenplay earned an Oscar for Jeremy Larner (his experience as a speechwriter for Eugene J. McCarthy on the Senator’s 1968 campaign undoubtedly contributed to the film’s air of authenticity). Redford and Boyle are outstanding, and ably supported by a wonderful ensemble that includes Melvyn Douglas, Don Porter, Allen Garfield, and Karen Carlson.
Don’s Party – Director Bruce Beresford (Breaker Morant) sets his story on Australia’s election night, 1969. Outgoing host Don and his uptight wife are hosting an “election party” for old college chums at their middle-class suburban home.
Most of the guests range from the recently divorced to the unhappily married. Ostensibly a gathering to watch election results, talk politics and socialize, Don’s party deteriorates into a primer on bad human behavior as the booze kicks in. By the end of the night, marriages are on the rocks, friendships nearly broken and guests are skinny dipping in the vacationing neighbor’s pool.
Yet, this is not just another wacky party film. David Williamson’s script (which he adapted from his own play) offers many keen observations about elitism, politics, and adult relationships. Savagely funny, brilliantly written and splendidly acted.
Election – Writer-director Alexander Payne and creative partner Jim Taylor (Sideways, About Schmidt) followed up their 1995 feature film debut, Citizen Ruth, with this biting 1999 sociopolitical allegory, thinly cloaked as a teen comedy (which it decidedly is not).
Reese Witherspoon delivers a pitch perfect performance as the psychotically perky, overachieving Tracy Flick, who makes life a special hell for her brooding civics teacher, Mr. McAllister (Matthew Broderick). Much to Mr. McAllister’s chagrin, Tracy is running a meticulously organized and targeted campaign for school president. Her opponent is a more popular, but politically and strategically clueless jock (why does that sound so familiar?).
Payne’s film is very funny at times, yet it never pulls its punches; there are some painful truths about the dark underbelly of suburbia bubbling beneath the veneer (quite similar to American Beauty, which interestingly came out the same year).
The Edge of Democracy– Latin American countries have a long history as ever-simmering cauldrons of violent coups, brutal dictatorships, revolving door regimes and social unrest. In The Edge of Democracy, Brazilian actress and filmmaker Petra Costa suggests there is something even more insidious at play in her country these days than a cyclical left-to-right shift. Costa’s film delves into the circumstances that led to the impeachment of former President Dilma Rousseff, and the imprisonment of her predecessor, the wildly popular progressive reformer Luis Inacio Lula da Silva.
The real coup for Costa (no pun intended) is the amazing accessibility she was given to President Rousseff and ex-President Lula during these events. This is the most powerful documentary about South American politics since Patricio Guzman’s The Battle of Chile. It is also a cautionary tale; “we” have more in common with Brazil than you might think. (Full review)
Grassroots – There aren’t many political biopics that open with the candidate-to-be dressed in a bear suit and screaming at traffic. But then again, there aren’t many cities I have lived in that have a political climate quite like Seattle. A case in point would be the brief but colorful political career of Grant Cogswell, which provided fodder for this film from director Stephen Gyellenhaal.
Cogswell (Joel David Moore) was an unemployed music critic (a polite term for “slacker”) with no prior political experience, who made a run for a city council seat back in 2001. His unconventional grassroots campaign was managed by his friend and fellow political neophyte Phil Campbell (Jason Biggs).
While political junkies may take umbrage that Gyllenhaal’s screenplay (co-written with Justin Rhodes and based on Campbell’s campaign memoir Zioncheck for President) takes a broad approach by favoring the kookier elements of the story, I think most viewers will find his film engaging.
I think it was wise for Gyllenhaal to eschew the political minutiae; otherwise he may have ended up with something of little interest to anyone besides Seattleites. In fact, the best thing about this film is that it (dare I say it?) renews your faith in the democratic process. In these cynical times, that is a good thing. (Full review)
Medium Cool – What Haskell Wexler’s unique 1969 drama may lack in narrative cohesion is more than made up for by its importance as a sociopolitical document. Robert Forster stars as a TV news cameraman who is fired after he complains to station brass about their willingness to help the FBI build files on political agitators via access to raw news film footage and reporter’s notes.
He drifts into a relationship with a Vietnam War widow (Verna Bloom) and her 12 year-old son. They eventually find themselves embroiled in the mayhem surrounding the 1968 Democratic Convention (in the film’s most memorable scene, the actors were actually sent in to improvise amidst one of the infamous “police riots” as it was happening). Many of the issues Wexler touches on (especially regarding media integrity and journalistic responsibility) would be extrapolated further in films like Network and Broadcast News.
Milk – On November 27th, 1978, San Francisco mayor George Moscone and District Supervisor Harvey Milk were murdered in their respective offices at City Hall; both men shot repeatedly at point blank range. Even more shocking (and bordering on the downright bizarre) was the fact that their killer was a fellow San Francisco politician-former District Supervisor Dan White. Gus Van Sant’s 2008 biopic focuses on the life and work of Milk.
Sean Penn plays Milk; the film enters his life journey at age 40, which was when he experienced the epiphany that led to him to dedicate the rest of his life to public service. Using his tiny camera shop in San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood as HQ, Milk quickly garnered a reputation as the city’s leading gay activist, thanks to his relentless drive and a natural gift for community organizing.
The excellent script (by Dustin Lance Black, one of the writers on HBO’s Big Love) is engaging, yet never strays too far from Milk’s own words and deeds. Most crucial to the success of this film is the powerhouse performance by Penn, who never falls into caricature; opting instead to essentially channel the wit, passion and genuine humanity of this remarkable individual. (Full review)
Shampoo – Sex, politics, and the shallow SoCal lifestyle are mercilessly skewered in Hal Ashby’s classic 1975 satire. Warren Beatty (who co-scripted with Robert Towne) plays a restless, over-sexed hairdresser with commitment issues regarding the three major women in his life (excellent performances from Lee Grant, Goldie Hawn and Julie Christie).
Beatty allegedly based his character of “George” on his close friend, celebrity hairdresser Jay Sebring (one of the victims of the infamous 1969 Tate-LaBianca slayings).
This was one of the first films to satirize the 1960s zeitgeist with some degree of historical detachment. The late great cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs infuses the L.A. backdrop with a gauziness that appropriately mirrors the protagonist’s fuzzy way of dealing with adult responsibilities.
Z -This 1969 film was a breakthrough for director Costa-Gavras, and a high-watermark for the “radical chic” cinema that flourished at the time. Yves Montand plays a leftist politician who is assassinated after giving a speech at a pro-Peace rally. What at first appears to be an open and shut case of a violent action by an isolated group of right wing extremists unfolds as a suspenseful conspiracy thriller.
The story (set in an unspecified Balkan nation, but based on the real-life assassination of a Greek political figure back in 1963) is told from the perspective of two characters-a photojournalist (a young Jacques Perrin, future director of Winged Migration) and an investigating magistrate (Jean-Louis Trintignant). The great Irene Papas is also on board as Montand’s wife.
The film is a bit of a stagey talk-fest for a political “thriller” but it is still essential viewing. It’s part Kafka, part Rashomon, but ultimately a cautionary tale about what happens when corrupt officialdom, unchecked police oppression and partisan-sanctioned extremism get into bed together.
