Monthly Archives: March 2004

A company called The Rasmussen Poll does daily tracking reports for the presidential election. Yesterday, they had Bush at 47% and Kerry at 45%. Today, they have Bush at 44% and Kerry at 47%. They've put out a news release about this dramatic change, and quite a few news or political sites are announcing it and maybe even discussing it.

Okay, but this poll has a margin of error of plus or minus three points. So aren't these guys really unchanged from yesterday?

I think it's way too early to treat the polls with more than distant curiosity. I can't recall a single recent election where the polls in March had any connection to the results in November. But if we are going to look at these things, shouldn't we stop pretending that a shift within the margin of error has any meaning whatsoever?

Jon Stewart and his crew are still producing the funniest, sharpest political humor I've ever seen on TV. Last week, Dick Cheney gave a self-congratulatory speech about the administration's efforts in Iraq and it wound up sharing a split-screen with the hotel bombing over there. Here's a clip of how The Daily Show presented this.

[UPDATE, a little after 5:00 PM: The folks at Comedy Central have removed from their site every reliable way to link directly to a video clip. I don't understand why they've done this. I mean, you post these clips so people can see them. Wouldn't you want other sites to link to them? Anyway, the above link I jury-rigged will only work with some browsers. Otherwise, go to this page. The particular clip I was referring to is the one entitled "Pre-emption's a Bitch" but while you're over there, you might want to check out any clip from The Daily Show. And if that link doesn't get you there, just give it up and go look at this gallery of Famous Monkeys Through History.]

My pal Earl Kress and I had a lovely chat last evening with Doggie Daddy. You remember Doggie Daddy: The Durante-style mutt who faithfully (often, thanklessly) raised his devoted son Augie in some of the funniest and warmest cartoons ever done for television. The late, great Daws Butler was cast as the voice of Augie…and all the other main characters on the 1959 Quick Draw McGraw show. But when it came time to record the adventures of Augie Doggie and his dear ol' Doggie Daddy, Daws decided doing all those segments of a Jimmy Durante impression would turn his throat to sandpaper and recommended another actor he knew. At least, that's the story the way we always heard it.

Recently, we tracked down the actor who played D.D. (and many other roles in early Hanna-Barbera cartoons) and his version was a wee bit different. Doug Young was a great performer on radio dramas, which is where he met Daws…maybe doing an episode of The Whistler or Lux Radio Theater. By '59, with radio drama a thing of the past, Young was out of show business. One day, he ran into Daws in a record shop and Daws said, in effect, "You ought to be working in front of a microphone again." So they went into Daws' home studio, put together a new demo tape…and that's how Doug Young became Doggie Daddy. I thought the result was one of the most memorable characterizations ever done for a TV cartoon. It may have started as a Durante knockoff but there was something warm and wonderful about the poppa pooch…so it was kind of thrilling to finally "meet" (albeit via telephone) the man behind the voice.

Doug was in H-B cartoons for much of the sixties — he was Hokey Wolf's loyal sidekick, Ding-a-Ling, Yippee in "Yippee, Yappee and Yahooey," plus he played tons of supporting roles on The Flintstones and other shows. In '68, he left Hollywood and now does some regional voice work in his home town. (Still sounds like he always did. He kept lapsing into Doggie Daddy muttering, "My son, my son…") He may be visiting Southern California later this year and if so, we're going to try to arrange a little reunion with some of his old friends from the cartoon voice business. He remembers them fondly and the feeling seems to be quite mutual. (A special thanks to another great vocal thespian, Frank Buxton, who put us in touch with Doug.)

Are Richard Clarke's charges to be believed? Here, arguing for them, are Fred Kaplan and William Saletan. And here, arguing against them, are William F. Buckley and Mansoor Ijaz. Take your pick.

The Bush list of tax increases I mentioned in the previous message wasn't compiled against Michael Dukakis in '88 but against Bill Clinton in '92. Well, I knew it was a Democratic governor.

The point is: Counting the number of tax increases, even if you score them correctly, is meaningless. Some so-called tax increases only apply to a tiny sector of the population and in many cases, they're actually a matter of instituting "use fees," meaning that people pay or co-pay only when they receive government services. Many folks who are for lower taxation (and I'm one) are in favor of voluntary "use fees" in lieu of certain taxes. And of course, not all tax increases are of the same magnitude.

One correspondent also reminds me that both Bushes have also used a bit of creative phrasing. Saying that your opponent has "voted 350 times to raise taxes" is not the same thing as saying that the guy has supported 350 tax increases. Often, a representative votes on a dozen procedural matters that collectively yield one tax increase. But stating it the way the Bushes have makes it sound like twelve tax increases.

Michael Kinsley on the G.O.P. assertion that John Kerry has voted "350 times" to raise taxes. I wish I could find an online source to link to an article Kinsley did back when the previous Bush was running against Michael Dukakis. That Bush had a similar list of supposed tax increases endorsed by Dukakis and Kinsley did a great job of dissecting it as illusory…for example, counting an increase in the gasoline tax as several separate tax increases because it applied to Unleaded, Super Unleaded, Diesel, etc.

But the big thing that's always wrong with these lists is that they take the position that a tax increase is a tax increase, regardless of amounts. If one elected official votes for five 1% increases and another votes for one 10% increase, the former is pilloried for championing five times as many tax increases as the latter. If you were for lower taxes, which of those two guys should you support?

Fred Hembeck (who has a wonderful website here) says he was watching MSNBC — "because someone has to" — and he thought of this…

Lester Holt was interviewing some White House official — Jim Wilkinson, was it? — about Richard Clarke's claims, and while it was no surprise to hear the Bush aide aggressively deny all charges, what did catch my attention was the way this official repeatedly kept referring to Clarke as "Dick Clarke!" He said it so often and so relentlessly that you almost got the feeling that part of their strategy is to repeat "Dick Clarke" over and over, hoping somehow that the public will figure that these damning claims were made not by a high-ranking former official, but the guy who once ran American Bandstand!?! That it wasn't the Bush administration who dropped the ball, but good ol' Dick Clarke — just like he does every New Year's Rockin' Eve!?! Geez, they really do think we're stupid, don't they?

Actually, I noticed a lot of Bush staffers calling him "Dick" today. Cheney called him that on Rush Limbaugh's show, Condoleezza Rice called him that in several statements and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan kept referring to him as "Dick." I don't think it's because they want to confuse him with the TV host. I suspect the idea here is to suggest a familiarity. It's like they're saying, "I know this guy well enough that you should trust my opinion of him."

Figuring out exactly how to refer to your opposition is a science. I remember back during the '92 presidential election, there was a period when Republicans thought the Democratic nominee might be Mario Cuomo. A decision was obviously made to keep referring to the man as "Mario" because that made him sound less serious. The premise, I guess, was that good Americans, at least outside New York, do not vote for someone with a foreign first name…plus they planned to suggest that Cuomo had mob ties so it helped to make him sound extra-Italian. There was one speech in which then-President Bush (the last one) especially acted like there was a contest to see how many times he could refer to his possible opponent as "Mario." He said it so often that the following week on Saturday Night Live, Dana Carvey did Bush saying "Mario" over and over.

In the meantime, the Democrats adopted the equally-childish policy of referring to Bush's vice-president by his real name of J. Danforth Quayle. They did that so often that Bush blew up at some public appearance and said it was unbelievably low of them to make fun of a man's name. And of course it was, but it was the same stunt Bush had tried before he discovered he'd be running against a guy with the good ol' American name of Bill. I thought the whole thing was one of those moments when American politics really seems to resemble Kindergarten but without the sandbox and naptime.

Quick Point #1: I am in receipt of at least a dozen e-mails telling me different ways of spelling "al-qaeda." Rather than choose, I have decided I will show my contempt for the organization by spelling its name inconsistently. Don't tell me I'm not doing my part to fight terrorism. And if I get mad enough, I may also start misspelling "Iraq." That'll show 'em.

Quick Point #2: Yes, I know how cheap and easy it is to get a DVD Player that will handle PAL disks and I may just do that. But I shouldn't have to. Laurel and Hardy should — like clean air, clean water and copies of the book I'm finishing up at the moment — be readily available to all.

Thank you.

Here's a political-type ad by someone (I don't know who) using a clip of Senator Arlen Specter from yesterday's Face the Nation. I'm sorry to see he's come to this because Specter was one of those politicians I occasionally admired for his willingness to buck his party when he thought it was wrong. The polls suggest he's not long for the Senate…which would be a shame if he hadn't been reduced to spouting nonsense like in this clip. (I also happen to be among those who believe in the so-called "single bullet theory" in the J.F.K. assassination. Specter was one of those who formulated it.)

[UPDATE, added 3:42 PM: I traced the source of the clip and it's from a group called The Center for American Progress.]

One thought about a lot of what I'm reading today in response to Richard Clarke's charges on 60 Minutes…

A lot of the response — maybe even the majority — is in the "Blame Clinton" category: The Clinton Administration had eight years. We had only 234 days. They didn't do this. They didn't do that. And so on. We've also heard the charge that Bush shouldn't be faulted for believing Iraq had Weapons of You-Know-What because Clinton did, too.

Okay, some of that's true. I think they may understate the extent to which the Clinton administration was at least aware of the al-Qaeda problem and urged that it be dealt with quickly…but let's say all that's true; that the Clinton team dropped the ball, too.

Well, so what?

If the Clinton squad was inept at protecting us from terrorism and the Bush forces were inept at protecting us from terrorism, how is that an argument in support of the latter? Clinton is not up for re-election and I don't see how what that administration did has any bearing on what a Kerry administration might do. I also don't think Bush (or any president seeking a second term) can get very far on a platform of, "A lot of things have gone wrong but they really weren't my fault." It reminds me of the old joke about the comedian who comes up on stage and says…

I had a rough time at a club the other night. The girl singer who was on before me was so bad that right in the middle of my act, they started booing her. They couldn't forget how lousy she was. Do you know that some people walked out on her while I was still performing?

The Clinton administration did a lot of things I didn't like, and they can't all be explained by the distraction of impeachment. But you know, Harry Truman had that sign on his desk — "The buck stops here." And when presidents take office, they ought to have a limited grace period to blame the guy before them…maybe 30 days on everything except the stock market. In reality, a lot of presidential actions do take months, sometimes years to have their full impact. But clearly, something like being on the lookout for terrorists and mass murderers is not one of those reponsibilities into which you can just ease yourself after you finish redecorating the Oval Office and clearing brush on your ranch.

My pal Ken Plume, who contributes wonderful articles and interviews to IGN FilmForce, informs me that he's seen the Sunshine Boys DVD and that the make-up test of Jack Benny is silent and that he sports an extremely dark dye job. I'm guessing that's make-up for the scene in the film where Lewis and Clark do one of their old vaudeville sketches. Mr. Burns had a bad dark wig on for those moments in the movie, as I recall. I'm still eager to see this footage, and I'm wondering if they'll ever find or release some of the other tests done for the film. Milton Berle, I believe, did one and it would be great to view the test of Red Skelton that won him (briefly) the lead. Reportedly, they tested Skelton more as a courtesy to a legend than because they thought he'd be good in the role, but he surprised everyone by being wonderful. Then he surprised them all over by walking off the film.

And of course, it would be great to see Mr. Benny's actual screen test. This may be apocryphal but the story is that at one point during the filming, Herbert Ross (who was directing) stopped the action and told Benny he was moving with too much energy. He said, "Remember, Jack, you're playing a 70-year-old comedian." There was a pause and then Benny replied, "But I'm an 80-year-old comedian."

I don't know if that actually occurred but it does prompt an interesting argument: If Benny had played the role, should he have moved slower to conform to the way most of us expect a septegenarian to act? I mean, it's not like critics would write, "Jack Benny is way too young for the role." On the other hand, the character in the film is retired and a certain lack of energy might have been right, at least in a thematic sense. So who can say?

By the way, Ken Plume is the gent who gave me the advice that solved my problem with my Panasonic DMR-E80H DVD Recorder — a model he also owns. So I thank him, and I presume others who've written me to say they had the same crisis, thank him too.

Boy, I wish this would play on my TV. The folks who control the rights in this country seem to have no interest in putting out such a thing for us…but maybe some day…

In case you missed 'em over the weekend, C-Span has posted the video of several broadcasts about political humor. It's a little over three and a half hours and it includes on its various panels, Garry Trudeau, Stephen Colbert, Phil Hendrie, Drew Carey, Greg Proops and others. Here's the link and it should be there for about two months. (If that doesn't work, use their search function and look for "Trudeau.")

It doesn't come out until next week but I just went and ordered the new DVD of Neil Simon's The Sunshine Boys. It's a fun movie but I think I'm ordering it as much for its special features as the movie itself. There's a commentary by co-star Richard Benjamin. There are make-up tests of Walter Matthau and Jack Benny. And there's a newly-found screen test of Phil Silvers! Silvers was one of many old Jewish comedians who tested for the film, and I can't imagine it won't be fascinating to see the footage of him playing — I presume — Willie Clark, the role Matthau wound up with. (The casting of The Sunshine Boys was complicated: After all those tests, they selected Red Skelton for the role of Clark, with Benny as his partner, Al Lewis. Skelton withdrew for reasons that no one ever quite understood, and he was replaced by Matthau. Then Benny died and was replaced by his old buddy, Burns. And it didn't stop there: Originally, Harvey Keitel was cast as the nephew but after a few days of shooting, Simon and director Herbert Ross decided he didn't fit with the other actors so he was dismissed and Benjamin got the role.) Anywho, before I head off to bed, I just wanted to tell you all about these special features and post this link in case you want to order a copy from Amazon. Nighty-night!

The frustrating thing about Richard Clarke's revelations (if that's the correct word) on 60 Minutes tonight is that they will not, for the most part, be debated by folks with an eagerness to get at the truth. The Democrats will declare that Clarke's the man, he knows, that's how it was, Bush ignored warnings about terrorism before 9/11 and then after, tried hard to believe that Iraq should be attacked in retaliation. The Republicans will insist that Bush was focused; that Clarke's a disgruntled and/or partisan has-been who's saying "I told you so" when he didn't really tell them so. Somewhere between those extremes there's an interesting discussion and perhaps some truth but we'll never get near it, at least not this year. The debate will get drowned out by those eager to spin this to help their guy in the coming election.

I am inclined to believe Clarke's claim that the Bush administration wrongly — and this may be one of the largest, most deadly errors any White House has ever made — believed in an al-Qaeda/Iraq link despite a pile of intelligence reports to the contrary. I believe this part because Bush and his top officials once said there was a link and they now seem to arguing they never said it. (This morning on Face the Nation, Senator Arlen Specter insisted, "The Bush administration never made any claim that there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda." He actually said that…and it was kind of surreal. Senator Specter had some sort of accident and his lip was all swollen and red as he appeared on the program. It looked like someone had worked him over to get him to say what they wanted him to say.)

I am also inclined to believe Clarke's claim that fighting terrorism was downgraded from the Clinton to the Bush administrations — fewer meetings, less attention, etc. — because we've heard the charge before and if untrue, it could so easily be disproved. Perhaps it will be.

Beyond that, it's hard to say from afar how much of Clarke we should accept. I'd love to hear someone non-partisan bat some of the other allegations around but like I said, this won't be about getting at the truth. It'll be about selling or assaulting the image of George W. Bush as a strong battler of terrorists. That's pretty much what this election is going to come down to.