I know it's Thanksgiving and a time for thoughts of family, hearth, and home, but...this just pisses me off so much. A couple of lefty blogs have linked to Peter Beinart's piece of mind-reading and anonymous sourcing as though it were the perfect key to understanding the frustrating actions of Sen. Joe Lieberman. I think it's all kind of bunk and worse, the kind of bunk that if Glenn Beck or Maureen Dowd wrote about Obama or John Kerry, they would all dog-pile on top of it. Beinart's column is a seven-paragraph pile of steaming b.s. that ignores the simplest, most basic fact: Joe Lieberman is running for office again in 2 years.
I'm not the senior political reporter of anything except my kitchen, but I read tons and tons about it, think about it, talk about it pretty regularly. So I feel completely comfortable spouting off. In the internet age, that's about as much license as you need. And this is something I want to spout off about: stop with the mind-reading of our political officials. Or, at least, do better at it. This is one of the places where I think more dramatists doing political coverage would be helpful. Because we understand a basic thing: people do things for reasons.
Joe Lieberman, as far as anyone can tell, used to be a fairly conservative Democrat, maybe less so on social issues, but never really a liberal flamethrower like a Teddy Kennedy. He also does seem to enjoy the limelight, but then again, show me a politician who doesn't and I'll show you a political science teacher at a high school. Wanting the limelight, the power and influence comes with the job.
Sure, maybe his feelings were hurt by the primary of '06. That's legitimate. It might even be key. But I just don't see it as the driving factor behind his swing to the right. Not on issues he had held fairly liberal views on in the recent past. I mean, sure, he's a bit of a Youstabee, but it wasnt' that far a trip. I've said it before: it's about 2012 and about a re-election strategy. Especially if he goes all the way and filibusters health care reform, the way he's threatening to. He's trying to reach out to Connecticut Republicans and not leaving any room for a "real" Republican to enter the race to his right. If he does like he did in 2006 and peel off enough moderate to conservative Democrats, he can win a plurality and keep his job. Not everything is Dynasty, with people motivated by pure emotion. There are calculations to be made, strategies to put in place. Joe's gotta be thinking, "How do I position myself for maximum appeal?"
Now I know that's more mind-reading. And, hell, we could all be wrong. He might have made an actual, personal swing to the right. It happens. He might be bought off by insurance money. That happens, too. In way, none of it matters. What matters is how you (and by "you," I mean the Senate Democratic leadership) deal with it. And that's where the obsession with Joe Lieberman, Egomaniac gets us (and by "us," I mean progressives) in trouble.
If we're thinking that all Joe needs is more time in the spotlight, then you wait him out. He's angry, his feelings are hurt and he's acting out. Like a petulant child. So you ignore his outburst and wait for him to come to his senses. I don't think that will work. I think if the Senate Dems try to wait him out, they'll be standing there, gobsmacked, when he votes to filibuster.
I think Harry Reid has to treat Joe not like a child, but like a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican: make a deal. Figure out what Joe needs and wants and give it to him. And if that won't work, threaten him. Seriously. Find a charismatic, slightly to his left Republican and convince him or her to run for the Senate. Hell, find a charismatic, moderate Democrat and threaten to run him or her as a Democrat. Make sure that Joe knows the Democrats are willing to lose the seat outright. If it's a choice between being a hypocrite and keeping his seat, I think Joe will try to keep his seat. That's what he's been doing.
But, also: stop with the mind-reading. Or get better at it.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Wiped, Tuckered, and Plum Done In
I know there are, what, two months left in the year? A month and a half? But I'm throwing in the towel. I'm ready for hibernation. I'm done for, to say the least.
This year, for the first time in a couple of years, I participated in Octoberfest at E.S.T. Which was an unmitigated, top-to-bottom blast. I have no regrets about it...but I gotta say, it kind of wiped me out. I did a big rewrite on a full-length play and wrote a short play, which rehearsed for about twelve minutes. I went to a few things, danced my ass off quite a few times and generally had a grand time. At my age, grand times are starting to come with a price, though.
As the year is winding down and I think about my Grand Project, I got about half-way there. Which ain't shabby, but took a lot. I wrote two full-length plays this year, did one big rewrite on another play, wrote a short play, wrote a webisode, reconnected with a lot of theatre people and theatre companies, wrote this blog, worked my regular full-time job, and attempted to have something of a personal life. Oh, and facebooked like a champ. Eleven months into the year and I'm kind of done.
I didn't achieve a lot of the things I wanted to achieve or aimed for, but I got a bit further down the road. I think, for this year, that's enough. 2009 has been a weird one, lots of ups and downs. I might just lie back, put my feet up and cruise on auto-pilot into 2010. That's the year we make contact, right? I can handle that. I might just need a nap first.
Peace! No, really. Peace.
This year, for the first time in a couple of years, I participated in Octoberfest at E.S.T. Which was an unmitigated, top-to-bottom blast. I have no regrets about it...but I gotta say, it kind of wiped me out. I did a big rewrite on a full-length play and wrote a short play, which rehearsed for about twelve minutes. I went to a few things, danced my ass off quite a few times and generally had a grand time. At my age, grand times are starting to come with a price, though.
As the year is winding down and I think about my Grand Project, I got about half-way there. Which ain't shabby, but took a lot. I wrote two full-length plays this year, did one big rewrite on another play, wrote a short play, wrote a webisode, reconnected with a lot of theatre people and theatre companies, wrote this blog, worked my regular full-time job, and attempted to have something of a personal life. Oh, and facebooked like a champ. Eleven months into the year and I'm kind of done.
I didn't achieve a lot of the things I wanted to achieve or aimed for, but I got a bit further down the road. I think, for this year, that's enough. 2009 has been a weird one, lots of ups and downs. I might just lie back, put my feet up and cruise on auto-pilot into 2010. That's the year we make contact, right? I can handle that. I might just need a nap first.
Peace! No, really. Peace.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Lieberman Problem
Since yesterday, there's been a lot of hand-wringing, tea-leaf-reading and mindreading bouncing around the liberal blogosphere about Joe Lieberman's big announcement yesterday that he plans to join a GOP filibuster of health care reform if it includes a public option of any kind. A lot of the commentary is circling around the idea that Sen. Lieberman is in need of attention or just wants some love from the Democratic leadership. Or is just greedy. I'm not a professional political observer, but I think this misses the point and I think it's where Harry Reid got his math wrong. The point is: Joe Lieberman still wants to be the senator from Connecticut. And he's figured out the way to do that. All of this is a message to one person, really.
Jodi Rell.
Kos circles around it here, but misses it in his anger at Lieberman. If Jodi Rell enters the race for the Senate, Lieberman is toast. If there's a credible Democrat in the race, Lieberman is embarrassed toast. Either way, his career as the Senator from Connecticut is over. He's got two years to build his campaign. He can't reach out to CT Democrats because, well, they hate him. And he won't be able to go back to being a Democrat anyway. They're going to field an opponent, who'll stake out ground to Lieberman's left.
But...to his right? If the GOP fields a credible opponent, it will be Jodi Rell or someone like her, that rarest of things these days: a moderate Republican candidate. Connecticut is a moderate state. They send some far right clown out there, they'll get stomped. But if they send Jodi Rell out there, she'll lose. If Lieberman is running.
I think Joe just told the world that he's planning to run for the Senate in 2012. And that the CT GOP can have no better friend than him in the Senate. For Joe, it's all wins: as an "independent" who caucuses with the Democrats, it's pretty clear he's not going to lose anything by opposing them. But as, essentially, a solid Republican vote, he'll give the GOP everything they could want.
He's clearly thinking that 2012 will be a repeat of 2006 for him: a Democrat on the left, a no-name, unthreatening Republican on the right, Joe picks up the right-leaning Democrats, most of the Republicans and enough independents to beat out his rivals. In order to do that, he's got to establish a right flank that a Jodi Rell can't beat. Hence his position: I'm all for health care reform, and want to do it, but that public option is no good and I can't in good conscience support it. Nothing about death panels or socialism. It's all wrong about entitlements and taxes, but that doesn't matter. It sounds sensible and reasonable and, unlike some others, principled.
I'm a big believer in rational actors in this world. Maybe it's the theatre background. Ego, selfishness, self-importance are obviously big motivators. But they're also end results. We always learned in playwriting and acting classes that emotions are poor goals (I want to be happy!) but attaching it to a concrete thing (I want to be king so I can be happy!) makes it actionable. Joe does love the spotlight and the attention, but the best way for him to keep that: stay a Senator. And the best way for him to stay a Senator? Oppose the public option. It ain't pretty but it'll work.
Unless you're from Connecticut or have friends and family there who want the public option available to them. Then...you might have some phone calling or letter-writing to do. I'm just saying.
Jodi Rell.
Kos circles around it here, but misses it in his anger at Lieberman. If Jodi Rell enters the race for the Senate, Lieberman is toast. If there's a credible Democrat in the race, Lieberman is embarrassed toast. Either way, his career as the Senator from Connecticut is over. He's got two years to build his campaign. He can't reach out to CT Democrats because, well, they hate him. And he won't be able to go back to being a Democrat anyway. They're going to field an opponent, who'll stake out ground to Lieberman's left.
But...to his right? If the GOP fields a credible opponent, it will be Jodi Rell or someone like her, that rarest of things these days: a moderate Republican candidate. Connecticut is a moderate state. They send some far right clown out there, they'll get stomped. But if they send Jodi Rell out there, she'll lose. If Lieberman is running.
I think Joe just told the world that he's planning to run for the Senate in 2012. And that the CT GOP can have no better friend than him in the Senate. For Joe, it's all wins: as an "independent" who caucuses with the Democrats, it's pretty clear he's not going to lose anything by opposing them. But as, essentially, a solid Republican vote, he'll give the GOP everything they could want.
He's clearly thinking that 2012 will be a repeat of 2006 for him: a Democrat on the left, a no-name, unthreatening Republican on the right, Joe picks up the right-leaning Democrats, most of the Republicans and enough independents to beat out his rivals. In order to do that, he's got to establish a right flank that a Jodi Rell can't beat. Hence his position: I'm all for health care reform, and want to do it, but that public option is no good and I can't in good conscience support it. Nothing about death panels or socialism. It's all wrong about entitlements and taxes, but that doesn't matter. It sounds sensible and reasonable and, unlike some others, principled.
I'm a big believer in rational actors in this world. Maybe it's the theatre background. Ego, selfishness, self-importance are obviously big motivators. But they're also end results. We always learned in playwriting and acting classes that emotions are poor goals (I want to be happy!) but attaching it to a concrete thing (I want to be king so I can be happy!) makes it actionable. Joe does love the spotlight and the attention, but the best way for him to keep that: stay a Senator. And the best way for him to stay a Senator? Oppose the public option. It ain't pretty but it'll work.
Unless you're from Connecticut or have friends and family there who want the public option available to them. Then...you might have some phone calling or letter-writing to do. I'm just saying.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A Word About Politics
Now that I'm coming out of the pre-reading fog, followed by the post-reading gloat, I'm coming back around to doing some political writing and thinking. Now, I'm very, very aware that this blog publishes to my Facebook page. My Facebook friends are a mixed bunch and I like it that way. I'm a raging progressive, full of piss and vinegar about leftist causes and issues. Some of my friends are to my left, some are to my right. I love all of them, no matter what and honor their thoughts and opinions. (And I'm not just saying that because I had a couple of glasses of wine, chatting with my roomie just now...)
In the world of Facebook, my friends sometimes interact and it can get heated. I think that's a good thing. Ideas should be questioned, buttons should be pushed. An opinion you won't defend, even with bullshit, isn't an opinion worth having, I say. But I also know that feelings get hurt, words are hurled and whatnot. I want to acknowlegde that. I throw some serious flames now and then, but I wanted to make a distinction. We seem to be moving into a period of very intense conversation, discussion, decision-making by our government about a great number of things and I want to be able to talk about it, blog about it, post about it and get feedback and start discussions and back-and-forths, but without anyone getting in a huff unduly. So I want to say something.
I love my Republican friends. I do. I love my conservative friends. I even love my libertarian friends. All with the same vigor and passion that I love my progressive, leftist, hippie, socialist friends. Like Walt Whitman, I hold multitudes and you are the armies of those I love. So trust that.
I want to make a distinction between people who vote Republican and Republicans, i.e. the elected and selected (sometimes self-selected) official voices of the Republican Party. I find Republicans often unpleasant, bizarre and, more often than not, off-putting. NOT the beliefs of People Who Vote Republican (though I have my disagreements there) but the words and actions of the Official Republican Party. So I'm drawing a line: when I'm mocking, shocked, outraged, in a state of disbelief, I'll try to draw a distinction between the Official Republican Party (i.e. The GOP) and People Who Vote Republican (i.e. PWVR). PWVR are cool with me, seriously. The GOP...not so much. Okay? When I post a link to a critical or mocking story, I A) won't take it personally if you don't read it, B) don't mean it personally and C) won't get angry if you post in defense. I just ask that you, PWVR, A) don't take it personally that I posted it, B) don't get angry if I spout off about it and C) defend your position if you feel like it. Is that cool?
I think we need to have dialogue in this country, real, true bipartisanship among the people, so that People Who Vote Republican and People Who Vote Democratic (and People Who Vote Working Parties, or Socialist Party USA and Green Party) can share ideas and thoughts safely and openly. Governing is a bit different, but that's a post for another day. I guess I'm just saying, in the immortal words of Rodney King, can't we all just get along?
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
In the world of Facebook, my friends sometimes interact and it can get heated. I think that's a good thing. Ideas should be questioned, buttons should be pushed. An opinion you won't defend, even with bullshit, isn't an opinion worth having, I say. But I also know that feelings get hurt, words are hurled and whatnot. I want to acknowlegde that. I throw some serious flames now and then, but I wanted to make a distinction. We seem to be moving into a period of very intense conversation, discussion, decision-making by our government about a great number of things and I want to be able to talk about it, blog about it, post about it and get feedback and start discussions and back-and-forths, but without anyone getting in a huff unduly. So I want to say something.
I love my Republican friends. I do. I love my conservative friends. I even love my libertarian friends. All with the same vigor and passion that I love my progressive, leftist, hippie, socialist friends. Like Walt Whitman, I hold multitudes and you are the armies of those I love. So trust that.
I want to make a distinction between people who vote Republican and Republicans, i.e. the elected and selected (sometimes self-selected) official voices of the Republican Party. I find Republicans often unpleasant, bizarre and, more often than not, off-putting. NOT the beliefs of People Who Vote Republican (though I have my disagreements there) but the words and actions of the Official Republican Party. So I'm drawing a line: when I'm mocking, shocked, outraged, in a state of disbelief, I'll try to draw a distinction between the Official Republican Party (i.e. The GOP) and People Who Vote Republican (i.e. PWVR). PWVR are cool with me, seriously. The GOP...not so much. Okay? When I post a link to a critical or mocking story, I A) won't take it personally if you don't read it, B) don't mean it personally and C) won't get angry if you post in defense. I just ask that you, PWVR, A) don't take it personally that I posted it, B) don't get angry if I spout off about it and C) defend your position if you feel like it. Is that cool?
I think we need to have dialogue in this country, real, true bipartisanship among the people, so that People Who Vote Republican and People Who Vote Democratic (and People Who Vote Working Parties, or Socialist Party USA and Green Party) can share ideas and thoughts safely and openly. Governing is a bit different, but that's a post for another day. I guess I'm just saying, in the immortal words of Rodney King, can't we all just get along?
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Monday, October 19, 2009
I'm Not Dead Yet!
Honest! I swear! I've been up to my eyeballs in writing. It's October and that means Octoberfest at E.S.T. For the uninitiated, that means about a gajillion projects going on at the Ensemble Studio Theatre's two stages for the month of October (and going into November). You can check out the full schedule here. I'm sure you'll find something to your liking.
I always use O'fest as a bit of a challenge to get something up to snuff. Since I was stuck on ANARCHISTS all summer, I decided to switch gears and work on my big, old-fashioned, Philadelphia Story style comedy, HOUSEHOLD NAME. I had a reading at E.S.T. more than a year ago, but I'm adding a character and an act to the thing. It's October madness.
In addition, I signed up to write a short play, specifically for E.S.T. members, as part of a late night series of short plays. That one's coming up on Nov. 6th. But HOUSEHOLD NAME is upon us and I need to get the word out. So here's the word. It's getting out.
The Ensemble Studio Theatre presents
(as part of Octoberfest 2009)
HOUSEHOLD NAME
a new play by J. Holtham
Directed by Jordan Young
How much can you give up in order to have everything you ever wanted?
When Ruth needs cash to get her dream archeology dig off the ground, but to get it, she'll need her mother, a famous and feared home goods mogul. Unfortunately, it won't be easy: her mother's just been indicted, there's something fishy going on between her stepfather and her mother's assistant and the world's worst gossip columnist is hiding in the closet. A comedy about the past you bury, the present that catches up to you and the future you can't escape...
Sunday, October 25 at 2 p.m.
Monday, October 26 at 7 p.m.
The Ensemble Studio Theatre
549 West 52nd St.
(bet. 10th & 11th Aves.)
For reservations and information, call (212) 247-4982
So come check it out. It's a comedy, so it's always better to have a good house for it.
And I promise...once this is over, more substantive posting is coming. While my fingers have been a bit quiet, the mind is a-stir with thoughts. A-stir, I tell you!
I always use O'fest as a bit of a challenge to get something up to snuff. Since I was stuck on ANARCHISTS all summer, I decided to switch gears and work on my big, old-fashioned, Philadelphia Story style comedy, HOUSEHOLD NAME. I had a reading at E.S.T. more than a year ago, but I'm adding a character and an act to the thing. It's October madness.
In addition, I signed up to write a short play, specifically for E.S.T. members, as part of a late night series of short plays. That one's coming up on Nov. 6th. But HOUSEHOLD NAME is upon us and I need to get the word out. So here's the word. It's getting out.
The Ensemble Studio Theatre presents
(as part of Octoberfest 2009)
HOUSEHOLD NAME
a new play by J. Holtham
Directed by Jordan Young
How much can you give up in order to have everything you ever wanted?
When Ruth needs cash to get her dream archeology dig off the ground, but to get it, she'll need her mother, a famous and feared home goods mogul. Unfortunately, it won't be easy: her mother's just been indicted, there's something fishy going on between her stepfather and her mother's assistant and the world's worst gossip columnist is hiding in the closet. A comedy about the past you bury, the present that catches up to you and the future you can't escape...
Sunday, October 25 at 2 p.m.
Monday, October 26 at 7 p.m.
The Ensemble Studio Theatre
549 West 52nd St.
(bet. 10th & 11th Aves.)
For reservations and information, call (212) 247-4982
So come check it out. It's a comedy, so it's always better to have a good house for it.
And I promise...once this is over, more substantive posting is coming. While my fingers have been a bit quiet, the mind is a-stir with thoughts. A-stir, I tell you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)