By Jonathan Miller, on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM ET
Yep, you read that right.
Tonight at 11:00 PM EST, I will be appearing on one of my all-time favorite television programs:The Daily Show, starring Jon Stewart, on Comedy Central.
Daily Show correspondent Al Madrigal interviewed me this summer at the No Labels headquarters in Washington, DC for a segment on hyper-partisanship. I had planned to make a passionate case for Make Congress Work, our 12-point plan to help transform Washington from hyper-partisanship to problem solving.
Of course, this is Comedy Central. And we spent about three hours in an “interview” that can only be characterized as a comedy improv session.
I had to comply with 2 rules: No jokes. No laughing.
And that was a lot more difficult than it sounds — Madrigal and his crew are really, really funny.
The scariest part about tonight’s airing is that I have no idea what parts of the interview survived the editing floor. And if you have ever seen the pretaped segments on The Daily Show, you can anticipate a whole lot of making fun of… yours truly.
If you’d like to experience the show with me — virtually speaking — I will be running a live feed of my spontaneous tweets here at this site as the show runs tonight at 11. You can join me with your comments, critiques, and put downs (keep it civil!) by using the hashtag #RecoveringPol from your personal Twitter account. Your comments will appear live aside mine here at The Recovering Politician home page.
If you are fast asleep at 11 — don’t worry, there will be many other chances to watch me implode on national television.
The show will re-run again tomorrow (Friday, November 16) at 1:00 AM, 10:00 AM and 7:30 PM (all EST). And, of course, I will have the clip up here at The Recovering Politician as soon as technology permits.
So join me tonight (or tomorrow) on The Daily Show. It could be the last time you will ever see me in public…
In his semi-regular gig as American politics expert for Canada’s CTV News — the CNN plus MSNBC plus Fox News of the Great White North — The RP spoke yesterday to the residents of his wife’s homeland about how the grassroots movement he co-founded, No Labels, is working to transform Washington from hyper-partisanship to problem-solving.
To sign onto the No Labels’ plan to Make Congress Work, click here and add your energy to the growing movement which now includes nearly 600,000 Democrats., Republicans and Independents, all who believe we must occasionally put aside our labels to do what is right for our nation.
And for The RP on CTV News, let’s go to the videotape:
The eulogies for George McGovern, who just died at 90, have taken a predictable form: plaudits from the left for his inspirational effect on a class of aspiring liberal politicos combined with an acknowledgment that he was a singularly ineffective, disastrous candidate whom the same left never needed or cared to rehabilitate. To be sure, the evidence of McGovern’s incompetence and irrelevance is a narrative that Democratic analysts have had their own reasons to spin over the last two generations. It can’t possibly be, so the conventional wisdom goes, that a 49 state loser who spectacularly blundered the selection of a running mate and who is still synonymous with epic loss, was much more than an incidental character in a decade of unusual turbulence. And if McGovern’s legacy is just ineptitude, it is easier to dismiss him as a blip, an anomaly, in the liberal tradition.
But the theory of McGovern as a woeful bumbler has always shortchanged two features of the South Dakotan: the first is the novelty of the liberalism that McGovern helped foist on the Democratic Party in the early seventies, and the second is its durability in a party that putatively disowned him while absorbing most of his ideological sensibilities.
To grasp the novelty, it’s worth noting what post-war liberalism was prior to McGovern’s insurgency: a populist sounding, rhetorically lofty politics that had a transactional, anything but radical reality at its core. Adlai Stevenson was more of a trimmer on school desegregation than Eisenhower era Republicans. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson pursued conventionally growth oriented economic policies with tax cuts and balanced or near balanced budgets at the centerpiece. The Great Society’s vaunted anti-poverty initiatives were invariably complements to urban political machinery, as Geoffrey Kabaservice documents in his work on the erosion of moderate Republicans, “Rule and Ruin”. Hubert Humphrey disavowed interpretations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that endorsed mandatory hiring goals for minorities. And on foreign policy, the liberal vision was enamored enough of American power that Robert Kennedy’s announcement of his presidential candidacy styled the campaign as a contest to claim the “moral leadership of the planet”, even while pledging to wind down the conflict in Vietnam.
By Jonathan Miller, on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM ET
I feel compelled to interrupt this site’s bi-partisan coverage of the impending 2012 election to address a rumor that has much greater implications that any silly political race:
I am NOT having an affair with soccer star David Beckham.
Let me say it another way to make myself clear, so that there is no room for misinterpreting my statement, and to fully protect the privacy of my family and of David, his Spice Girl wife and his beautiful children:
I have NEVER had sexual relations with that man, Mr. Beckham.
And I beg you to please share this post with all of your friends (Facebook and real), Pinterest, Twitter, Instagram– hell even MySpace, Friendster, fax, and mimeograph (sniff first) the story to everyone you know.
Of course, please be sure to spell my name correctly — there are two ‘A’s and only one ‘O’ and one ‘H’ in Jonathan — and please, please, please be sure to remember the ‘the’ in my Web site TheRecoveringPolitician.com.
Oh, and here’s another poor soul who knows exactly how I am suffering from the false rumors, innuendo, and lack of full public inspection of the issues at hand:
By Jonathan Miller, on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 9:15 AM ET
Got to give them both kudos for self-deprecation and, frankly, some clever jokes. And let’s give credit where credit is due: Romney was Letterman to Obama’s Leno — funnier, harder-edged, less forumlaic.
Watch them both and judge for yourself: Let us know who you think was funnier in the comments section below:
As I predicted when Rep. Todd Akin’s ignorant comments first broke, the anti-gambling zealot was going to call the party’s bluff. And despite the fact that the Republican Party’s reversal is an embarrassing sign of the party’s captivity to its lunatic fringe, yes, East Coast establishment, he could actually win.
Before explaining why, it’s worth noting that the NRSC’s about-face is also a story of personal ambition: Sen. John Cornyn understands that he’ll never become Whip (or ultimately, Majority Leader) if he blows his second chance to retake the chamber. With Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Connecticut especially difficult in a presidential year; North Dakota, Montana, and Indiana unexpectedly difficult in a presidential year; and Virginia, Wisconsin and Nevada all trending poorly, Cornyn realizes that any Senate majority goes through Missouri And given the specter of Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, and Christine O’Donnell, Cornyn also knows that there won’t be much forgiveness in his caucus if he blows it again courtesy of a nominee who could’ve been avoided had the primary field been limited to two.
So, how could Akin win? Since 2008, Missouri has swung as hard to the right as has any state in the country. First there are long term demographic shifts at play – not exactly a new trend, but an accelerating one. In a nutshell, ascendant conservative Republican legislators have repelled gays, immigrants, and young, mobile progressives, just as the continuing growth of Branson, Mo. (the live music capital of the world) and the conservative Springfield metro area have attracted hordes of conservative evangelicals and retirees. It was a vicious cycle: the more retrograde the political debate, the more progressives left Missouri or avoided it in the first place. And the more progressives disappeared, the more conservative the electorate became, and the more reactionary the debate. The burgeoning strength of grassroots conservatives in Missouri became apparent in 2010 when Republicans rode the wave to legislative majorities of 106-57 and 26-8 in the state House and Senate, respectively.
Read the rest of… Jeff Smith: Why Todd Akin Could Win
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET
More secretly taped video from the controversial Mitt Romney fundraiser.
These surreptitiously obtained videos are really dirty pool late in the campaign season. They aren’t fair and can easily get misinterpreted or taken out of context.
But I’m afraid this latest clip will only do more damage to Mr Romney as he is caught again in a candid moment talking tough (singing, in this instance) to his supporters earlier that same day. A prelude to the milder 47 percent reference.
====
Mitt’s Father Jeremiah moment?
Yes.
That’s what I think the secretly taped “47%” comment amounts to for candidate Mitt Romney. Which is to say, it’s a political and electoral non-event event.
What do I mean by that?
Remember the public outcry last election cycle when Barack Obama’s pastor, Father Jeremiah Wright, had videotapes of him released online saying absurd things about America?
It was supposed to be the political scandal that would sink candidate Barack Obama’s campaign. But didn’t.
Was it a politically significant event for Barack Obama? Yes, in my view. But not because it caused his supporters to bolt. It didn’t.
What it did do is give a concrete event on which those who already had a vague unease about voting for Barack Obama —and weren’t going to vote for him anyway —something to point to and hang their hat on as the reason for not voting for him.
Yes, they were uncertain about Barack Obama—his politics, his origins, his qualifications for president and even his name. But those things weren’t as tangible or easy to talk about as the Father Jeremiah video which was disturbing and could explain why someone would not want to vote for Barack Obama.
Read the rest of… John Y. Brown, III: Mitt’s “Father Jeremiah” Moment
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
We do a good job of honoring the winners in life. A less good job of honoring those who “might have been” but who due to bad timing, poor circumstances or an odd twist of fate didn’t get to ascend as high as they could have. It’s often little more than a trivial and unexpected incident that enables some to “break through” and others to “stay back.”
John J. Hooker of Tennessee was one who had many things go right for him in life– except in political races. He is probably the Volunteer state’s most gifted politician never to have won a race. And maybe for a few surrounding states too.
Ironically, John J. and his then wife, Tish, served as the serendipitous force in another person’s life.
During John J’s campaign for governor the charismatic couple visited a Nashville church where Tish met a little girl and her family and took the time to talk to her and tell her she was “cute as a speckled pup.” Trivial words occurring in an unexpected incident that changed that little girl’s life. Years later Oprah Winfrey had Tish on her show to thank her and tell her how important that moment was.
I saw John J Hooker speak at an event in Louisville when I was a teenager. I left thinking that he was the most riveting and entertaining speaker I’d ever heard.
He is now in his early 80s and recently was honored by the Tennessee legislature for his life work in public service.
I commend the TN Senate for taking the time to honor a man who was once a great lion in the political world—a great dreamer and crusader, who was more idealistic than practical and more passionate than calculating. But who mattered in TN politics–and still has something to say worthy of younger citizens and public office holders not only to listen to– but to honor.
He came withing a whisker of becoming governor–and if he had won–almost certainly would have turned up as a colorful but unsuccessful Southern state candidate for president. Over time he became marginalized but never ignored.
This impromptu speech to the state senate at age 80 gives a glimpse of both this man’s once great promise–and the now battle scarred but undaunted persona that hasn’t forgotten what might have been:
It’s a conceit of journalists who must take a stand by a deadline that one speech in a campaign could ever be decisive, even one as prodigiously brilliant as Bill Clinton’s opus in Charlotte. Add to that the fact that half the speech—maybe its most blistering half regarding Republicans—happened after 11 EST, as well as the variable that the man delivering it is not on the ballot and governed for his six best years in a manner strategically and philosophically distinct from the man he was defending. (I won’t even revisit my point on this site a few days ago that an admittedly powerful address shredded and disguised facts shamelessly).
Republicans would be wise, however, to recognize that Clinton’s central theme, “‘we’re all in this together’ is a far better philosophy than ‘you’re on your own’”, happens to be the single most compelling weapon that Democrats will wield this fall, far more effective than spinning Barack Obama’s record on job creation, and much more lethal than point by point engagement on who does what to Medicare. The argument is an all purpose indictment that suggests that a Romney-Ryan administration might not have much of a moral core—and that the default result would be policies that deregulated Wall Street at risk to the rest of us, threw the vulnerable off the safety net, or hoarded prosperity so tightly that it barely trickled down to the middle.
To be sure, the Obama iteration that society is a connecting web of responsibilities is too complex for its own good and comes close to reimagining individual success as not all it’s cracked up to be. The formulation is one Republicans have mastered rebutting, aided by Obama’s ill-advised articulation that “you didn’t build that.”
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: Clinton’s Best Case
For those concerned about the “context” of the Mitt Romney fundraiser video circulating over the Internet tubes, Mother Jones has published the full 50 minute video. Here it is, divided in two parts:
The scariest part about tonight’s airing is that I have no idea what parts of the interview survived the editing floor. And if you have ever seen the pretaped segments on The Daily Show, you can anticipate a whole lot of making fun of… yours truly.
