Liberals Preview HBO's "Game Change"

The liberal entertainment crowd mixed with liberal Washington elites last night in DC to preview the HBO movie "Game Change" that focuses on the McCain-Palin campaign of 2008. The Washington Post sent reporters to cover the event, and the Post story today included this observation:

"Why dramatize those events?

To help us make sense of the nonsensical? To merely amuse ourselves with the highlights of a heyday? To fashion a moral out of a morass?

'It allows us to ask questions that are profound to society,' said Strong, the screenwriter. 'Should celebrity and charisma be a deciding factor in choosing our leaders?'

The film’s answer is “no,” and this moral seemed well received by audience members, who, in unscientific exit polls, gave “Game Change” a thumbs-up." http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/game-change-premiere-lets-washington-insiders-relive-drama-of-election-2008/2012/03/08/gIQAvRtS1R_story.html

So the screenwriter apparently thought the key message to be shared with the HBO viewers is that "celebrity and charisma" should not be deciding factors in choosing our leaders. Then how does that explain the election of Barack Obama as President? What did he have to offer to voters in 2008 other than "celebrity and charisma"? He had no extensive list of accomplishments in his political life.

Obama had been a US Senator for only four years when he was elected to the Presidency and most of those four years were spent campaigning for President. It has been reported frequently that people in the crowds at Obama rallies have fainted from the aura of Obama's sterling charisma. He certainly gained a huge celebrity status as the darling of the liberal Democratic Party class and the mainstream media as the first African-American candidate to gain his party's nomination for President.

Beyond Obama's brief term as a US Senator, he had served in the Illinois legislature, worked as a law professor at the University of Chicago and gained experience as a community organizer. He had never been a manager or executive in charge of running anything other than his own legislative offices and political campaigns. So making a wild guess that most of those who attended the DC preview showing of "Game Change" last night voted for Obama in 2008, how could they agree with the screenwriter's moral that "celebrity and charisma" should not be "a deciding factor in choosing our leaders"?

If they were thinking of Sarah Palin's charisma in making such a conclusion about the movie, it should be pointed out to these Obama fans that Palin is in Alaska, not in a federal office. Sarah Palin and John McCain were not chosen to be our leaders. The candidate who won was the person who had nothing to offer but "charisma and celebrity".

We can only hope that this crowd will take the screenwriter's message to heart in this year's election and think about how well Obama's charisma and celebrity have improved our economy and uplifted the spirit of Americans who are unemployed, seeking jobs, fighting foreclosure of their homes, whose 401k accounts have been diminished and, although recently graduated from college, are still living in their parents' homes for lack of opportunity.

-------------
Since writing the post above, I have now seen the HBO movie. The movie actually refers to both Sarah Palin and Barack Obama as having the attributes of charisma and celebrity. However, McCain's campaign manager is shown saying that there is an important difference between the two: while Sarah Palin cannot name a Supreme Court case (referring to her interview by Katie Couric), Barack Obama was actually a law professor. What is omitted from that phony comparison is that Obama was not running against Sarah Palin. He was running against John McCain, a war hero with three decades of experience in the US House and Senate.

So if the screenwriter's point is that, in electing our Presidents, charisma and celebrity should not be deciding factors, I would agree. Sphere: Related Content

The Democrat Walk-Out Trend

It seems that ever since Tea Party backed Republican candidates won Governorships and majority control of several state legislatures in the 2010 elections, the elected Democrats in those states, apparently not used to being the minority party, have responded by walking out on their duties as state officials to prevent action by the majority party officials and/or Republican Governors trying to reduce government spending.

The scene above shows the public union backed protesters who descended upon the Wisconsin state Capitol in early 2011 when newly elected Governor Scott Walker introduced legislation to gain control over union contracts and increase state union workers' contributions to their pensions. To try to prevent a vote on Walker's proposals, the Democratic Senators of Wisconsin fled the state so a quorum could not be convened to allow the Senate to vote on the legislation. After a month of protests and litigation by the unions, the budget bill finally became law.

Wisconsin was only the first such "Walk Out" to gain national attention. Since then Democrats in other states have followed the same tactic. Early this year, House Democrats in Indiana walked out. The House Democratic leader said "his members had been forced to boycott the first day of the new session to thwart a Republican effort to quickly ram the so-called right-to-work measure through the house.... Without the Democrats in attendance, the House does not have the quorum it needs to conduct business. Under the proposed law, employees at unionized private workplaces would not be required to pay union dues. Supporters say the move would attract jobs to Indiana. Critics call it union busting."

But this was not the first time Indiana Democrats fled the scene of their official duties. "Last year, House Democrats fled the state to neighboring Illinois to avoid voting on a similar right-to-work bill and other legislation they viewed as anti-labor and anti-public education. The bill died, and other bills were altered. The absentees were fined and a bill that raised the amount of money that could be collected from absent legislators was enacted." http://news.yahoo.com/walkout-indiana-democrats-stalls-anti-union-bill-005825947.html

The Indiana House Speaker said there would be no fines involved with this year's absences, but he criticized the Democrats for failing to do the jobs they were elected to do.

In Iowa, House Democrats walked out to protest proposed new gun laws under consideration early this year. "One bill would allow people to use deadly force to protect themselves and the other called for writing gun rights protections into the Iowa Constitution. The second measure would have to be approved by another legislative assembly next year and then be referred to voters." http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/iowa-house-approves-2iowa-house-approves-2-1367592.html The forty Iowa Democratic House members returned to carry out their elected duties after they decided that their action had made their point.

Now this tactic has taken a new twist in my home state of Virginia. Instead of walking out, the Democratic Senators in Virginia (who hold 20 seats in the state Senate, the same number as the Republicans) are simply voting "No" on the state budget bill which requires 21 votes to pass. One local newspaper called the Democrats' action a "tantrum" because the committee chairmanships were not shared between Republicans and Democrats. Instead Republican Lt. Governor Bill Bolling determined that he could cast tie-breaking votes on committee assignments under the state constitution. As a result, Republicans chair all Senate committees to the disgust of the Democrats. However, Bolling cannot vote on budget bills, which has given the Democrats a new weapon to demonstrate their disapproval over committee assignments.

The Virginia Senate Democrats objected to the budget bill because "it didn't include enough money for public schools. It didn't have enough for safety net programs. It didn't sufficiently buy down the cost of impending road tolls here and in Northern Virginia.

All are decent points that deserved to be heard. But not one of the 20 Democratic senators brought up those concerns or any others when the budget came up for a vote two hours earlier. Instead, Democrats sat silently and pressed a button to vote 'Nay.'" http://hamptonroads.com/2012/03/democrats-tantrum-over-states-budget

Of particular concern to me is that my own newly elected state Democratic Senator (for whom I did not vote) did not even show up to vote on the budget bill since she apparently knew that the fix was in to prevent 21 votes for the bill. Instead, State Senator Barbara Favola appeared on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" on MSNBC to discuss the "Republican War on Women", as she described the bills regulating abortion in Virginia that have been under consideration.

Since Senator Favola's absence did not affect the outcome due to the Democrats' straight party line "Nay" vote, she said her television appearance served the "greater good". Favola was not the only Senator to miss the vote. Two other Democratic Senators failed to vote as well. Presumably they were also serving the "greater good" by attacking Republicans somewhere instead of performing the duties to which they were elected. Sphere: Related Content