web analytics

Amoron fun new post at dkos dug up a 2009 post of mine about then-Rep. Mike Pence and his inability to fire up his neurons very well:

Yglesias gives us a useful summation of nutjob Republican Rep. Mike Pence:

For quite some time now I’ve been trying to emphasize the point that Pence is not an intelligent man. It’s good to see Ricks notice this as well. But I think it’s important for people in the journalism game to get a bit more interdisciplinary on this. Oftentimes people are inclined to grant the benefit of the doubt. A Ricks might say “well, this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about on national security, but maybe his energy ideas make sense.” Ask around, though, and you’ll see it’s not the case. He’s just got dumb ideas on all sorts of topics. And it’s worth aggressively making that point. It’s all well and good to “hope” that Iranian protestors recognize that he’s a “clown” and shouldn’t be taken seriously. But the odds are actually pretty good that foreigners will take the situation at face value—he’s one of the highest-ranking and most prominent members of a major political party, so surely his pronouncements should be taken seriously. Right? Because if such a high-level party leader were, in fact, a “clown” then people would hear about that. Right?

Here’s a gem of a money quote from an earlier Yglesias piece on Pence:

The larger issue … is that Mike Pence is a moron, and any movement that would hold the guy up as a hero is bankrupt…. I would refer you to this post from September about the earth-shattering ignorance and stupidity of Mike Pence…. [I]t’s really staggering. In my admittedly brief experience talking to him, his inability to grasp the basic contours of policy question was obvious and overwhelming.

We’re usually focused on the proven malevolence of people like now-Gov. Mike Pence.  But we must never lose sight of the fact that many of them are also blithering idiots.

I remain distinctly unenthused about Hillary Clinton. Her email issues show a level of judgment and attention to political optics that is not what it should be, for sure. That’s really all that can be said for now–we will have to see how she plays it from here on out with respect to transparency and access.

However, I think the greater problem here is not whether she can manage a presidential campaign. There’s really nobody of stature to beat her in the primaries and, as Jonathan Bernstein always reminds us, in the general election–unlike the primaries–the actual candidates are much less important. The fundamentals are of paramount importance, the odd gaffe under those circumstances is meaningless. The question remains: can she actually be an effective president? This I have the following doubts about:

  1. The vast majority of the job of being president is foreign policy, a subject on which she has an abysmal track record. Obviously there was Iraq, and her widely reported hard line on Iran. But her judgment has been awful across the board: from her boosterism of the disastrous Libyan campaign to her involvement in the coup in Honduras, she has strong instincts not only toward the use of force in every conceivable circumstance, but she is strongly concerned with being seen as tough, hence her near-forgotten support of the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment back during the 2008 race, which was essentially a call for Iranian regime change. The combination of hawkish instincts and a fundamental insecurity about being seen as willing to indulge them is not new–Lyndon Johnson also possessed this exact combination. I do think that Clinton is less sophisticated about selling eternal war than Obama is, and because of her past she may engender less trust from the left on these issues–Obama was initially defined by opposing the Iraq War. But still. She seems to value this stuff not just as a political means to an end, but rather as an end in itself.
  2. Staffing. Another major part of the presidency is staffing the judiciary and the White House, as well as many other independent agencies. This is another glaring Clinton weakness. Someone who made Mark Penn her chief strategist in 2008 is not someone who is a great judge of talent and ability. Someone who gives Lanny Davis the time of day is not anyone who is a great judge of character. To be fair, she did pick some competent people as well. But all the ink spilled about how the Clintons split the world into friends and enemies, and something like their freezing out Bill Richardson for endorsing Obama, at least gives a person pause about how she’d handle these tasks. Her second-rater filled campaign lost a near-unloseable race. How much worse could it be were she president?
  3. Administration. Clinton’s style of trusting just a few intimates and proceeding adversarially with the rest is, as always a recipe for disaster, particularly when those intimates are such as referred to in (2). Obvious enough.

Perhaps she’ll exceed my expectations. But I am worried.

Lev filed this under: ,  

Twin Peaks‘s second season is a complete mess. I wish I could say that’s a good thing. The show’s creators, perhaps figuring that their unexpected hit would run for years, focused their attention elsewhere, and those who remained struggled greatly to fill the void. This led to such gems as James On The Road, that goddamned screaming knob, and an explosion of new characters (along with an inexplicable trend toward making the old ones completely bland) and comic relief subplots that must have seemed a safer bet than writing interesting dramatic stories. It also led to the creation of the worst fictional character of all time.


Where’s Waldo?

Why does the character of John Justice Wheeler (portrayed, as one can see, by Billy Zane) deserve the honor? Many reasons. First off is the name. It’s not a good character name. You expect that name to be riding a horse over the prairie, or busting trusts, or setting legs in the Civil War, not making eyes at Sherilyn Fenn. Secondly, there’s the problem of the character’s role in the series. The show treats him as a character big enough to merit his own theme–a particularly irritating steel guitar phrase–and puts him in 1/6 of the show’s episodes. But he performs almost no functions essential to the plot. He talks to the characters. He takes some meetings. He sits in some meetings. That is it! It’s not like there’s something he has to do that nobody else in the town can do. At no point is he put in a position where he has to act in ways that change anything in the universe of the show. The character long predates usage of the term “Mary Sue,” but Zane is a prototype: a character who breezes into town, interacts with the main characters and “shakes things up” before bedding one of the main characters, and then leaving. It feels like a character that was hastily improvised after landing Zane (undoubtedly a huge get in 1991), ultimately to give Ms. Fenn something to do.

Since there’s essentially nothing to the character you can’t really fault Zane’s acting (predictable as it is here–the man delivers the same performance in Tombstone, say, or the hilariously inept Memory) in the way you can blame Heather Graham for her simultaneous turn in Peaks as Annie. But Annie, at least as written, is potentially an interesting character. Graham had arguably not yet learned how to act, but there are some bits of writing that point toward an interesting character that, with a more capable actress, could have been worth caring about. Zane’s Wheeler, though, is simply relentlessly boring. His relationship with Audrey is entirely superficial and based purely on appearance, his “businessman adventurer” character almost dares you to accept that it could exist, it’s a quirky job non pareil, and the character is so poorly defined–and so dependent on Zane’s charisma to sell it–that virtually every conversation he has is necessarily vague and reliant on nineties-style vague profundity.

But the true shit atop the sundae is his final scene, which shows just how truly the Twin Peaks interlopers misunderstood the nature of the series they were running. I find the phenomenon known as shipping to be more than a little silly, but having said that, I still want out of my fiction some level of internal logic for character relationships, including for romantic ones. The Audrey/Cooper relationship didn’t really make a whole lot of sense, aside from the fact that the actors involved had tremendous chemistry. But on a character level it worked because it expressed bad girl Audrey’s secret desire for an authority figure that she could actually trust, as opposed to her amoral, manipulative father. Cooper was a protector who she could trust to protect her, though in her desire to show her value to him, she wound up getting put in a harrowing situation (and ensuring that Cooper failed to protect her, thus diminishing her attraction to him). This is the sort of depth you get in a well-written show. But what does John Wheeler tell us about Audrey? Literally nothing. He’s an impossible figure, more a Harlequin character than real person, so the thing becomes a low-rent fantasy rather than anything one might find in real life. That she would fall for someone more like her father could have been interesting, but by this point the Horne family had pretty much lost its juice as a driver of dramatic plotlines. At this point we were plagued with boring “nice” Ben, and Audrey as well had essentially become a “nice” character. There was no real conflict between them at this point, so this attraction, aside from being fantasy, tells us nothing about her character. It would have been vastly more interesting if Zane had played someone of a more rebellious nature, who revived Audrey’s anarchic spirit. But we didn’t get that. The whole thing is so free of complication that you almost can’t pay attention to it.

It would be hard to make the case that Wheeler “ruined” Twin Peaks. But he was emblematic of the ruination. Other contemporary storylines involved a “black widow” character who killed the men she slept with, a middle-aged woman with super-strength and amnesia going back to high school and becoming a champion cheerleader (don’t ask), a “who’s the daddy?” love triangle, among other similarly shitty subplots. And by this point, James Hurley had already hit the road with dismal results. But Wheeler was more emblematic of the show’s late period mistakes than anything else. The combination of blandness, silly fantasy and utter uselessness stands out even amidst a sea of same. This is why he’s the worst character of all time: he made a struggling show much, much worse with his presence.

Lev filed this under:  

I think that the recently concluded Israeli elections will ultimately be marked as a turning point. Not in terms of Israeli policy so much as how Israel is viewed globally. Netanyahu won by shedding any remaining elements of his reasonable guise and turning into a race-baiting, conspiracy theorizing nationalist who doesn’t give a fig about the rights or dignity of his neighbors. In essence, he turned into the Glenn Beck of Israel, and it got him elected to another term. Think about that. The world certainly was watching and took notice. It’s unsurprising the man is trying a little take-backsies with, basically, everything he said for the past few days. But that’s not how it works. Many people were paying more attention to the election than to the post-election press conference to rehab his ashen reputation. Anyone with even modest political sophistication will recognize a desperate damage control effort when they see it. And while American right-wingers are just loving it all, European and Middle Eastern nations will undoubtedly continue to sever ties with Israel, as will American liberals. Hell, Chait gets off a pretty good zinger by comparing him (reasonably accurately) to Yasser Arafat. Sorry, Bibi, this victory was a bit more pyrrhic than you might have thought. It’s much too late for this.

I’ve often thought that Netanyahu will live long enough for the Israeli people to truly hate him for all he’s done (and, more importantly, not done). Truly, he’s the goat of the state of Israel, the man who more than any other has ignored what needed to be done and pretended it didn’t, pushing fantasies about Iranian nukes just a few Friedman Units away from being operational and annexing the West Bank (with no major downsides, of course). You can’t pin the blame entirely on him, of course–arguably the troops who seized the Palestinians’ land in ’67 bear more–but in terms of major decisionmakers, he certainly has earned his share.

Lev filed this under:  

My basic view is that Israel has already passed the point of no return on West Bank settlements and is doomed. It’s not clear to me what it turns into–either an illiberal religious apartheid state that ultimately crumbles under the weight of a demographic bomb or a binational state of Jews and Palestinians are both possibilities–though it’s certainly possible we’ll see one after the other. But even if a center-left government is elected, the interests pushing the policies dooming Israel in its present form are hardly going to be sidelined or marginalized–they will certainly be represented in a Herzog-led cabinet. There’s no way out of this. That said, there are strong short-term reasons to hope for a Labor-led coalition government, in order to marginalize and diminish the international standing of Netanyahu, and wrongfoot opponents of Iranian diplomacy.

Lev filed this under: ,  

I didn’t realize that Rand Paul signed onto the now-infamous Iran letter. A true man of principle. This seems applicable:

Jesus Christ, this is terrible. You have to go back to the nineties to find sci-fi shit this awful:

Lev filed this under: , ,