Dixiecrats

Here's an interesting story on Pajamas about the potential future of the Republican party. I have to admit this rings a bell of truth with me (and my libertarian leaning soul) and causes me a bit of worry.

In fact, the problem is that the GOP is approaching Dixiecrat status — not in belief, but in political reach. Tom Davis (R-VA) knows a thing or two about that. The congressman from affluent Fairfax, Virginia, a D.C. suburb, announced his retirement after seeing his wife lose her state senate seat in a wave of blue. He has witnessed his district vote in successive elections for two Democratic U.S. senators and the Democratic presidential nominee. In a recent interview he said, “We’ve become a regional party, basically become a white, rural, regional party, and not a national party. And we’re going to have to retool ourselves.”

Of course there's tremendous doom and gloom and woe-is-me proselytizing from all corners of Republican thought these days but given the still bleeding nature of the wounds it may be a little early to start spreading word of the demise.

That being said there is some concern forming in my mind about the dominance of the so called "social conservatism" in the GOP. Which doesn't mean that I don't share some of those beliefs, but I'm a little uneasy, having grown up in a family that played belief, among other things, very close to the vest. But aside from personal reasons I think there's a tactical and practical reason to downplay social and religious issues, but my thoughts aren't fully formulated on the subject, so rather than plow, in the grand tradition of the interweb, forward with half-formed thoughts, obtuse logic and general rumors and innuendo, I'm going to hold off for a few until I can really put things down on paper (metaphorically speaking).

But if you just can't wait for those rumors and innuendo, well, apparently Oprah Winfrey has tried to purchase Area 51.

I'm here for the party...

Many of us on the right side of Hollywood Boulevard have spent years wondering what people like Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and George Clooney are thinking when they support their wacky left-wing causes (although, to be fair, George may just be a sincere lefty, rather than a wacky one.) And sure, George W. is an unpopular president, but why do they hate him beyond all sanity?

Could it be that 8 years of Lincoln bedroom hopping with the Clintons have left them jonesing for a Democrat President in the way that a saxophone player might jones for a little horse? What gives? Why are all those Hollywood types so hungry for the D side?

Thankfully, Daily Variety (our resident trade rag) takes the time to lay it all out for us.

The Bush administration has been short on most things socially. White House screening invites are far and few between.

"He’s dull," Feld said of the current president. "He doesn’t drink, he goes to bed by 9 p.m., and he and his wife are not partygoers."

They aren’t big party-throwers, either.

"They’ve had maybe a half-dozen state dinners in eight years," Feld said. "No big entertainment events, no A-list guest lists."

Apparently, it's not as much about Power to the People as it is Power Party Time.

As if the entertainment industry needed to look a little more shallow.

95 Democrats

So they're busy blaming Republicans on Capitol Hill for crushing this bailout bill, but 95 Democrats voted against it. How the hell can they expect the Republicans to go along if 40% of the Democrats are not going along with it?

Why the Left Screams

I've been around far more than my fair share of leftist loons (quite a few of whom I truly cherish as close friends) - what working in Hollywood and being the hard core "Burner" that I am and it's always bothered me that I have to maintain a secret identity (not unlike a super hero) among many of my friends or colleagues for fear of losing them as friends or colleagues. I used to like to talk about politics and argue and really go to town, but out here, on the "left" coast you kind of take your life in your hands. Not just because people might stop talking to you, but because they might start screaming at you. I've had a heck of a lot of conversations that degenerated into my just being shouted down. No debate, no dialogue, just yelling. I don't like to live that way. But I don't like to keep quiet.

I have to admit, I haven't fully watched Friday night's debate. I have kids and while we watched the first 20 minutes or so, someone had to make the Mac and Cheese and then we just got the second season of "Dexter" on TV and I had a "Feasting On Waves" and THREE "Ghost Hunters" all lined up on the DVR and... what the was the point?

And yes, I'm going to tie this in to my first paragraph.

Look, I'm going to admit it right here and now, there's no way I'm going to change my opinion of Barack Obama (or John McCain) because of a debate. Presidential debates are probably useful for people who live in caves and come out once every four years to decide who they're going to vote for, but the truth is that anyone who's been paying attention has made their decision long ago and if you're undecided and you do make up your mind based on the debate - yeesh. All it is, is a grudge match. It's about is who got who or who made a better point, who scored, who looked strong or peeved or interrupted or rambled or who couldn't remember the name on his bracelet, but what the hell is that supposed to tell me about which one's better for president? What do I take away from the debates that I hadn't already known before?

"Uh, Mr. Putin, uh... you know, about that invasion of, uh.... Georgia... uh, I have, right here, the bracelet of a United Nations Security Council member who lives on Main Street and not Wall Street and is solidly middle class and is...uh... going to, uh, you know... have 95% of his taxes cut...uh... who's name is... uh.... uh.... hard to read upside down..."

(oops - please don't read that if you're in Missouri)

The point is I've already made up my mind and I've done enough reading and paying attention and trust my convictions enough to understand why. Which - in a roundabout way - brings me to my ultimate point.

As is painfully obvious, most of the main stream media is fully on board the Obama bus (that is until they get tossed under it (apparently it's pretty crowded under there)). There are a million problems with that, but one of them is that if you aren't really paying attention (don't read the papers, don't watch the news, don't read the blogs and the alternative blogs and seek out opposing points of view) and simply - like a lot of people, I suspect - absorb presidential politics by some kind of strange osmosis from the world and entertainment at large, all you're going to know is gosh, Obama is well, you know, COOL. It's like a kind of mass hypnosis experiment. You're sitting on the subway listening to the "Black Eyed Peas" on your iPod and across from you some old guy is reading the (your-city-name-here) Times and you catch a headline about how someone 20 years ago said McCain never fully answered the question of whether or not he still eats Twinkies. Or you're watching Letterman, who has to be smart, because he's, you know, on TV and he talks about how McCain is old and that has to be bad because, you know, he's OLD. Or you're watching Law and Order and they run one of those deep and subtle episodes where they ever so delicately riff on the absolute HORRORS of (insert-politically-correct-sacred cow-being-gored-conservatives-of-the-moment-here). In other words the media, from top to bottom is overwhelmingly leftist, so if all you do is pay attention to what you happen to run into throughout your day, all you're going to get is one side of the argument (or diatribe as the case may be).

But if you want to know more than what the "gate keepers" (cough) feel like telling you (or feel you ought to know) then you have to seek out other forums and news and blogs and then you wind up reading and listening and hearing things explained and thought out far more completely than a Top Ten list or a Tina Fey skit.

Which is why, I think, to finally get back around to my first paragraph, that lefties scream. Most conservatives I know tend to be far more informed and firm in their convictions because in order to have those convictions you have to get out there and read and research and that means seeking out conservative voices. So what happens is that you are already being exposed to the other side through whatever Sundance Channel (alright, that's not fair, no one actually watches Sundance Channel) happens to be showing, but you also go forth and seek out opposing viewpoints and after spending hours and hours in your car/shower/bathroom honing your arguments, you're ready to go. So when you do take the leap (or flirt with career suicide) and get into a political conversation with someone from the other team, you can easily parry, riposte and counter-riposte until a firm middle ground is reached at which point your opponent thinks you're a heartless tool of big industry who would not only prefer, but take pleasure in letting little kids go to bed hungry.

Maybe he wouldn't have anything to do.

Sure maybe McCain is trying to score some political points with this, but for him and his message it does make sense. Obama's reaction to it though really confused me, but the more I think about the more this makes a lot of sense. Obama has no juice in the Senate. John McCain has been there for years and is without doubt a mover and a shaker, but Obama's been there for maybe four and has spent at least half that time on the road shaking hands, kissing babies and tossing former supporters under whatever bus happens to come along. It's not at all clear to me that if he went back to Washington to help deal with this crisis he would actually have anything to do. He doesn't have relationships to call on and doesn't have favors or chips to call in. As I said earlier, he might not even remember where his office is.