I have a certain affection for all fellow comedians, having done some stand-up comedy myself. So I had sympathy for Evan Sayet, a conservative comedian, who spoke at the Heritage Foundation earlier today. His shtick is not what we might call nuanced. Sayet's talk was entitled, "Hating What's Right: How the Modern Liberal 'Thinks' " (He has a book by the same title, he tells me, coming out later this year.) Sayet seems like a nice enough fellow--we have some friends in common-- and it's hard enough to do comedy even with a two-drink minimum let alone at the Lehrman Auditorium of the nation's preeminent conservative think tank.
A one time writer for the Arsenio Hall Show, Sayet describes himself as a "brain-dead liberal" before 9/11. The attacks led to an epiphany, he says. And now he's a full-throated conservative who charges that "modern liberalism" believes in "evil over good, wrong over right." His comedy conflates Jeremiah Wright, the dyspeptic professor Ward Churchill, who characterized 9/11 victims as "little Eichmans" along with mainstream liberals like the Illinois Senator Dick Durbin who gets ribbed, deservedly so I think, for comparing American detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay with the Nazis. Durbin, himself, apologized for the remarks--a point which Sayet didn't note. At other times, he took shots at Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd while I was there but only to sneer at them.
Humor is most funny when it's deeply truthful so bastardizing liberalism into a grotesque parody of itself is neither truthful or funny, to me anyway, although the conservative crowd at Heritage loved it. To be fair, Sayet allowed a few asides about liberals "who don't hate America" and are merely misguided about social programs. But in general his comedy lumps everyone on the left together into an absurdist portrait.
Here's Sayet on liberalism and anti-semitism:
Here he is on being a conservative comedian in Hollywood.
Michael Steele had an amazing interview with Matt Lauer this morning. Steele turned out to be totally unable to say he disagreed with Rush Limbaugh on wanting President Obama to fail:
Steele said his job is to balance the various opinions on whether people want the president o fail -- and conceded he hasn't been doing a good job so far as chairman:
Lauer: Rush Limbaugh says it very bluntly: "I want him to fail," referring to Barack Obama. Do you agree with that?
Steele: I -- look, my job is to build my party after-- after a tough two election cycles. My job is to try to craft a message for our party. There are a lot of opinions out there. Some come from people who are notable, some from people who are not so notable. And my job is try to balance that. I wasn't that effective at it this week, but you know I've been 30 days in the job, and we'll -- you know, we'll move forward.
Lauer kept asking the question -- and Steele persisted to not answer it, saying his own opinion doesn't matter:
Lauer: Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh when he says it's common sense that as a conservative, he wants the policies of Barack Obama to fail?
Steele: Well, my personal opinion doesn't matter in this. My personal -- my job as the RNC chairman is to take into account all the various views out there within our party, and try to put together a strategy and a team that's gonna help us win elections.
So Steele appears to acknowledge that the opinion exists within his party that conservatives should want President Obama's policies to fail -- and it's his job to take views like these into account, among others, in forming the party's strategy.
There seems something just a little fishy about the new Rasmussen poll deflating the idea that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party, with only 11% of Republicans agreeing to the premise and 81% disagreeing.
On the other hand, the phrasing of this question seems like it's designed to elicit a No response, especially from Republicans: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"
Not surprisingly, GOP respondents don't want to admit they are the yes-man patsies of a radio loudmouth.
Uh-oh -- another Democratic senator vowed today to oppose the $410 billion spending bill that is slated to keep the government funded until October.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), appearing at a press conference on the line-item veto alongside Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), joined Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) in urging President Obama to veto the spending measure:
I have typically not voted for omnibus bills because they always end up like this. And you know the president should veto it. And if it sent over there, the president should veto it. He should say, look, I asked for a stimulus bill that had no earmarks in it, and it did not based on the definition we're using in this bill.
As he notes, Feingold's at least being consistent here. But let's take a quick whip count, to see whether Democrats can actually pass this puppy ...
Read More →
A new Fairleigh Dickinson poll in New Jersey finds that Gov. Jon Corzine (D) is in serious danger of defeat at the hands of former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie in the election this coming November.
The numbers: Christie 41%, Corzine 32%. New Jersey is a heavily Democratic state, but Corzine has been hurt by the state's budget situation. And Christie retains popularity from his years as a U.S. Attorney, when he successfully prosecuted politicians from both parties. On the other hand, he has had his share of controversies involving the Bush Administration, and Corzine is sure to use those against him.
My own two cents, as a New Jerseyan: As a rule, we hate our politicians. But Christie can't bask in the glory of the polls right now, because it's also very common for incumbent Democrats to be way below 50%, and still win at the end of the day in this blue state.
New Jersey has shown a classic pattern of having high undecideds and the Republican ahead, only to see the undecided voters eventually come home and (reluctantly) vote for the Democrat. This is exactly what happened in the the 2006 Senate race, for example. But we'll see how this plays out, especially when the Dems start attacking Christie as a Bush-crony.
House Democrats are now expected to take up their foreclosure-aid bill tomorrow,
after negotiators reached a deal to modify the "cramdown" provision that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the mortgage terms on primary residences.
A summary of the changes can be viewed on the second page of this document, sent out by three California Dems who led the effort to change the bill: Zoe Lofgren, Ellen Tauscher, and Dennis Cardoza.
As I said yesterday, whether these changes constitute an unacceptable watering-down of the cramdown plan depends on one's ideological and personal perspectives. One of the alterations -- allowing lenders to "claw back" a greater portion of the profits if a home is sold during bankruptcy proceedings -- would do little more than benefit banks.
But the other changes being made -- particularly requiring lenders to offer a workable loan modification before a homeowner enters bankruptcy and ensuring that any modification offer is consistent with a homeowner's income -- can hardly be classified as giveaways.
Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), one of the leading proponents of the cramdown plan, told the AP that the banking lobby is "giving it everything they've got" but that he backs the new changes:
It would encourage lenders to make modifications and there would be consequences if they don't do it,
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) is vowing a rapid push on health reform this year, telling reporters yesterday that he would introduce a bipartisan health bill by June alongside Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA), the Finance panel's senior Republican.
Baucus and Grassley are known for working closely together, particularly on the 2007 reauthorization of the children's health insurance program (CHIP), which didn't make Grassley's fellow GOPers too happy (though the Iowan ultimately opposed the CHIP re-up that President Obama signed this year).
So Grassley enters the health care debate with a good deal of power -- and he's using it to warn Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to stay out of his and Baucus' way. When Grassley was asked this morning whether Baucus "answer[s] to" Reid on health care, he replied:
Michael Steele is firing back at his critics inside the Republican Party, who privately complain that he's failed to properly organize the party, does too many gaffe-riddled interviews, and overall keeps everyone out of the loop. In fact, he says, this is just how he likes it.
In an interview with the Politico, Steele answered the naysayers:
"I know some folks in Washington feel that they're kind of on the outside of this -- that they don't have the day-to-day blow by blow of what I'm doing," he said. "And that's exactly how I like it. I want to be about the business of putting in place a good infrastructure that will enable me to go out and build a better brand, stronger brand, for the GOP. And I won't get there by tattle-telling every day what I'm doing."
He also had this to say: "If I told folks what I really thought, I'd probably be in a lot more trouble."
The first Democrat to signal his opposition to the Obama administration's $410 billion 2009 spending bill was Sen. Robert Menendez (NJ), who suggested that his vote might be in jeopardy if provisions loosening the Cuban trade embargo were kept in the measure.
But Menendez's complaints look like a drop in the bucket compared with the brewing rebellion among centrist Democrats who aren't sure they can support Obama's push to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans. Politico reports that 14 Dem senators (and Joe Lieberman, naturally) are meeting behind closed doors to discuss their discomfort with Obama's $3.55 trillion 2010 budget.
Before the budget even comes to a vote, however, the 2009 spending bill must be taken care of -- and one of those centrist Dems, Evan Bayh (IN), is urging Obama to veto the $410 billion measure in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today. From Bayh's piece (emphasis mine):