Pat Buchanan’s announcement Monday morning that he was leaving the GOP to run for president in the Reform Party came as a surprise to no one — except perhaps the audio-visual support team in the auditorium in Falls Church, Va., where he spoke. After being introduced by both his sister, Bay Buchanan, and the Reform Party’s Pat Choate, the ubiquitous author, TV commentator and World War II revisionist began in a literary mode. “It is St. Crispin’s Day,” he told his cheering supporters, “and we’re here to make a little bit of history.”
That was when the wireless mike he had clipped to his red tie began to cut out, leaving only every other phrase audible to those watching the announcement live on CNN: “… only Goldwater supporter … Richard Nixon … ” It was like an impressionistic history of Buchanan’s life as a conservative, digital sampling to a jungle beat of confused cheers. “We can’t hear you!” someone shouted, and, trouper that he is, Buchanan tried again. “Let me see if we can get this working,” he said, squeezing the recalcitrant device.
The intervening moments were classic dead air, sure to be included in some future version of a “Presidential Bloopers” video collection, available only on TV. “It’s hard to make an announcement when no one can hear what you’re saying,” said the CNN anchor, helpfully. Someone finally set Buchanan up with an old-fashioned mike, with a wire.
Suddenly he had sound, and the candidate took it from the top, invoking history again (or Shakespeare’s interpretation of history) before trotting out his conservative bona fides. As a graduate student at the Columbia School of Journalism in 1961, he’d been a Goldwater supporter; later, he was a speech writer for President Nixon. “The Republican Party has been good to me,” he said (“veddy veddy good to me” I expected him to add), but now it was asking too much of him, “too much of us.” The two-party system was a fraud, he declared, “two wings of the same bird of prey.” Both parties, he continued, “seek out the hollow men [for whom] the readout of the focus group is holy text …”
With his allusions to Shakespeare and T.S. Eliot and later Sinclair Lewis (calling Clinton “our own Elmer Gantry”), Buchanan was starting to sound as if he was at open mike night at a new-bohemians cafe. He rapped about “the junkyards of history” and “the temples of our civilization” (which Clinton, like some Puck armed with spray paint, had desecrated). I expected his followers to start snapping their fingers.
Then, right in the midst of some choice U.N.-bashing (to Kofi Annan asking for money: “Sir, don’t go there”), his mike began to break up again. CNN cut away, first to senior political analyst Bill Schneider, then to campaign reporter Candy Crowley, who was in Virginia.
Of his technical difficulties she said, “It’s always tempting in journalism to do metaphors, so I won’t do one today.” (Oh, please, just one.) She mentioned that other candidates had had their technical difficulties in the past. Remember California Gov. Pete Wilson’s kickoff in New York, on the Hudson River with the Statue of Liberty in the background? Wilson had lost his voice and could barely be heard above the din of the city — talk about your metaphors. No big deal. But by the time Buchanan had resolved his problems, a few viewers had doubtless tuned out.
“I want to tell you network fellows that what’s been knocking out our mikes is all the applause,” the candidate quipped. But a sampling of the broadcast networks, in New York at least, revealed the usual Monday-morning fare of soaps and talk shows. That means not many viewers were there to witness his technical difficulties, or hear his closing remarks. In these, he forewent the classics in favor of Costner: “If we lead, they will follow. And if we built it, they will come.”
Of course they’re fighting over the site of that fictional baseball field in Iowa, just as the Reform Party will surely soon be scrapping over which of an increasingly colorful rogues’ gallery of candidates on which to bestow its blessing (and some $10 million plus in federal matching campaign funds). Donald Trump pledged his allegiance to the Reform Party Sunday, no doubt in part to steal Buchanan’s thunder. He still hasn’t made up his mind about the president thing, though.
Even those viewers who were trying to give Buchanan their undivided attention, waiting with good grace for someone to let him be heard, might have also missed his most famous allusion. In the midst of a plea for a (for him) newfound tolerance of immigrants, Buchanan said, “This land is our land.”
That thumping sound was Woody Guthrie turning over in his grave.
Kirk Cameron and Piers Morgan (Credit: Reuters/Fred Prouser/Keith Bedford)
Having Piers Morgan call you brave is like having Rick Santorum call you smart. You’ve got to consider the source. So when the CNN host and Murdoch apologist told TMZ what he thought about former “Growing Pains” actor turned evolution naysayer Kirk Cameron’s comments on Morgan’s show Friday night, Morgan was restrained to the point of admiring. “He was honest to what he believed,” Morgan said. “It’s a very contentious issue. I think that he was pretty brave to say what he said.”
And what, precisely, were Cameron’s bold remarks? When prodded on the subject of same-sex marriage on Morgan’s CNN show, the Christianity-themed movie star and father of six said that “I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago…. Do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t.” And when Morgan asked if he thought homosexuality was a sin, Cameron hedged a bit, refusing to use the word “sin” but declaring, “It’s unnatural, it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” Maybe “sin” would have been a nicer way of putting it.
Cameron’s remarks — along with his assertion that if one his children came out to him, “I would say … just because you feel one way doesn’t mean you need to act everything you feel” — were not greeted with universal applause. Over the weekend, GLAAD started a petition to “Tell Kirk Cameron it’s time to finally grow up,” calling him “out of step with a growing majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation.” Perez Hilton, speaking for much of the Twitterverse, referred to the interview as a “spew” of “homophobia and bigotry.” But as Hilton notes – and anyone familiar with Cameron’s hyper-evangelical ways would likely agree – “Did anyone really expect less from him?”
That’s where Morgan comes in. He knew exactly what a guy who’s currently on a “marriage tour” — and shilling a new documentary that says that “something is sick in the soul of our country” – would say. It was not going to sound like the lyrics to a Lady Gaga song. Accepting a person’s right to say things, even stupid things, isn’t the same as condoning them. Speaking to TMZ, Morgan described Cameron’s statements as what many would argue is “an antiquated view” and asserted, “I think that you can take the biblical thing too far.” On CNN, Morgan told Cameron directly that if one of his own children admitted that he was gay, “I would say, ‘That’s great, son, as long as you’re happy.’”
Unlike the even-more-loathsome Rush Limbaugh, Cameron wasn’t going out of his way to personally attack an individual, or to denigrate anybody in the name of a repulsive stab at humor. He was just answering a question. Morgan is correct in his assessment that Cameron’s response was an authentic one, and that there is a kind of bravery in that. It doesn’t make that kind of thinking good or right or decent, any more than it makes Morgan less of a hack for noting it. We may be demoralized by Cameron’s answer, and rightly decide that such rhetoric needs to be challenged. We can refuse to support his films. But in the fight against intolerance and hypocrisy, what we can’t do is ask a man a question point blank — and then be outraged when he answers it truthfully. All we can do is fervently hope that with the right amount of tolerant persuasiveness, one day he might be able to give a different one.
Developing at this hour, reports of nastiness (Credit: CNN)
You know that computer program that automatically generates baseball game reports based on box scores? Wolf Blitzer is like an extremely primitive and unsophisticated version of that, for political news. (Or “news.”) Today, the CNN anchor takes to “Blitzer’s Blog” to report that the 2012 election campaign has been very intense. He also predicts that it will get more intense later, when it gets closer to the general election.
BLITZER’S BLOG: It’s going to get nasty!
By Wolf Blitzer, CNN
(CNN) – If you think it’s been a rough ride for the Republican candidates during this current campaign season, just wait. This will be seen as child’s play once the general election campaign begins.
I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again: the war of words between President Obama and his campaign supporters versus the eventual Republican nominee and his supporters will be fierce.
Even though there has already been a lot of talking and stuff happening during this political campaign, you won’t believe how much additional talking and arguing there will be as it continues. I have said in the past that Barack Obama and the person running against him will say things at and about each other, and I am saying it again. Things will be said.
If you think Wolf Blitzer’s blog post about the intensity of this campaign is finished, just wait. He quotes three lines from last night’s debate, then writes four more one-sentence paragraphs:
And that’s just for starters. Just wait for what’s coming.
By the way, the president and his supporters will not be shy in fighting back.
And like the Republicans, they will have hundreds of millions of dollars to finance attack ads.
Get ready for a brutal political season.
I am, Wolf! I am!
THIS JUST IN TO THE SITUATION ROOM: Every other political blogger has retired from political blogging to curate Pinterests about sandwiches instead, because Wolf Blitzer just made our jobs redundant.
The only remaining question is whether Wolf Blitzer is a better blogger than his Fox counterpoint in incisive online commentary, Greta Van Susteren. As long as CNN insists on “copy editing” Blitzer, we may never know for sure.
Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene
More Alex Pareene.
Cable news depends on colorful characters to draw eyeballs in between those reminders that there are “no new developments” in the real stories of the day. But even in a sea of distinctive jerkwads – your Erin Burnetts and Piers Morgans and Bill O’Reillys and Megyn Kellys – HLN host Nancy Grace never fails to distinguish herself. And just when you think she can’t find new depths to plumb, along comes the Whitney Houston story.
Grace, the woman who has made an entire cottage industry out of her indignation over Casey Anthony, who paints herself nightly as the avenging angel of poor dead Caylee, has never been one to trade in subtlety — or, for that matter, facts. CNN had to settle a wrongful death suit after the mother of a missing child killed herself after being browbeaten on her show. (The parties agreed that Grace “engaged in no intentional wrongdoing.”) She fearlessly championed the prosecution’s side in the Duke lacrosse team rape case, blithely referring to “the victim,” and went ballistic over the very notion that the accused might be innocent. (She then conveniently remained quiet on the subject after the case was dismissed.) This, folks, is a woman who has guilt-tripped abduction victim Elizabeth Smart for not playing along with her interview tactics. And even after a jury found Casey Anthony not guilty last summer, she has held on to the story like a dog with a bone, insisting that “I told the truth,” luxuriating in descriptions of “the backdrop of 2-year-old Caylee’s decomposing body just a few houses down from where Tot Mom put her pillow every night,” and excoriating Anthony for – rich irony alert –“generating interest in herself.”
Yet apparently there just aren’t enough kidnapped babies and alleged gang rapes out there to keep Grace satisfied. She’s turning her attention now instead to the mysterious death of a diva. Grace, who famously said last summer that she knew more than the “kooky jury” on the Anthony case, now seems to know more than the L.A. coroner’s office. Despite word that foul play is “not suspected at this time” in Saturday’s death of Whitney Houston, Grace isn’t so sure. On Monday she appeared on CNN to ponder, “Who, if anyone, gave [Houston] drugs following alcohol and drugs.” That itself isn’t a crazy question, though it is a bit of a reach – a suggestion that the story of a superstar dying alone and surrounded by prescription bottles just isn’t sexy enough. Not when surely there’s a villain on the loose for Nancy Grace to bring to justice. Cue dramatic theme music!
Medical accountability is to be considered whenever someone dies who may have had drugs administered to him or her. Just ask physician Conrad Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson. But where Grace, in her totally Nancy Grace-like way, went totally bananas was when she asked, “Who let her slip or pushed her underneath that water? … Who let Whitney Houston go under that water?” Uhhhhhmm… Whitney Houston?
The sad desperation of news networks, and their flailing competitiveness in a glut of information overload, is rarely pretty to watch. But Grace isn’t just some blowhard, saying provocative things to get a rise out of the viewership. She’s a full-on loose cannon, a disseminator of disinformation and an ego gone rogue. That CNN and its sister network HLN continue to permit her to spew her wild speculations, to proudly flaunt her flat-out contempt for the facts as they are known, and to engage in character assassination long after a not guilty verdict has been rendered in a court of law, is blatant and arrogant recklessness. Unchecked, how long before Grace decides she knows who “pushed” Houston under the water? How long before she’s on another crusade, deciding who is a victim and who is a perpetrator? How long before a real criminal investigation or trial is tainted because of her nightly yammering?
After her jaw-dropping segment Monday, CNN anchor Don Lemon had to leap into fire-dousing mode, issuing a hasty reminder that “This is not CNN’s reporting. We don’t know that to be true.” Here’s a crazy idea – you shouldn’t be talking about things you don’t know to be true on a network with the word “news” right there in the middle of it. And CNN shouldn’t continue to provide a platform to a woman whose self-interest makes a mockery of journalistic credibility.
Wolf Blitzer, the face and droning monotonous voice of CNN’s breaking news coverage, has written the finest blog post of the year, so far. Blitzer has penned “A salute to politicians,” because, really, someone had to.
“I know it will probably sound weird,” Blitzer begins, “but I admire these politicians who put themselves out there before the American public knowing full well that all their warts will be exposed big time.” We have a breaking news alert for you here in the Situation Room: Situation Room anchor Wolf Blitzer admires members of the political ruling elite.
Politicians, you see, should be admired, because even though they are by and large rich, they still work very hard, every couple years. So says Wolf Blitzer in his essay on politicians, “I admire politicians, by Wolf Blitzer.”
Most of them already have lots of money. They could easily coast at this point in their lives and sit back and relax.
Instead, they are working hard on the campaign trail.
Sometimes people have to do stuff they don’t want to do, unless they have a lot of money. Usually people with a lot of money like to play golf, because playing golf is more fun than going to work. If a person with a lot of money goes to work, he must like work a lot. Even though sometimes work is hard:
I’ve seen them in action, and it’s tough. They get up early in the morning and go to sleep late at night. They have to deliver the same stump speech over and over and over again, and then answer an endless amount of often annoying questions at town hall meetings, at diners and from reporters such as me.
Next time you think about criticizing a politician, step back and think about how early he woke up this morning, and how many times he had to give a boring speech. He might have even had to deal with Wolf Blitzer! Now don’t you feel guilty?
Blitzer hits his main theme — it’s admirable that politicians actually get out of bed and do things even though they are rich — once more and names the politicians he is specifically saluting:
Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul and Rick Perry could have taken the easy path and relaxed and enjoyed life. Instead of playing golf and hanging out with their children and grandchildren, they are working hard trying to get the Republican presidential nomination. In the process, they are bitterly attacked – often for good reason.
In their pursuit of more power these already powerful men have allowed themselves to be scrutinized and even occasionally criticized, which is quite a sacrifice.
This salute to politicians even ends in the most perfectly CNN-y way possible, by presenting two vague and conflicting viewpoints and refusing to adjudicate between them:
Why do they do it?
I know what they say. They say they are interested in public service and want to help the American people. They say they believe in what they are trying to achieve.
The cynics say they have huge egos and are simply seeking power and glory.
That is certainly true of some politicians.
But having covered many of them over the years, I also know some are trying to do the right thing, and I salute them.
“Some say politicians are power-hungry narcissists, others say they are noble public servants. Both sides could be part right, some of the time, most likely.”
The sole disappointing aspect of Blitzer’s salute is that it includes no musical tribute.
Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene
More Alex Pareene.
It’s been six months since a Florida jury found Casey Anthony not guilty in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. Since then, the woman who spent three years awaiting trial behind bars — and in the glare of the news spotlight – has kept a low profile. Considering the lingering questions about her innocence, the intense public resentment over the verdict, and a steady stream of death threats, her hibernation is hardly a surprise. But perhaps some part of Casey Anthony has missed the attention.
In a new video — ostensibly recorded in October but which did not emerge until Thursday — a now blond, bobbed and bespectacled Anthony narrates a four-minute “diary” entry about her new life. She says she’s “extremely excited” about her future and new computer – being able to Skype, take pictures, and “finally have something that I can finally call mine.” What she doesn’t mention? The child she used to call her own.
Though Anthony, still on probation in Florida, makes no mention of her exact location, her parents said Thursday they were “concerned” the video might endanger her. It has definitely stirred up the usual outrage from the most predictable mouthpieces. In other words, CNN is stoked. For Nancy Grace, the video has been like a late Christmas present, an opportunity to froth like she hasn’t frothed about “two-year old Caylee’s decomposing body” since last summer. Trotting out her favorite nickname for Anthony, Grace opined that “I think this is very simply Tot Mom Casey Anthony and her lawyers, possibly, injecting themselves back in the national media because nobody’s touching her offer for a paid-for interview with a 10-foot pole.” She added that: “It’s all about Tot Mom… generating interest in herself.” Dr. Drew Pinsky, meanwhile, eagerly pointed out her “narcissism and … issues of judgment.”
Out in the wider world, meanwhile, the public reaction has been mostly an excuse for another outpouring of revulsion against the lady one MSNBC commenter called “the most hated person in the U.S.A.” Also unsurprising — and straight-up gross — is that Anthony has her fair share of rabid admirers. On the shudderingly self-proclaimed “#1 Casey Anthony Fan site,” reaction toward the “smokin’ hottie” and her video has been considerably warmer. Or, as one commenter put it, “I would love to rock your world sometime.”
But why did the video emerge now, and who is Anthony really communicating with? Is this a public statement or truly a private “diary”? Anthony’s lawyers told a Florida Fox affiliate that “Casey has maintained some notes on her thoughts for personal use, especially for counseling. She did not release this video to YouTube and does not know how they got it. It could not have been legally obtained and was not authorized.” And John Riley, the man who runs a “Boycott Casey Anthony” Facebook group and first posted the clip, told Nancy Grace Thursday that he found the clip on a few pay-per-view sites and “kept looking and looking and looking” until he found it for free. He says he posted it “so there would be no money made off it.” Try to get your head around the idea of someone clawing doggedly around the Internet for four minutes of what Anthony promises “will be as tedious as my audio recordings have been” and you begin to appreciate the apparently endless fascination this woman still holds.
Anthony’s “tedious” four minutes don’t reveal much about the inner workings of someone found not guilty of killing her daughter. They do seem in line with thoughts of someone recently released from jail – the simple relief of having one’s own possessions, the pleasure of having a dog. And she might well be circumspect about talking about her child and her trial, even on a supposedly private “video log,” if her lawyers have coached her to be. So is her video a case study in narcissism, a private moment from a “smokin’ hottie,” or just personal thoughts before a counseling session? The answer is simple. It’s whatever you already thought. Though Casey Anthony says, “Things can only get better,” minds aren’t changed as easily as hair color. “It’s surreal how things have changed since July,” she declares at one point in the clip. Then she adds, as if speaking for both herself and everyone watching, “and how many things haven’t.”
Kirk Cameron and Piers Morgan (Credit: Reuters/Fred Prouser/Keith Bedford) 
Developing at this hour, reports of nastiness (Credit: CNN) 
Nancy Grace (Credit: AP/Chris Pizzello) 
Wolf Blitzer (Credit: CNN) 
(Credit: Gavonlaessig) 
