The 'Writer Beat' Experience

Last November, I was invited to join a shared weblog called "Writer Beat'. (Thanks to Autumn Cote for her efforts setting it up, recruiting people, and dealing with their gripes.)  Something I said got noticed, appreciated, and more was sought from me, something I am too willing to provide.   I do regret starving this blog a bit in favor of the more interactive site in recent months, but now it looks as though it may dwindle.

Writer Beat's format was an article, with whatever visuals appended, and then an open comment session moderated by the author of the article.  Depending on the subject, opinions could be fast and furious, or the article could drop right through the site's front page into obscurity. 

I liked having my thoughts challenged by others, even though many of them were hostile--that was one thing you could count on happening. The preponderance of active posters/commenters were from various factions of the Party of the Right--not real joiners, in terms of Republican party activism,  but constitutionalists, libertarians, curmudgeons of all sorts (yes, including racists and bigots), with a sprinkling of foreigners of various nations and a couple of liberals.

 A friend of mine, an activist of progressive tendencies, asked me why I bothered with it.  Surely I don't expect to change anyone's mind there?  Well, no, though I do think I made some progress in humanizing some people's responses to normal progressive expression (and I rarely fell into some of the uglier habits and sunk for long into ad hominem name-calling, snark, and insults).

The post and the discussions that follow were response to a few articles in which these very non-Democratic folks tried to give advice about what the Democratic party should do.


Bring Back the Whigs! 

"Lots of people told me" that Abe Lincoln signalled down from Heaven that he was giving up his membership in the Republicans of today.  The phrase Party of Lincoln can no longer be applied to any but the Whigs. 

("Lots of people told me" =  in Drumpftalk, what follows is a total fabrication.  If not a lie, it is because he pays people to say it to him.)

How the Democrats of the future will respond to the Drumpfist Dilemma--the idea that there really is a "silent majority" which defeats the glorious idea of democracy--remains just that, a dilemma.  I thank all for the contributions they made to that debate, which, I repeat, is an ongoing one. 

Let's turn instead to the fate of their opposite, the elephant in the room, the party which has had its justification exposed as false and failing, which has now been replaced by something awesome and ugly and all-too-factual.  

*******

Cleaning up my email file (as I must, every day, as it is about 5.5 lb. of mierda in a sacco of 5 lb.), I ran across a reference to this article from The Hill of July, 2016.  In it, various establishment-Republican types were bemoaning their party's fate, as in their view Hillary's win was inevitable and would be massive, due to the defection of major Republicans (like them).   

The result was even worse (for them).  It proved definitively that they no longer represent much of anything, constituency-wise.   Where will this disinherited mass of Washington stooges go?  (sounds like an episode of "Veep") The Biden campaign?  I don't think so. 

It's just--Can the whole conservative movement pin all its hopes and aspirations on the fate of that scoundrel? 

What a roller coaster, an incredible risk to take.  I find it hard to believe.  William Weld can light the way, but that is barely a candle in the wind.   Kasich, the Mittster (or a I call him, "The Suit")?--no stomach for the long haul.  Some NextGen Bush, willing to continue the vendetta?  Saddam is dead, my friend, so are his sons. 

There is a need for a Third Way, and it can succeed in being the successor to the "Republican" party of Trumpian legacy.  It needs a symbol, it needs a name, it needs....some disinterested advice from someone who has the least possible sympathy for their plight. 

It will soon be Time to Bring Back the Whigs, or something just like them.  The People who have some moral decency but reject the madness of the Democratic version of democracy need a place to go.  Resolutely anti-slavery (or at least its unconstrained spread throughout the country), against empire-building, a limited government constrained by laws and good sense.  The party of Tippecanoe (and Lincoln).  Numbers 9, 10, 12, and 13.  But that name....you practically have to wheeze to say it

You talk about your False Flag operations:  Try a search for "Whig party symbol".  It brings you to the amusing battle for control of the Modern Whigs' symbol.  I give you a free space to give your version for its symbol--the Owl or the Eagle?   Or you could try to tell me how the Drumpfian vision will guide us into the uncertain future? 

MAWhA!
(Make America Whig Again!)

Selection from the comments following 

That "Bush wing" that Thomas talks about--where will they go when they have been excised from the Trumpist party--even after Trump is gone?

I see our politics as 40% Trump (hopeless, deplorable), 40% Democratic (ineffective, due to infighting and being outmaneuvered), and 20% homeless never-Trump ex-Republicans and conservative/moderate ex-Democrats. It may be a small group, but what they do may determine the future course of our politics. That's why I think it's important.

When I look at the Writer Beat crowd, most are in that group that can't stand Democratic candidates but won't admit to supporting Trump. So, I ask you, where?

›

• 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  TexasLynn  chinshihtang • 7 days ago

  
  

  I... did not vote for Trump last time because he was not a conservative, and I had promised myself I would settle for nothing less (after being forced to vote for the likes of McCain and Romney).

  This time around, I may end up voting for Trump for two reasons.

  1) I see no acceptable candidate running against him. Personally, I think the Democratic Party is so far gone (left) that I doubt it can produce one.

  2) To send a message to the statist media, elite, deep state, and crazy left that has pushed all the overblown Russia collusion bullshit.

  All you guys give grief to those who held their nose and voted for Trump last time (2016), especially Christian.

  So, I ask you, where was the alternative? What candidate should they have supported instead based on their principles? Would you have rather they sat on their hands (and votes) and given the job to Hillary by proxy? (Actually, THAT is precisely what that particular criticism is about... Well, all I can say to that is we all hope those we despise and oppose are idiots.)

  
  ›
  
  
  
• 
  
• 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  the burghal hidage  chinshihtang • 8 days ago

  
  

  Stoner the problem I see is that you are asking wrong question/discussing wrong issue. Your concerns seem to centered on the parties. The parties are the problem. They are parties alright: theirs. We are not invited, except at election time. The parties are not going to be fixed. They both need to be destroyed. 

  
  
  
  • 

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    TreeParty  the burghal hidage • 7 days ago

    
    

    Little surprise coming from an "anarcho-libertarian gonzo". Political parties grow organically from the political milieu, and tend to evolve toward a two-party structure. Wishing that the two existing major parties "need to be destroyed" is about as constructive as wishing that Santa Claus was real.

    "Your concerns seem to be centered on the parties. The parties are the problem."
    Well, DUH! His concern is centered on the problem - how ridiculous is that?!

    Admit it, BH - you don't know or care what you are talking about...1

    
    
    
    • 

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      the burghal hidage  TreeParty • 7 days ago

      
      

      Youre close. I Know what you think, but I don't Care. You really need to work on your reading comprehension

      ›

      
      
  • 

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    chinshihtang  the burghal hidage • 8 days ago

    
    

    Fair enough, so I ask: How do you destroy the immobility of the two-party system as we have it? The answer has to be a third "force" (--Let's not call it a party, we can celebrate once it has succeeded.)--one that rejects the parties yet has some organizational quality to produce positive value. ( It is not the Trump movement, which is a clownlike parody of that idea.)

    I say in all sincerity (though as an outsider) that we need that moral force which conservatism could have to be restored to our politics to have any hope of resolving the stalemate. My best-case scenario for next year is discord between dRumpkins vs. the Repenticans, and the Democrat slide through. Sort of like 1992, or 1976. So my motives are dubious, however:

    As for the Democratic party, that would take care of itself quickly enough once the menace of control of the government by the Trumpist Republicans has receded. They (we) can't wait to have at each other, but the imperative is to hold off until Mordor falls. That could happen in 2020, in 2022, or it could take decades still, though we must believe justice will prevail.
    • 

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      the burghal hidage  chinshihtang • 8 days ago

      
      

      Jim I appreciate your voice in the conversation. I strongly disagree with most of your premise on things, but you do seem to be starting to recognize the source of at least some of the problems. Just my opinion, but you seem to be an old school Chicago democrat unable to separate yourself from the party identity. You can take boy out of Chicago, not the Chicago out of the boy 😁

      
      

      
      
      
      
      • 

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        

        chinshihtang  the burghal hidage • 8 days ago

        
        

        I'm more like one of the Chicago 7, but I can't pick just one. Maybe Bobby Seale (the one that was bound and gagged in the courtroom because he just wouldn't STFU). Not from Chicago, though.

        
        

        
        
        
        • 

          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          

          the burghal hidage  chinshihtang • 8 days ago

          
          

          But I recall you had said that you did spend some years there?

          ›

          
          
          • 

            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            

            chinshihtang  the burghal hidage • 8 days ago

            
            

            Yes, you're right! I was an "economic migrant" from my adopted home (in New Mexico) to Ill. for a very good job, post-recession. (2011-2018) But now retired--lots of time to give you guys grief. 

            
            
            • • −

              

              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              

              the burghal hidage  chinshihtang • 8 days ago

              
              

              😆

            
            

          
          
        • Another conversation, this time about the Democratic party and where it's going: 

        
        
      • 
        
        
        
        
        

        chinshihtang  Jessica Colon • 13 days ago

        
        

        With regard to taking up arms for the Democrats' nominating a radical before the process even begins, I suggest calmness--it will be a very long ordeal.

        I would suggest one way to think about the process: if we think of Chief Twit as being the classic 'dorkhead' (a euphemism), then the Democrats' objective should be to nominate the least-dorkhead possible candidate.

        That would suggest certain qualities: a non-misogynist, non-racist, well-educated and well-spoken, knowledgeable about foreign policies and scientific thought, a good manager of people, clear-thinking, forward-looking and consistent in philosophy. Not Barack Obama, though, unfortunately.

        
        

        
        

        • 
          

        

        
        
        
        
        

        chinshihtang  Jessica Colon • 14 days ago

        
        

        Just as there are shade of differences in the words and actions of right-wing Republicans, there are variations in the positions of Democrats of the left (using the label for convenience only). Not to mention "the center", which is moving heavily against Chief Twit.

        The young women you are criticizing (there are others of all the other spectra of Democrats) come from heavily Democratic districts (one of the by products of heavy gerrymandering) which have moved to people with more radical positions as natural replacements for others moving on.

        The only moral of the story is: non-partisan redistriction after 2020. Nothing else to see here, move along.

        
        

        
        • 
          
          
          
          

          The Owl  chinshihtang • 13 days ago

          
          

          You are real short on understanding of the Supreme Court's view that district drawing is a patently political process and one made for valid constitutional reasons.

          I suggest before you make a bigger fool of yourself that you review the case law on the subject and the Court's Court's recent rulings

          
          
          • • −

            

            
            
            
            
            

            chinshihtang  The Owl • 13 days ago

            
            

            I know what it is, and why. I am advocating for change. We cannot leave this to the Court Court.

             It could be done at the state level (as some have done), but it would be better to standardize principles of House districts across states, leaving it mostly to states to determine their legislative boundaries

An Unusual Parallel

I am a moderately serious fan of the English Premier League (the EPL--I'm a Chelsea fan, for the last 20 years or so), and what I noticed yesterday was a similarity between the competitive structure of the EPL Table (the table of standings points and goal differential) and that currently seen for the Democratic nomination for President.  (for reference, see  here    for the values on realclearpolitics.com, and  here  for the EPL). 

One thing the two have in common is a similar number of competitors.  The top English football league has 20 teams in it; there are somewhere between 18 and 22 serious declared Democratic candidates (depending on your definitions of 'serious' and 'declared').   

Each has a close competition between first and second (Manchester City and Liverpool, in one case; Bernie and Biden, in the other).  Then there's a fairly large gap to the third- through sixth-place entries (tho' it changes day to day, it's Harris/Buttigieg/Warren/O'Rourke on the political side; and Tottenham/Chelsea/Arsenal/Man U., sporting-wise).  Then another large gap to a couple more....and then the rest, 9-20.  Bottom three or so are due for imminent relegation, either to the "Championship" (English AAA league), or wherever the funk those candidates like Warren Messam and Marianne Williamson come from. 

One big difference:  the EPL season has two more dates--two more games only in the next two weekends  Then it will be over. Would that something similar were true with the Presidential contest, and that we could wrap up the preliminaries and go on to the next event, but no. 

What can we learn from this analogy?  Well, the key breaks in the soccer competition are who finishes first (of course), then the break between fourth and fifth  (the qualification dividing line for the continent-level Champions League competition for the next season, meaning Muchos Euros at stake), then another, between sixth and seventh, I think (qualification for the not-as-prestigious Europa League--I think this will one day go away, as interest flags).   The English soccer league gets overrpresented in the European competitions because of its strong historical performance, just as the US political parties' delegate calculation process does. 

Right now, Chelsea is looking good for the fourth spot, while Manchester City will win the title if it wins both its remaining games.   Translate that to the Presidential nomination race, and you could say that the nomination is Biden's to lose (though he is certainly capable of doing so), while that battle for fourth may determine who goes on, beyond New Hampshire to South Carolina, and who does not.   

Also, though, note again that division between second and third, so evident between Liverpool's standings and the third-place Spurs':  You could check the records, but it has been a very long time since someone who did not finish first or second in New Hampshire's primary won the nomination of his/her party. 

I throw this one out onto the floor to see if it sticks there.  Excuse me if it seems a bit vomitous.  FWIW, I would humbly submit that it is truly stonerian. 

Sunset for Netanyahu?

This year will be a critical one for the political future of Israel.  The key event is a general election for the Knesset, the country's parliamentary body, which Benyamin Netanyahu's government called for April 9.

The future of Israel should be compelling for any (US) American for several reasons. One is the ongoing drama of the Middle East,  which has been a strategic foreign policy interest for decades, and in which Israel has a lead actor role. The top concern of the Israeli electorate, taken as a whole, is always going to be about the decisions governing the security of the nation. Elections are the only real opportunity Israelis have to express their will(s) in a non-crisis situation (and in crises, only through actions). So, it is an opportunity to raise those larger and longer-term questions of sovereignty and demographic change which are fundamental to Israel's future.

Mostly, though, it is about the political survival of long-time Prime Minister Netanyahu.  Netanyahu has been a master of domestic politics, holding together his Likud party, while all the other parties continue to fragment, and providing a degree of political stability to Israel by putting together coalition after coalition.   In 2019, Netanyahu seeks to produce Knesset magic once again, but the challenge is steeper than ever.

In a scenario that may be a preview of the US election next year, Israel's election will test the question of whether a national leader's support will hold up when there are active criminal cases against him.  Just this week, the Israeli attorney general (like the US' but with a little more real independence) released a statement that, after a lengthy corruption investigation,  he recommends indictment of Netanyahu.

The indictment has not yet officially happened, and it's still possible it may not; furthermore the Israeli justice system is different from the US', more like the continental European ones.  Nevertheless, Netanyahu will go to the polls with a cloud over his head.  He called the election, hoping to delay the indictment beyond it, but he was unsuccessful in his efforts to keep AG Mandelblit from making this announcement before the election; in fact, ethically, the announcement was made precisely so that voters would be properly informed what the nature of the likely charges are.  How similar, yet how different!

The similarity between the Israeli situation and the US one is clear in the character of the allegations against Netanyahu, and the ones that are emerging against Trump.  It's basically loose ethics, combined with garden-variety fraud+ and venality--In Benyamin's case, it's accepting gifts that were too large and trying to use his influence improperly to manipulate the media.  As we saw with the Cohen hearings, the plausibility of the accusations is not really in doubt; the question in Israel is whether they amount to offenses worthy of indictment (as in the US, where it will be whether they should rise to the level of impeachment).

The other novelty is that Netanyahu is being challenged in his strength area, that of national security.  The prospective challenger is Benny Gantz, a former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force (IDF, i.e. the military).  Not only does he project Strong Defense, he has two other ex-IDF chiefs allied with him in his new party, which also allied with another moderately-strong centrist group, headed by Yair Lapid.  This new party's electoral list, called Yahol Lavan, could come out of the election with the highest number of seats  This would give their party first shot at building a parliamentary majority and a governing coalition with coalition partners.  It is that first-strike edge that Netanyahu has utilized in the past to craft government after government that just barely reached the majority level* .

That bare-majority level would then become the obsession of Gantz and his allies, through contacts that they would have with all of the many other parties.


Gantz' Dilemma
This opposition group has one unifying principle:  Netanyahu must go!  Objectively, when someone has been in power for so long, even if successfully, that person becomes annoying , both to supporters and the opposition (see Angela Merkel).  He is clearly an obstacle to any peace discussion, to any change in the slow suicide policy of expanding settlements into hostile territory, and he has shown no regard for any interest other than self.  To show the level of desperation, Netanyahu urged the Orthodox Jewish party group to take on the successors of Rabbi Kahane, a violent bigot, because a couple of percentage more for that group might make the difference in his coalition.   But, that is only true if Likud gets the highest percentage in this election, as Gantz' crew will be just as eager to expand, left or right, secular or religious, Ashkenazi, Sephardim, or Arab, to get its majority.    Gantz has openly invited Likud to join his government--just without Netanyahu.

But, I have to admit, the opposition program doesn't go far beyond getting rid of Bibi.  In fact, the group, seeking to deflect Netanyahu's attack on the group as being "leftist" or "pro-Arab, has criticized Netanyahu's government for being too soft, by allowing Hamas to receive humanitarian aid intended for Gaza. 

Meanwhile, the "two-state solution" becomes more and more a remote possibility.  We knew Netanyahu would never go there, but it seems that not much should be expected to change, even if he leaves.  Still, if he goes, there is at least a possibility; whereas, if he stays, the short-term future is certain:  Stalemate, and legal morass.   Sound familiar?


*(61 of 120 seats, based on a national proportional representation-based allocation, with a minimum of 3.25% for inclusion). 

+ a phrase I liked from the Cohen hearings:  it suggests banality and casual disregard for the line between right and wrong). . 

The Only Oscars Review You Could Possibly Need

With notes on the history of “A Star Is Born” below.

My sources:  Stoner Household polling preferences, first and second (SH#1, SH#2)+, Vanity Fair prediction (VF), My somewhat cynical view of the favorite (JS).   See also my 2018 fall preview, my “Vice” review. Any movie which I have not seen will be marked with an asterisk in its first mention. (*) I have in bold your handicapper’s “Best Bet”, which is not necessarily the betting favorite, but looks like best value for your money.

Listed in reverse order of the awards.  If you want to follow along, go to the end of this section and then scroll up, slowly.

Best Picture - Alfonso Cuaron’s “Roma” has ten nominations, which makes it the betting favorite for this one.  All are expecting it to win, but I have my doubts. It was not favored in the Stoner household (“Black Panther” and “Vice” led in our polling).  It would break a lot of ground for this conservative institution, being a movie that was released initially only on Netflix (ew) It would also be the first-ever foreign language movie to win Best Picture.  There are eight nominees for this one category, which allows votes to be split more than others. “Roma” will definitely win other categories, allowing voters to look elsewhere if they don’t want to concentrate awards too much.  I expect awards to be split among many movies this year, and capping off the night with an upset has been happening more recently. If so, “Green Book”, “The Favourite”, and “Black Panther” would be contenders.   Winner: Green Book. 

Best Actress -  There was some early sentiment for Olivia Colman, who plays a batty, ill Queen Anne in “The Favourite” (SH#2)  and Lady Gaga’s performance in “A Star Is Born” (SH#1) is notable, but the expectation (VF, JS) is that Glenn Close will win for a role in which she played the hidden talent behind her husband’s award-winning writing (‘The Wife”*).  For her, it would be “finally” winning; for voters, do they want this veteran to win?  Winner: Olivia Colman, The Favourite.

Best Actor  - In my initial preview, I thought it would be between the two guys who put on big weight for their roles (Viggo Mortensen (SH#2) in “Green Book”, Christian Bale in “Vice”), over the guy who put on extra teeth (Rami Malek (SH#1) in “Bohemian Rhapsody”).   I still think those are the main candidates but Malek is drawing more support now.  Winner: Rami Malek, Bohemian Rhapsody. 

Director - This is the most legitimate and logical category for Cuaron to win (“Roma”).  This is a real auteur with his most personal vision, based on his childhood experiences with his mother and the family’s housekeeper in Mexico City (not Rome, Italy).  The other top candidates would be for Spike Lee (SH#1), who I think will be honored elsewhere, or Adam McKay, for “Vice” (SH#2). Yorgos Lanthanos, “The Favourite”, would be a longshot choice that would annoy many, including me.  Winner:  Cuaron, Roma. 

Adapted Screenplay - I think this will be the one Spike will win (for “BlacKKKlansman”, SH#1); he is in the writing credits with some others.  That will give him the chance to give a (short) speech, the best outcome for all.  “If Beale Street Could Talk” and “A Star Is Born” are more classic source material that could provide an upset.   Winner:  BlacKKklansman. 

Original Screenplay -  This is one of the most wide-open categories.  “Vice” (SH#2) and “Green Book” (SH#1) both had a lot of clever dialogue, though the stories are somewhat familiar.  “The Favourite” (VF) is off-the-wall, surreal history. “Roma” is nominated, overcoming the fact that the original script is not in English (so some may be “lost in translation’ for many viewers).  The longshot bet is “First Reformed”*, a religious story by well-known writer Paul Schrader.  Winner:  Green Book.

Original Song - “Shallow” (SH#1), Lady Gaga’s character’s top song from “A Star Is Born”, seems like a sure winner.  I was shocked that they seem to have decided not to invite Lin-Manuel Miranda to perform his rap from “Mary Poppins Returns” (SH#2).  Oscar producers really didn’t like that movie.  Winner: A Star Is Born. 

Original Score - The usual award in this category goes to a recognized Hollywood music director who produces a big sound to go with the visuals--this would argue for Alexandre Desplat for “Isle of Dogs” (JS); he’s won before.  There are more interesting choices this year, though, including jazz musician Terrence Blanchard’s score for “BlacKKKlansman”, and the African-oriented score for “Black Panther” (SH#1).  Yet another: Vanity Fair picked the score for “If Beale Street Could Talk”, good electronic ambience. Winner: Black Panther. 

Cinematography -  Another Cuaron controversy.  Unusually, he was the Director of Photography for “Roma” (VF, JS) when ace cinematographer “Chivo” Lubezki (his buddy) had to pull out.  He’s still favored, but I’m thinking instead it will be “The Favourite” (SH#1, JS), its cinematography being an unquestioned highlight of viewing the film.   Winner:  Roma. 

Live Action Short, Documentary Short-- I saw none of them, have no clue.  If you want a non-random pick, Vanity Fair went with “Marguerite”* and “Period. End of Sentence”*.  The latter is clearly a good title.   Winner: Period. End of Sentence. 

Film Editing -  This is a core skill area for making good films; there are no accidents among the nominees here.  Two where the film editing is especially noticeable: “Vice” (SH#2, VF) had so many cuts forward and backward in time to be handled skillfully, and “Bohemian Rhapsody” (SH#1)  had to splice together some live-looking performances.  Winner:  Bohemian Rhapsody. 

Visual Effects - Vanity Fair liked the effects in “Avengers: The Infinity War”* (VF), which was also #2 in box office for the year, and that does count for something these days.  The only nominee I saw was the Neil Armstrong movie, “First Man” (SH#1), and it definitely was strong in this area.  There was a Star Wars movie, but it was the critically-panned generic “Solo: A Star Wars Movie” *(JS), and a Spielberg sci-fi (“Ready Player One”*), so I guess you could say it was a strong field.  Winner:  First Man. 

Production Design - This is about the quality and suitability of the physical environment (“the set”)--in terms of the award, the more elaborate, the better.  The clear choices among the nominees are “Mary Poppins Returns” (SH#2) and “Black Panther” (SH#1, VF, JS).  Bet “Roma” (JS) if you believe in the sweep.   Winner: Black Panther. 

Animated Feature - Competitive this year.  “Isle of Dogs” (SH#1) would be the critics’ favorite; “Spiderman: Toward the Spider-verse”* (VF, JS) is the trendy pick.  I heard some good things about “Incredibles 2”*.   Winner:  Spiderman. 

Animated Short - I only heard anything about one nominee, “Bao”*  (means pouch, or dumpling).  Good luck with any of the others.  Winner: Bao. 

Foreign Language Movie - A very strong field of nominees, but there’s only one pick: “Roma”.  I read a counter-argument for “Cold War”*, which is also one of the Best Picture nominees, out of a spread-the-wealth philosophy, but I think that’s more likely to show up in the Best Picture voting.   I’m going to see “Capernaum”* tomorrow night--I’m very excited about this film done by a Lebanese about a stateless Syrian refugee youth there who sues his parents for the offense of giving birth to him.  (fiction, but filmed with local homeless youth).  Winner:  Roma. 

Actress (Supporting Role) - I want Amy Adams (SH#1) to win for her role as Lynne Cheney in “Vice”; she so deserves an Oscar.  Instead, it seems destined to go to Regina King in If Beale Street Could Talk (VF, JS), which was a worthy, emotionally powerful, role, and there’s some support for the character playing Cuaron’s mother in “Roma” (again, if you believe in the sweep theory).  

Winner:  Regina King, If Beale Street Could Talk

Sound Mixing, Sound Editing - Two different things:  mixing is about putting the sounds together, editing is about putting in sounds.  Not what you might have thought. Anyway, the first would likely be between “A Star Is Born” (SH#2) and “Bohemian Rhapsody” (SH#1, VF), though “Roma” (JS) is also there.   The editing award tends toward war and horror movie sound effects: “Quiet Place”* is about the absence of sound; “First Man” is real loud.   Winners:  Bohemian Rhapsody, Bohemian Rhapsody

Documentary Feature - Appears to be a strong category.  “RBG” (SH#1, JS) should be popular, as the life-story of the sainted Ruth Bader Ginsburg; I wished I’d seen “Free Solo”*, which is about the first person to climb El Capitan, in Yosemite National Park, in a single session, without any ropes or aids.  My wife likes the brave idea in “Of Fathers and Sons” (SH#2), a reporter embedded with ISIS, while Vanity Fair picked “Minding the Gap” (VF), a story of hardscrabble skateboarders in Rockville, Illinois.  Winner: Free Solo.  

Costume Design, Makeup - On Costume Design, a couple of likely nominees are “Mary, Queen of Scots”* and “The Favourite” (SH#2), being movies featuring folks dressed in centuries-old fancy stuff.   But the likely winner this year is “Black Panther” (SH#1, VF), with a famed longtime costume director Ruth Carter expected to win her deserved Oscar.  It will be important for her to win this early to set a good tone in terms of a diverse set of award-winners, which the Academy is definitely seeking.  On Makeup, there are only three nominees and “Vice” is the overwhelming favorite, due to the great job on Christian Bale’s prosthetics making him into Dick Cheney.  Winners:  Black Panther, Vice.

Actor (Supporting Role) - A very interesting category to start off the night, with five strong candidates. Stoner Household’s clear pick was Adam Driver, Spike Lee’s inspired choice to play the Jewish police guy who crashes the KKK on behalf of his black colleague who provided the “wypipo voice” (“BlacKKKlansman”).  If you don’t get what I’m saying, watch the movie. Mahershala Ali (“Green Book”, VF, SH#2) was excellent as the cultured concert pianist touring the Jim Crow South in 1960, but he won--very recently. Personally, I thought both Sam Rockwell as Dubya (“Vice”, SH#2) and Sam Elliott, the man of a Thousand Voice-Overs, in “A Star Is Born” were great.  There is a dark-horse pick, though, veteran Richard E. Grant in “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”* (JS), the movie starring comedian Melissa McCarthy, in a serious role, as an author turned forger (she’s nominated for Best Actress, should’ve mentioned that before).  Winner:  Mahershala Ali, Green Book. 

I will update. Best of luck, if you’re in a betting pool!

I chose to feature Vanity Fair's picks because a) it was written very late, so not trying to influence that limited voting pool that matters (the Academy, a few thousand people); b) they're very close to the event and the Oscars gossip.

+ N=2.  Basically,  the considered opinions of my wife Jenifer and me.  Our kids/parents don’t go to the cinemas anymore.

Notes on the history of "A Star Is Born"

I finally got to see the Bradley Cooper/Lady Gaga remake this past weekend.  It was my own fault--didn't see the first run in the theaters, then it disappeared from my sight/reach.  It was released in Pay Per View and DVD this past week.

This is the fourth feature-length version of the film.  A quote from Sam Elliott's character, in this year's model:  "It's the same story, over and over again."  He was talking about the variations that can be made of those twelve tones in the chromatic scale, but it applies to this--no doubt, planned by Cooper, who helmed every aspect of this one and heroically performed, too.

I did some penance research through imdb.com, one of the best sites on the Internet and the one-stop place to research movies there.  imdb.com is branching out, with the times, with ever more TV content, if you need that, too.

The film is always an older man, a veteran performer, who discovers a younger woman. Her rise to stardom coincides with his definitive fall from grace.  Someday they may change that ancient formula; the most politically correct change would be to have a younger man raise up an older woman, if you can imagine that!

Here are some notes, not edited too much.

1937--  Janet Gaynor, Frederic March.  Director William Wellman.    Won Oscar for best original story, by Wellman and Robert Carson. Also, a special honorary award for W. Howard Greene for color photography.  Nominated for six more (best picture, director, actor, actress, assistant director (!), and 'best writing, screenplay' (Alan Campbell, Robert Carson, Dorothy Parker--alphabetical order?)
imdb.com viewers Rated it 7.6  Mode, median 8;  16% @ 10, 1.1% at 1.

Additional:  Music from Franz Liszt.
A husband and wife, he is the successful one, but alcoholic; she is a rising star.  He dies at the end, by drowning (suicide?)  The dialogue is acerbic; it's a savage movie about movies.   Climax:  she says loudly, in public, "This is Mrs. Norman Maine"--the crowd goes wild.
Referenced in "Son of the Beach: A Star is Boned" (2000).  Gay surfer movie, I presume.

1954 Judy Garland, James Mason.   Director: George Cukor.  Writer: Moss Hart (with credits to 1937 writers).  Actor takes on younger singer/actress.  Big budget Technicolor.
Rated 7.7 (I gave it an 8--very good)  Mode,median 8.  21.7% at 10; 1.1% at 1.
Six Oscar nominations, won zero--Garland, Mason, Music score, music song "The Man that Got Away", art direction, costume design.  Judy Garland was crushed she didn't win (Grace Kelly "The Country Girl", very close vote).
Additional: Cukor was nominated for Best Director 5 times, won for My Fair Lady 1964  Also won Emmy for Direction of Love Among the Ruins (Hepburn, Olivier), TV movie--1975. (age 76)  only time Hepburn and Olivier worked together, though lifelong friends.  Cukor directed Hepburn 9 times.

There is a long history of people turning down one role or the other. Anecdote from imdb:

George Cukor offered Marlon Brando the role of Norman Maine on the set of Julius Caesar(1953). "Why would you come to me?" asked Brando. "I'm in the prime of my life... If you're looking around for some actor to play an alcoholic has-been, he's sitting right over there"- pointing at his costar James Mason, who got the part.

1976  Barbra Streisand, Kris Kristofferson.    Story is actually the closest to the current version (singer/songwriter with drug/alcohol problems on the way down finds an amateur singing in a bar and works to make her famous).   Barbra got an Oscar for singing her theme song ("Evergreen"); that may be the result for this one, too
Lowest-rated of them all.  Mean rating 6.4, median 7; mode 6.  16.4% at 10, 4.2% at 1.

2018  Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta), Bradley Cooper.  Directed by Bradley Cooper.  Norman Maine's name changed to Jackson Maine.

Other references in the search "A Star Is Born" on imdb.com: 

2010 - Documentary, from Hungary, with The Decemberists (American indie rock band!)
zvezda je rodena  Language: Serbian   Rated 4.7 (13 raters-- median 4, mode 1 and 7 !)  Director Vanja Kovacevic.  Stars Nemanja Acimovic, Nikola Bercek.

1973 - Described on imdb.com as "The Spanish version of the 1973 classic"; wrong in several ways. Director Armando de Guzman.  Stars Jeanne Young.  Philippines, in Tagalog.

1960 (translated Star tansaeng) --Korean 

A Pornstar is Born (2011--Video)

A Star is Bored  (1956--Short)  Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny.  Daffy subs in for Bugs' dangerous scenes.

A Star is Born World Premiere - a live telecast from 1954 (!)  rated 5.8  (115 raters)
Median 7 Mode 8, 34% 10 (18) or 1(16)

Yearbook Photos and Quotes

I remember the quote I put on my picture for the high-school yearbook:

I had a good quote to put in, but I forgot it. 

I wasn't actually being truthful with that quote: I had thought about it and decided that was what I wanted to put in, and further, I liked the way it suggested that my answer was spur of the moment.

What's the point?  A conscientious person is careful about what he says in public.  Even in that pre-Facebook era (early '70's), we knew, or should have known, by the time we finished high school.

To some extent, responsibility for publishing filthy yearbook material should devolve on the institution:  Eastern Virginia Medical School, who was in charge back then!?  Unless, of course, a yearbook is published entirely independently of the school by some local printer, which I think would be the exception.  The conclusion you must unavoidably draw is that these school institutions tolerated expressions of racial supremacy, while they would not have tolerated, say, nudity.

Knowledge of that should have conditioned the editors of the yearbook, and in the case of Governor Northam of Virginia, I would think it is critical to consult them as to whether "Ralph"* had been expected to provide, or to consent, to the stuff on his page.

In this sense, I think the best possible move in Northam's case was to announce his resignation effective in 30 days, giving the issue time to be fully understood.  It may turn out that way, anyway; he might end up resigning, and it could be just as well.  The same goes for Lt. Gov. Fairfax, who may or may not survive but deserves the opportunity to remain and defend himself if he so chooses.  If Northam is to resign, he should have the chance to control the succession.

One thing was clear in the 2017 election:  Virginia voters chose against racial attacks (see the campaign of Ed Gillespie, the Republican loser).  If the only reason Northam wants to stay on is to have the discussion regarding the deep-seated enablement of racism in Virginia's culture, that's worth ten full one-term gubernatorial administrations in "the Commonwealth".

Back to My Favorite Subject
I went to Jr. high and high school in Virginia, in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley.  We wouldn't have put that kind of stuff in our yearbook, nor would we have it on our stages.  Why?  Because we had black people in our schools.  That's strictly-white-people stuff; the stuff some would do or say if they knew there were no blacks around,  such as in a segregated school or a private school.

Which is not to say there were no racial tensions where I was--there were plenty. Mostly they were below the surface, though a single incident could lead to big problems.+

So, there were a few people I knew who loved to make racial slurs.  Learned behavior, I'm guessing.  They sought to be careful, though, not to be overheard.  The rest of us, we didn't have to join in, agree or anything--just nudge them if they needed to shut up.  That's what I'm talking about when I say the problem--and I'm fairly sure it hasn't changed all that much--is the "enablement of racism".

I didn't get it for quite awhile afterwards.  It is the notion that it is not just a question of the safety of such talk, or of free speech; it is the need to challenge it.   What seems strange is that it isn't "on behalf of my'uns", but of course, that's just what it is!

 I don't know about Northam's area--he is from the Eastern Shore, I've heard, which is a place unto itself--and, as I say, this medical school's yearbook thing is quite suspicious (as are the folks' motivations for turning this up just now), but he gets the chance to say what his experience was growing up, how people treated him, and how he responded.   Then, preferably, he resigns and goes back to his life in peace. 


*His real name is Ralph?  Seriously?  (I always think of the actor Jeremy Northam, who could easily have portrayed the 'guvnor in the film biopic of this guy's tragedy.)

+We had about 20% blacks in our schools, typical of the area (Shenandoah Valley had less slaveholders than much of the South). Today, that population mix means "fervently Republican", for some strange reason.

"Vice", and More

I Wish I'd Written This One
An article in the English paper The Guardian titled  "Donald Trump's worst weeks of 2018--the definitive list"; with this classic English subtitle: "The administration’s base-level awfulness has made this a competitive category but some weeks stood out as truly dire". Kudos to the writer, Adam Gabbatt, who clearly had enough time to do thorough research (and add nice links).

Cliff's notes -  he has them in this order:   Feb.12-16; July 16-20; Aug. 20-24; Sept. 3-7; Dec. 10-14; Dec. 17-21. Set your WayBack machines and enjoy--repeatedly.

 I would go with the July one (Helsinki), because that one did real damage to his base. Although we always tend to remember the recent ones, it does make sense that it's back-end heavy, as the trend for him is worsening.

"Vice" -- the movie 
(contains spoilers, but you should already know the plot elements)
Rather than a historical document (though full of specific dates and factual events), this should be viewed as the creation of the director Adam McKay.  The subject is the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney. McKay's career started with writing comedy (SNL, Talladega Nights) but then stepped it up big-time with "The Big Short", for which he was nominated for the Oscar for Best Director and won for adapted screenplay.  This time he does not have the writing credits, but the movie clearly has his authorship.

In some respects, the film does recall "The Big Short" (the inside story of the financial cause of the Great Crater and those who got ahead of the curve investing on it). An example is that in these "nonfiction" films he allows himself a scene of total comedy invention. In Big Short, he had Margot Robbie explain mortgage-backed derivatives from inside her bathtub; in Vice, he imagines a scene of Cheney and his wife Lynne engaged in pillow talk quoting from Shakespeare.

As in Short, McKay manages to make a dry and depressing subject entertaining, actually full of action. The raw material he found in Cheney's earlier life makes it possible: Cheney's early drunkenness, with Lynne telling him off; Cheney telling off Lynne's father after her mother's suspicious death by drowning; the scene when daughter Mary comes out as lesbian to Lynne and Cheney. Eventually, we get to the meat of the matter, with Cheney taking over (usurping?) in the Situation Room on 9/11, Cheney shooting the judge with the shotgun "while hunting' (in the movie, it's from a car!), Cheney ordering Scooter Libby to link the Wilson couple--Ambassador Joseph Wilson and CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame--if that occurred according to the scene, it was a criminal act never prosecuted (Scooter, though--that's a different story).

More than entertainment, though, the movie strives for greatness with its ensemble of actors.  First I must name Amy Adams as Lynne Cheney - what is there to say, except she consistently gives great performance in a huge variety of roles?   Here, she is playing a person of note, a writer and a woman with sharp intellect who has a deep understanding of the limitations of her time for a woman, even more so for one from a humble background, but one who is still hugely ambitious. It is her relationship to Cheney that McKay keys upon in his use of the dialogue from MacBeth where she guides and goads him to take that VP role from Dubya.

Sam Rockwell as George W. Bush was the one who amazed me most, in his expert impersonation of the voice and manner  of someone we all know all too well.   Unlike Christian Bale as Cheney, he may have been unwilling to put  on an extra 20 pounds (maybe 40 for Bale?) for the role, but the intimate, friendly W. good-ol'-boy is critically important in making credible McKay's presentation of Bush's intention always to have Cheney as the running mate and Cheney's initial reluctance even to consider taking it.

Then there is Steve Carrell as Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney's first employer in Washington (Dick was Rummy's intern when Rumsfeld was a junior Representative from Illinois). McKay shows them as being Partners in Climb throughout their careers, ultimately placing Rumsfeld in the room to push for the Iraq invasion (I was surprised not to hear Carrell speak the words "target-rich environment") so that Cheney didn't have to do it.   And I must give credit to Tyler Perry, playing Colin Powell, and LisaGay Hamilton as Condi Rice.  And there are many others.

The Bottom LIne on "Vice"
This movie is propaganda, of the best sort.  It's not quite comedy, not quite satire (too real).  I have to say it puts Michael Moore in the shade, much as i like that dude and his style, too.  This is a pro hit job.  I saw a quote from McKay in which he said that he viewed Cheney as a much more serious threat to the country than Trump. (don't know where, now)  Although I think the judgment is premature, it is clear that McKay gave a great deal of study and thought to this film, and that he was deeply disturbed by what Cheney did.

At the same time, McKay was astonished by the nature of Cheney's accomplishment, assisted by his legal accomplice David Eddington, who developed the "unitary Executive" theory's VP-corollary that the job, uniquely, has no meaningful check-and-balance.    Beyond that, he is sympathetic to the challenges Cheney faced, with his health,  with being consistent in supporting his daughter Mary, as well as being a reformed alcoholic from his early adult days.

Oscar-wise, this one could get a bunch of nominations--screenplay, editing, directing, all four acting roles, and Best Picture--but I don't see it sweeping the board like that.  It is clearly not going to be popular universally, and there are many interpretations of fact that can be dissected and dissed.  Its enduring value, though, comes from the very serious charges McKay makes through the movie about  the conniving underpinning under legal cover which allowed Cheney--who was basically an unregulated missile in the Executive Mansion (and a bunch of other places, as McKay shows) --to expand his practical control of the powers of government way beyond those envisioned for the Vice-Presidency, and to set Bush up as the goat for entering the Iraq war.  Think of whether the Founders would have wanted Aaron Burr to be able to order around the military, potentially initiating conflict, while he kept Thomas Jefferson in the air and out of the way?

Quickies
HBO running through the past seasons of "Game of Thrones" is what I would call good TV programming.   Sets us up for the new one, I guess, and meanwhile fills our monthly quotas of sex and violence without having to view network schlock or football.   I missed the marathons of seasons 2-4 while on holiday, but it really doesn't matter.

Music:  It's such a fragmented scene, anything I can say would only pertain to my little shard of it..  I would mention MGMT, alt-J, Kurt Vile, Mitski, St. Vincent as younger ones for whom my appreciation appreciated notably.  Among veterans,  Jack White, Muse, Imagine Dragons.  I'm impressed by the persistence of Tom Petty encomia; there seems to be a permanent SiriusXM station for him (big deal, you say). My concert of the year was David Byrne's American Utopia tour.  I'm happy The Cure and Roxy Music will be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame this year.  And Broken Bells is coming out with new music this year!


2018 was clearly better than 2017, which was probably the worst one since 2001.  I feel that 2019 is going to be good and 2020 even better. 
Does it go without saying?  Well, anyway, to all who read this:

Happy 2019!

Movie Guide, for the Holidays and the Oscars (2018)

I do not have a privileged viewpoint in seeing the end-of-year flood of films timed for maximum Oscar impact.  I just go to the cinema when I have the chance now, in a small town with big-city cinemas hours distant, but I still go often.  I admit to being a buff, though I limit myself to a couple of thunderous action movies, a couple of sequels,  and a couple of animated features a year.  I am mostly interested in comedy, drama, and the occasional musically-themed film. +  I am not a TV guy (nor do I write a TV Guide).

My main factual resource for this piece is the recently-announced set of Golden Globes movie nominations. The Globes  (GG, below) are a good, independently-drawn small-sample (without replacement),  providing a sense of future Oscar voters' likely views.  It's a good estimate, though early in the award season--later-released films will rise for Oscar consideration.

The Golden Globes have the weird feature of having two sets of awards for movies (for best picture and lead actor and actress), one for Drama and one for Comedy or Musical, and they have a very weird approach to assigning films to the categories. Still, if one puts together the nominees for best picture for the two categories, the result is 10 names, which is how many the Oscars are now possibly including in its nominations.

The (Preliminary) Nominees
Here they are, with the GG category, release date, and a note for each, intended primarily for those who have not heard of these names.
A Star is Born (D) (already--Oct. 5 ) - I would've put this under comedy/musical.  I have to admit I haven't seen it, though.  It could yet be one of my two sequels, but I'd have to hurry.  More likely to see it on HBO or something, later.  I do respect the effort, though; I was not at all surprised to read that Lady Gaga gave a great performance.  She was born to act...and play music.   (#redo category)

Black Panther (D) (Feb. 16)  I think all superhero movies should be under comedy/musical--it's not really ever serious. (#redo) That being said, very well made, a blockbuster that will also get award respect. it could still win for something like screenplay or effects, though the awards don't often go to movies released this early in the year.

BlackKKKlansman (D) (Aug. 10)  I'd say the best Spike Lee joint since the '90's.  A fantastic concocted story that's true, of a black who was admitted as a KKK member (with a white colleague for the face-to-mask meetings).  Casting Adam Driver was extremely smart.

Bohemian Rhapsody (D, but totally should be in musical #redo ) - (Nov. 2 ).  The story of Freddy Mercury, lead singer of Queen, and his meteoric life and death.  A story very well told.  Lead role is Rami Halek (Mr. Robot on TV) as Mercury, an award-worthy performance. The musical recapitulations are fantastic;  I don't know but I think they must have been lip-synched. 

If Beale Street Could Talk (D) --  (Dec. 25-limited release) -  Harlem story, there better be some good music. I want to say a dark-horse candidate for top awards, but I don't want that to be viewed as a disingenuous slur.  What I mean is, the pedigree (director from Moonlight, story from James Baldwin, top stars) is impeccable, but the box office and critical appeal are unproven at this point.*
  
Crazy Rich Asians (C or M) (Aug. 15) - My wife wouldn't let me take her to see it.  We used to live in Singapore, so we know the milieu.  I presume it was light, entertaining, good box office (especially abroad--this one's GG nomination could be a case of sample bias vs. the AMPAS) .

The Favourite (C or M) (Nov. 23) --the classification of this one seems totally absurd at first glance.  You would think: Costume drama-- Queen Anne of England, I think, with Emma Wood and Rachel Weisz; good on the eyes.  Actually, it's probably something completely different--satire, with esoteric comedy appeal, if any, by the writer/director Y.  Lanthimos (The Lobster).  If you saw that, you know what I mean. 

Green Book (C or M- #redo,  though there's great music)  (Nov. 16).  Driving Miss Daisy with a twist--the chauffeur is white, the passenger black.  Based on the true story of jazz pianist Don Shirley's visit to the segregated South in the '60's, and the 'goombah' bouncer who was his driver. Both Viggo Mortensen (lead actor, for the GG) and Mahershala Ali (supporting, as Shirley) will get serious consideration for awards.  Loved the American Italian dialogue, Ali's keyboard-acting artistry.  

Mary Poppins Returns (C or M) - (Dec. 25 )- Emily Blunt, Lin-Manuel Miranda, and others.  Modern depression, and its cure.  A true musical.

Vice  (C or M) ( Dec. 15 ) - #redo.   This is the one with the best buzz, as lead actors Christian Bale and Amy Adams re-create the magic from American Hustle, with Dick Cheney's career being the current subject.

(the listing is alphabetical, by GG category) 

Not Nominated by the Hollywood Foreign Press

(For Whatever Reason)

(with theoretical release dates--have you seen them? I have not nor seen that they are out)
Boy Erased (Nov. 8)  - Nicole Kidman and Lucas Hedges ('Young Actor of the Year') - Gay Conversion drama; 
At Eternity's Gate (Nov 15 -*)  Willem Dafeoe is Vincent Van Gogh.  artistic appeal, for sure;
Roma (Nov. 21*)  - The one I am most eager to see, the Amarcord of Alejandro Cuaron.   Cuaron's right at the top now; I prefer him slightly over his buddy Inarritu;
Ballad of Buster Scruggs (Nov. 9*) - the Coen Brothers' (latest) Western, in six parts.  If you can, translate O Brother, Where Art Thou to the Old West.   Works for me.

Finally, Vox Lux (Dec. 7) -Natalia Portman plays a Gaga-like performer.  Lady Gaga will be at the Oscars ceremony, will Portman?

Early Oscar Talk
 (skip if it annoys you):  
You might think that "Vice" will win Best Picture, but I think it will be 'Mary Poppins Returns'.  If it clicks, it will still be showing next summer.  'Roma' will be relegated to foreign language film. 
Best Actor would seem between two guys who put on weight for their roles--Mortensen (a/k/a Aragorn) and Bale. If Rami gets nominated, that would be something to note. 
Actress will be very interesting and telling.  I think Gaga will be nominated but not win, but it is a possibility.  Emily Blunt will be in there.  And there's others:  I just love Amy Adams.  Is this the year?  Rosamund Pike for "A Private War" (the story of Marie Colvin) has a shot. 
Director is always interesting.  I think Bradley Cooper will snag a nom. Spike Lee might.  Cuaron.  Probably no women. 


*I hate this release strategy (the Ol' Harvey Weinstein), though it is frequently chosen for critical faves with uncertain prospects. 

+The history of movie soundtracks is a favorite subject. 
#redo - the category shown is what GG did; I would disagree.  
(Did I forget to mention sex?  Another publick goode.) /s

Conjecture

(Much of this is true.)

Our President's bad mood last weekend was easy to read.  As they said in the old gangster movies, The Jig Is Up.  No more cake for you, Donald!

Though Paul Manafort had backed off his earlier plea deal by lying to Mueller and sharing information about the investigation with the White House (good!), Michael Cohen sprang a bigger leak in the Drumpfseeflotte by pleading guilty to lying to Congress about ongoing talks with Russia into 2016.  Very bad.

Trump had a dream--it was to be his crowning achievement.  He wanted to make it happen in Moscow, the biggest hotel of all time.  Running for President (not winning) was a strategy to build his brand up towards that. And, while he was running, he could raise holy Hell in the meantime with the media and those who had failed to respect him.

In 2015 and early 2016 the dealings with the Russians were proceeding, but Trump kept it at arms-length while his campaign was still a going concern.  The Republican candidates ended up falling like bowling pins, though. Worse, people liked what he had to say on these national issues, simple expression of his uninformed instincts,  by which his gut had always guided him.  It then became apparent that the nomination was his (though winning the general election was, and would always remain, unlikely).

No problem.  The deal was put on hold until after the election.  The day chosen was the same day Russia entered the campaign more aggressively on Trump's behalf through their agents Assange (and Snowden?).  Though the Trumps wanted the leaks, the timing was strange:  It could have been a trick from either side;  perhaps it was the subject of their private meeting in Helsinki, when Trump explained the necessity while not retracting his offer of the future penthouse.

Once again, though, fate intervened, and through a combination of errors and accidents, he won a smashing victory in the Electoral College despite never catching his opponent in popular opinion.  WTF?

Now things started to get very complicated quickly.  First Mike Flynn overstepped and had to be sacrificed....and so on.  Now Donald realizes that dream is never going to happen--this Presidency thing has gotten in the way, permanently.

Negotiated Withdrawal 
Donald Trump  claims to be the expert negotiator.  I think it's time to put this to the real test. The idea is very simple, though it will take some time to work out important details--so it's critical to begin soon.

Trump doesn't run in 2020, agreeing to be a one-term President No more indictments (from the date of the agreement) of White House personnel until after the completion of his term.

No tricks. Trump would agree not to seek or allow the nomination for President of the Republican party nor encourage nor allow his candidacy by any other entity.   He, his children, and certain named White House staff would remain immune from any criminal indictments through US courts until Jan., 2021. This agreement would preclude indictment (Federal or state courts), but would not  prejudice investigation, or even prosecution, subsequent to his administration for acts either before Election Day, 2016 or in his continuing role as a private citizen.  Congressional leaders would forswear impeachment for a set of past subjects

The benefits of such an agreement to all concerned can be described.  Trump leaves office with his head high, and his family intact.  (Whether they stick around afterwards to face the music or run for it, I don't know.)  The election can proceed normally; Congress can avoid having to put everybody through the pain of impeachment and even some of the endless subpoenas and fights over executive privilege..  The Presidency can avoid the contamination and condemnation that the Ford pardon of Nixon caused.  The voting public can focus on what comes next after this aberrant episode. The Special Prosecutor would continue its work, developing cases, but on a reduced budget, until the end of the term; that would reduce lasting damage to the Department of Justice, the FBI, etc.

The terms of the proposed agreement would  take some time to arrange, during which Mueller's investigation and prosecutions will continue, delivering hammer blows until Trump finally faces reality and accepts the need to talk (I would imagine he would turn the idea down flat the first couple times it would be suggested.) 

There are key details that must be worked out:   the specifics of the immunity for family members and Donald  (until January, 2021); and disposition of the money Trump has already raised for his 2020 campaign. (Reported to be $100 milion; as far as I'm concerned, he can keep it.)  There are a number of parties that need to agree on this, besides Trump, and he would need to make a Shermanesque statement of disavowing a run for 2020.   That would be the hardest part; he will need to be persuaded it's his best option.

Maybe then he could build his hotel in Moscow.

Preview of the 2020 Democratic Caravan

 It has been more than a week since Election Day, so here's a line-by-line review of the most likely Democratic candidates, as ranked--reverse order of top 15-- by a Post staffer last weekend, with a little additional detail and my preliminary opinion.  I don't endorse the WP ranking, but it does have semblance of reality.

15.Delaney (John; Rep. MD) --Of all the the thousands of emails I received asking for money in
the midterm campaign (yes, one of those; I had plenty of Republican and Gun Nut ones writing me, too)
Delaneys' were the best among those who are running for President, full of carefully considered positiions.
More successful candidates will crib heavily from them. *

14.Avenatti (Michael, no known affiliations or honors) - I will say this about him: he can take things to
lows that Trump has not yet achieved (no, I don't want to give him more time)

13.Deval Patrick -- (ex-Gov. MA) I don't think he'll run. If he does, it may put Obama in a difficult position
whether to get behind him and get that out of the way, or wait and see if he gets traction..
That's why I think Obama will advise him not to run

12. HRC (2016 nominee) --neither the most likely to declare, nor most wealthy, nor best
choice among NY millionaires.

11.Klobuchar (Sen. MN) (dark horse if we want non-confrontational, serious)--She will be game.
Will voters respond? It will be a test of the "looks don't matter that much for women" political hypothesis.
Personally, I find that theory dubious, as they certainly matter for men candidates. Another theory is that
a non-confrontational, serious approach could be the best opponent for Trump. Maybe, but I'm
afraid it could be the perfect foil, something completely different.

10.Terry McAuliffe --former VA Gov. and DNC Chair. Could become a favorite of the Clintonesque
moderates, which would mean enough money to compete. Probably can't break the eggshells
around him.

9. Mike Bloomberg (one of the finalists, if he runs this time). I can live with him as the
nominee (and thus, implicitly, our next President), despite the bad optics. He was the best
NYC mayor since before John Lindsay. Maybe he and Drumpf can agree at a max spending number--
$5 billion per?

8. Beto   (no Gillum, Abrams) all, nothing, in between, or doesn't run are each about 25%.
I prefer candidates that win.

7. Sherrod Brown - I want to see what others see; I see the 2020 winner if we admit the possibility..

6. Kirsten - She will be a finalist in future elections. Probably not this time, as I see her as
being far less well-known than Kamala or Elizabeth Warren and not having much time to change it.

5. Corybooker - He may be a finalist in future elections--he has a good record but his brand
has suffered. Kamala Harris puts him in the shade, charisma-wise. (no pun or ill intent)

4.Biden - Not again? I was a big fan in the mid '70's. Honestly, I was. He has frequently disappointed.
Yes, he would make up for all that disappointment if he gave Trump a good thorough beating (as he
has sort-of threatened to do)--and I mean in the election, damnit!

3. Kamala - Right now, the betting favorite at predictit (though Bloomberg, Sherrod, Beto,
Hillary are not in the pool right now). I don't particularly see it; the goal is to win the election.
I can hear Trump now saying "Camel-la!"--like he said "'Gina!" (like "angina") Does that matter?
It shouldn't, but it does. . I will say that winning SC would put her into the finalists, though.

2.  Bernie - A finalist if he runs, but I think he won't.

1. Warren--Not the showdown I am looking for, Dickhead vs. Pocahontas. Although she has the
intellectual chops to destroy him, I think the reality would play out
stupid and sleazy--like Clinton vs. Trump was.

Honorable mentions: 1) Steve Bullock, 2) Jason Kander, 3) Pete Buttigieg,
4) Eric Garcetti, 5) Julián Castro, 6) Tim Ryan, 7) Tom Steyer, 8) John Hickenlooper,
9) Jeff Merkley, 10) Seth Moulton, 11) Martin O’Malley, 12) Eric Swalwell,
13) Jay Inslee, 14) Howard Schultz

These are all guys (I see no women in that list!) who The Post thinks is at least a possible candidate.  Quick hits:  1) MT - Gov., that counts for me; 2) see Beto; 3) the South Bend, IN mayor--many are impressed, perhaps too easily; 4) Mayor of Los Angeles--deserves some attention?  5) Julian Castro--I think he may be running for consideration as VP--I prefer Carmen Yulin Ruiz, the mayor of San Juan,  Puerto Rico. 6) anti-Pelosi Dem. Congressman from Ohio--I give him credit for courage, if not coherence; 7) Big-time billionaire financier of Dems. who wanted Trump impeached in 2018! Crazy.
9) Solid lefty Senator from Oregon, if that's what we think the winning ticket would be; 10)  (MA Rep.) see Tim Ryan; 11) Remember him?  I do. Moving on...12) Do not know who he may be; 13) Gov. WA--see Jeff Merkley; 14) Starbucks CEO If Bloomberg doesn't run, he might have a chance to break through.


Since the Post published this list, Richard Ojeda (WV State Senator, loser in 2018 Congressional race) has announced he plans to run.  I say, let him run as a Republican (he voted for Trump in 2016); somebody needs to do it.   I've seen the interviews and he is a potent distraction; a Trump spin-off
who makes a good impression.

*(In other categories, I would cite Carolyn Boudreaux--in a race still undeclared race, but probably
a loser--and Alan Graham's (just for their humor; and his pungent contextual commentary). Graham
lost big in a Democratic Congressional primary and--depending on his campaign fund's balance--

probably done for good.
What happens to that money, anyway? I heard Donald Trump has $100MM;
I would be glad to call it a day and he can keep it, as long as he promises never to run again.