Variety Reviews "Australia"

Flop of the year? Maybe not:

Embracing grand old-school melodrama while critiquing racist old-fashioned politics, Baz Luhrmann's grandiose "Australia" provides a luxurious bumpy ride; like a Rolls-Royce on a rocky country road, it's full of bounces and lurches, but you can't really complain about the seat. Deliberately anachronistic in its heightened style of romance, villainy and destiny, the epic lays an Aussie accent on colorful motifs drawn from Hollywood Westerns, war films, love stories and socially conscious dramas. Some of it plays, some doesn't, and it is long. But the beauty of the film's stars and landscapes, the appeal of the central young boy and, perhaps more than anything, the filmmaker's eagerness to please tend to prevail, making for a film general audiences should go with, even if they're not swept away. Robust, but not boffo, box office looks in store.

I stand by my prediction that Australia will be a significant flop, since big Nicole Kidman epics - post-Moulin Rouge - don't seem to do well (The Golden Compass, anyone?). For all her acting talents and celebrity star power, she is not a big box office draw. She's not. Even when she was winning an Oscar and serving as the It Girl of the Moment a few years ago, she was hardly what you could call automatic box office gold. Maybe Australia will change all that. Who knows? It very well might - but I won't bet on it.

The Crazy Christian Right

And why they're here to stay:

The problem with Sarah Palin, at least according to pre-election polls, was not that she exemplified/amplified the Christian right. It was that voters perceived her to be incompetent and not able to handle the job of commander in chief. In any event, there might be evidence to support this claim; Barack Obama ( a self-described evangelical, it must be said) turned over a whole bunch of suburbs in fast-growing areas. Democrats tried mightily to make inroads with conservative evangelicals, and they failed. This demographic group is, as Larison points out, is one of the most reliable factions within the party. At this point, they matter enough. The dirty secret is not that a large part of the Republican establishment is worried about their influence. There are two secrets, actually: one -- that the "leaders" of the various movements within social conservatism are ill-adapted to modern politics and can exacerbate tensions between the movement and outsiders; and two -- that a large part of the Republican establishment believes they can pander to these voters, not address their core concerns, and still rely on them for support. You can't build a Republican Party without them, but, depending on where you are in this great land of ours, you can safely ignore their cultural demands and still be a success, even if you're a Republican. When Charlie Crist ran for governor of Florida, he vacillated between pandering to the right and ignoring them. As governor, he's ignored them. And his approval rating is at 68%.

These people just flabbergast me to no end. Otherwise, I'd write something about them here, but I can't right now. Maybe later.

A Jewish Prayer of Thanks for Obama

Barack atah Illinois, Elohenu melech ha'olam, hoo-ray p'ri ha-electoral landslide.

Amen.

Hey Dems: Settle Down!

So, people on the left are freaking out over Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, etc. etc. etc. There are a lot of people in the progressive/liberal blogosphere who reeeeeally don't like the picks Obama has made so far for his Cabinet and White House team.

Personally, I think everyone should settle down. I trust the guy at the top. He has sound judgment, he is a brilliant thinker and he knows what he's doing - at least until further notice. This guy has spent his entire life defying expectations and outsmarting people. There's no reason to doubt him now: he outpaced a Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination, and then handily defeated a guy who, not too long ago, was arguably the most popular politician in America.

Ezra Klein has some thoughts on the Left's (momentary) hysteria:

The longtime Democratic operatives and wonks are really quite good. Paired with this president, and this moment, and this congressional majority, they can go much further than they did under the Clinton administration. It's hard to say whether that'll prove right or wrong. But deciding to shorten the executive learning curve as much as possible and appoint folks with the experience to harness a transient opportunity isn't an implausible strategic decision. The staff will carry out the president's agenda. What's being sought out, then, is not brilliant new ideas for what that agenda should look like, but indisputable technical competence. If the e-mails I'm getting from Obama supporters are representative, however, it's nevertheless not the approach most of them expected.

The people Obama has brought on board will serve at the pleasure of the president. Barack Obama is not going to suddenly not be Barack Obama. He is a left-of-center guy, but efficiently so, if that makes sense. The guy is a fucking lawyer: he's used to hearing all sides of an argument. So bringing in relatively hawkish people like Hillary Clinton does not mean that he will immediately acquiesce to their more conservative view of the world. It behooves everyone - even people on the left, and we're usually right, of course :) - to hear opposing points of view from time to time, if not quite frequently. It helps one form a more mature, well-rounded frame of reference. And that's a very good thing to have in a president.

So chill the fuck out about Joe Lieberman, leave Hillary Clinton alone (I can't believe I just said that...) and have some faith in your President-elect. Don't worry, be happy. Remember: WE WON THE FREAKING ELECTION! You're gonna like most of President Obama's agenda, I promise.

Gold Star Winner: November 18, 2008

Paul Begala
Legendary Democratic Strategist

So former DNC chairman (and longtime Clintonista) Terry McAuliffe is running for governor of Virginia in 2009. Word is that he's embarked on a "charm offensive" in the Old Dominion ahead of the Democratic primary.

Here's what Paul Begala had to say about that:

"Terry could sell shit to the zoo. He's the best salesman in the world."

Love it!

Sarah Palin Alert: The 2012 Draft Begins

COMMITTEE FORMS URGING GOV. SARAH "MOOSE" PALIN (R-AK) TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2012

It was only a matter of time. And sure enough, just two weeks after Election Day 2008, a "Draft Sarah" movement has emerged:

"Since forming our committee last week, we now have State Organizers in ten states and thousands from across the nation who have signed on as supporters," writes Kelly. "We feel that for Conservatives to be successful again, we must get back to the core principles of Conservatism. Sarah Palin's popularity and her Conservative values that she embodies will be the catalyst that will resurrect the Conservative base and reform the Republican Party of the near future."

Hmmm... nooooo, not actually. Last time I checked, Sarah Palin doesn't represent anything close to the core principles of conservatism (and no, I refuse to capitalize that word). Palin represents nutjob Christian fundamentalism, sure, but conservatism... I don't think so (at least not in the mind of this tree-hugging, gay marriage-loving, bleeding-heart liberal leftist commie).

Nevertheless, I urge you to visit the website for the Draft Sarah Committee, which you can do here. You'll find some curious things, like a homepage that features a picture of Sarah Palin cooking at home in Wasilla ("See, she's a regular gal! She cooks! She's a mom! Let's elect her president!"). If you go to the Photos section, you'll also see that the committee has posted that Photoshopped image of Palin on the cover of Vogue, even though, well, it's FAKE. Yet the caption reads "In Vogue." I really hope the caption is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Do they mean "En Vogue?" Like the band? Seriously, though... not even a committee devoted to electing Sarah Palin president could be that stupid, could they?

I won't answer that. Just visit the damn website. It'll make you laugh.

Why Lieberman Kept His Chairmanship

By now, you've probably heard that the Senate Democrats are going to allow Joe Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Here's Marc Ambinder's take on why events unfolded the way they did:

...were Senate Democrats in a retributive mood, it's easy to imagine how these sins would become venal and prohibitively grave, and bye-bye- Joe. Kicking Lieberman out of his job would have made Democrats feel good about being Democrats. It would encourage party loyalty, and what political scientists call the solidary benefits of political party membership. It would discourage those who bucked the party line.

But Senate Democrats are in a governing mood. Winning by seven points nationally and having large majorities in both chambers can do that to a party. It's going to be easier, relative to punishing Lieberman (and therefore pushing him to the Republican Party), to send progressive legislation to the President. They'll need him on filibuster breaking votes. His impact on foreign policy will be minimal. Some Senators have taken to the microphones to brag about the spirit of reconciliation that pervades the party. Maybe. But the Democrats today have sent the message that they favor convenience over party; expediency over parochialism. Make no mistake: keeping Lieberman where he was the expedient decision here.

In my judgement, they made the right call. Pick your battles. A bloody fight over Lieberman isn't worth it. Save it for Social Security, or climate change, or something that is going to affect most Americans' lives.

Obama on Climate Change

Here's part of a message he delivered to the Bi-Partisan Governors Global Climate Summit, being held this week in Los Angeles:

Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.

I know many of you are working to confront this challenge. In particular, I want to commend Governor Sebelius, Governor Doyle, Governor Crist, Governor Blagojevich and your host, Governor Schwarzenegger -all of you have shown true leadership in the fight to combat global warming. And we've also seen a number of businesses doing their part by investing in clean energy technologies.

But too often, Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership. That will change when I take office. My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.

There are more specifics if you follow the link. There is much work to be done, and this is only the beginning of what will surely be a difficult process in combating climate change, but the President-elect has given us every reason to believe that he recognizes the threat and is extremely serious about overcoming this challenge. I commend him for what seems to be decisive action he is going to take.

The Mandating Game

After (finally) winning the popular vote by 2.5 points, George W. Bush claimed victory in the presidential election and declared, "I have political capital. I intend to spend it." In other words, a 51-48 percent victory nationwide, along with a 286-252 majority in the electoral college, meant a second term mandate for W and his good ol' boys (and Condi, too).

This time around, Barack Obama received more votes than Bush (or anyone in American history, for that matter), won the popular vote by about 7 points (up from Bush's 2.5), and won at least 365 electoral votes from previously Republican places like Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and even an elector from Nebraska. Yet, as Jonathan Chait points out in the upcoming edition of The New Republic, apparently that doesn't equal a mandate:

Unlike Bush, Obama has declined to claim a mandate, and many Democrats have publicly said that he lacks one. And so, although Obama nearly tripled Bush's 2004 victory margin and did so without having to explicitly solicit the support of voters who disagreed with the core of his agenda, the conventional wisdom has quickly concluded that the public does not support his plans to make the tax code more progressive, reform health care, and the like.

You can argue about how important a role Obama's platform played in his victory. But, to read any newspaper in the days following the election, you'd think that Obama had to start crafting his agenda completely from scratch. "He ran on a platform to change the country and its politics," wrote Washington Post lead political analyst Dan Balz. "Now he must begin to spell out exactly how." Now? I thought that by the end of the campaign even blind and deaf hermits could tell you that Obama had a plan that could be found at barackobama.com/plan. I've resigned myself to the fact that political reporters don't feel compelled to familiarize themselves with the candidates' programs in detail, but they should, at minimum, be aware of their existence.

Folks, Barack Obama has a mandate. If George W. Bush had a mandate, then Barack Obama has the mandate to end all mandates. If a narrow victory across a red/blue divide (not to mention a questionable win in the critical state of Ohio, which tipped the election) was enough to earn "political capital," then, Barack, you've got some dough to spend.

Seriously though, I look at this situation the same way I look at the current Senate/chairmanship/caucus expulsion drama over Shameless Joe Lieberman: in life, and in politics, you have to pick your battles. If Karl Rove & Co. want to say that Obama doesn't have a mandate, and that the country is still "center-right" in spite of this year's big Democratic victory, fine: let them say it. It doesn't change the fact that Obama is the first Democrat to win men and independents in a generation, nor does it change the fact that the Democrats will go into 2009 with larger majorities in Congress than the Republicans ever had during that awful 1994-2006 period.

To have a continuing debate over "mandate or no mandate" is a waste of time and energy. I'd rather save my bullets for a fight over health care, or our Iraq/Afghanistan policy, or the environment. Let's not have the Left and the Democrats engage in a debate over whether or not Obama has more political capital than Bush did, or silly shit like that. As Leo McGarry once said, "We're gonna raise the level of public debate in this country, and let that be our legacy."

And as Bobby Kennedy said before that, "Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man, and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country, and for our people."

Amen. Let's get to work.

"The Moose Stops Here"

The always-brilliant Frank Rich:

Will the 2008 G.O.P. go the way of the 1936 G.O.P., which didn’t reclaim the White House until 1952? Even factoring in the Democrats’ time-honored propensity for self-immolation, it’s not beyond reason. The Republicans are in serious denial. A few heretics excepted, they hope to blame all their woes on their unpopular president, the inept McCain campaign and their party’s latent greed for budget-busting earmarks.

The trouble is far more fundamental than that. The G.O.P. ran out of steam and ideas well before George W. Bush took office and Tom DeLay ran amok, and it is now more representative of 20th-century South Africa during apartheid than 21st-century America. The proof is in the vanilla pudding. When David Letterman said that the 10 G.O.P. presidential candidates at an early debate looked like “guys waiting to tee off at a restricted country club,” he was the first to correctly call the election.

No one knows for sure, of course, what is in store for the Republicans - or for the Democrats either. But what I do know is that recent whining by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity that "there's no problem with conservatism because more people in this country still identify as conservative rather than liberal" is missing the point.

They're right, in a sense: there's nothing wrong with old-fashioned, common sense conservatism. But the "conservatism" that Limbaugh and Hannity subscribe to is really nothing more than blind-faith devotion to the economic insanity, wedge issues and cultural warfare to which the Republican Party has married itself for the past three decades. Spending more money while cutting taxes is not conservative. Telling people whom they can and cannot marry is not conservative. Intervening with Terri Schiavo's life is not conservative. Putting initiatives on state ballots that would deny people the right to decide whether or not they want to have an abortion or adopt a child is not conservative. Supporting a holy war against a relatively defenseless opponent who did not attack us - and continuing to support it even as it was horribly mismanaged - is not conservative.

The GOP has become a band of nonsensical and deluded hypocrites utterly ignorant of the place in which they find themselves. This year, we got to hear John McCain, - who has been in lock step with George W. Bush for most of his presidency - deride the Democrats as bringers of "big government," as if he was somehow asleep as the Bush administration oversaw the biggest expansion of federal government in U.S. history. And that was the nonsense being spewed by their nominee for president! (Though, frankly, it pales in comparison to the bullshit artist that is Sarah Palin.)

But, then again, the entire party is based on BS. The Republicans say they are "for life" because they don't want women to have the right to choose to have an abortion - yet God forbid anyone try to prevent people from carrying a concealed AK-47 down a public street. They call themselves "conservatives" yet they vote for legislation like the Patriot Act, and they lower taxes while increasing spending. They claim to be a party of "moral values" when they are actually the party of Ted Stevens, Mark Foley, David Vitter, Bob Ney and Jack Abramoff - not to mention Bush, Rove and Cheney. They believe they are the "party of Lincoln" - and, yeah, maybe they are: when Lincoln was president, there was no global warming to deny, no stem cell research to oppose, no telephone wires to tap and only rich, white men had a voice in the political process. The more I think about it, yeah - today's Republicans would fit in very well in 1860.

This country has serious problems that will not be solved by Sarah Palin, or Proposition 8, or a Federal Marriage Amendment, or hard-line conservative judges, or the NRA, or any of the tired old games the Republicans have been playing for as long as I've been alive. This is a serious time and it requires serious-minded people and I beg the Right to grow up, come into the 21st century and, finally, get serious. It would serve America well if the Republicans could be a real political party again, one filled with real, intellectual conservatives, and not just "guys waiting to tee off at a restricted country club." Grow up, GOP. We're all waiting for you.