Month: May 2015

This Week in Alienating Female Voters Starring Mitt Romney (October 19, 2012)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

At the close of 2011, according to the United States Census Bureau, women comprised no less than 50.8 of the nation’s population, or slightly more than half. I will not go through the exercise of breaking down this statistic into socioeconomic groups, ethnic heritage or religious affiliation. Because I firmly believe, for the purposes of this column, that those distinctions don’t matter.

So why bring up the data at all? Well quite frankly, a sizable proportion of my fellow female citizens and I aren’t sure the Republican Party in general, and Mitt Romney more specifically, yet understand the implications of pissing us off less than three weeks before the election. American women are not a special interest group but a diverse MAJORITY of residents who can nonetheless usually come together on one issue: we hate being marginalized whether that discrimination comes in the form of public policy, religious dogma or the blustering of a Presidential candidate who fails to recognize that this is no longer the early 1960s, and he is not guest starring on an episode of Mad Men.

Heading into Tuesday night’s second Presidential election debate, Obama supporters had good reason for concern. Whether the week 1 Romney “victory” was real or imagined, the court of public opinion had somehow ruled in Romney’s favor. What would round two portend? Would we see a more contentious, vivacious President, ready to deflect the charming deceptions of his smarmy opponent? Would Mittens be able to maintain his current pretensions toward moderation or would the pendulum swing hard right again?

On the question of Obama’s performance, the answer, fortunately, is that television viewing audiences once more saw a candidate fired up and ready to go, a man who successfully called his challenger to the carpet on issues such Romney’s flip flop on the construction of coal factories (“Does anybody ever actually look at that guy and think, man, he’s really into coal?”). However the answer to the second question is a bit more complicated. While Romney did his best to sustain his latest persona, Fall 2012’s Mitt the Moderate, several noticeable cracks appeared in the facade. And nowhere were these schisms more apparent than in Romney’s responses to town hall questions related to women’s issues.

I won’t revisit Romney’s rhetorical blunder regarding “binders full of women,” except to remind people that the larger point of the candidate’s meandering answer is that a man with decades of private sector business experience blithely reported that he knew of exactly zero qualified female candidates for his gubernatorial cabinet – before the appearance of the much-discussed Trapper Keepers. While certainly less attractive comedic chum than the binder remark, it is epically disappointing that journalists and pundits failed to stone the candidate for this disingenuous claim.

But things went from bad to worse when, in the course of breaking his arm patting himself on the back, Romney went on to detail the tremendous working environment his Massachusetts administration created for female employees. This nurturing setting was constructed not in the form of challenging leadership roles or demanding policy work. No, Team Romney deemed themselves pro-women….because they permitted flex time which allowed working moms to get home in time to put dinner on the table.

Say what?

It is incredibly disheartening that amongst all the social network memes circulating about the “binders” sidetrack, there were not equal numbers of interrogations regarding the real takeaway: working women are nice and all but their real place remains in the home. And once again, just like that, the Republican party standard bearer attempted to roll back 50 years of social and workplace gains so hard won by female Americans.

Blogger Brenda Peterson, writing for the Huffington Post this week, said it best: “Women were the real winners in this presidential debate. We clearly recognized the real Mitt Romney — and he’s just like every domineering and sexist boss we’ve worked with. While Romney boasted about considering his infamous ‘binders of women’, for a job, it was clear he and his policies are the true binders of women.”

So to return to my original argument: we are the 50.8 percent. Romney can stand there and smile, blandly reporting that he wouldn’t fight to repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (gee thanks), and asserting that women would never have to question their access to contraception under his tenure. But the candidate has spent years undermining his own credibility with female voters and there’s no reason, particularly after Monday night’s showing, to trust him now. Across party, socioeconomic and spiritual lines, I have a feeling women will ensure that the already-unemployed Romney is left with plenty of flexible hours after Election Day.

Biden Versus Ryan: Defense is the Best Offense (October 9, 2012)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

Following a somewhat unusual Presidential candidate debate last week, featuring possibly the most futile moderation in history from PBS’ Jim Lehrer (I’m still puzzled by Lehrer’s good-natured laugh in response to Romney’s vow to cut funding from the public broadcasting network as a method of balancing the Federal budget), liberal voters are left to anticipate this week’s Vice-Presidential throw down between current office holder Joe Biden and GOP hopeful Paul Ryan. The event is being positioned by both parties as a clash between the old and new guards of American politics.

Team Biden is promoting the debate as the definitive choice between experience and wisdom versus youthful, brash ignorance. On last Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press, NBC’s Political Director Chuck Todd cautioned those who might expect a fumble from the foot-in-mouth-prone VP, “Everybody talks about the gaffes on the trail, but he won most of the Democratic primary debates in 2008.”

Joe Biden, a man with a lifelong penchant towards shooting from the hip, is not the bumbling caricature of Gerald Ford comically delivered by Chevy Chase in the Saturday Night Live parodies of yesteryear. It would serve naysayers well to remember that Biden was a Senate veteran with 26 years of experience before he was promoted to the White House. The 15th longest serving Senator in history built a career out of bipartisan cooperation, and is widely considered one of the most likeable lawmakers in the nation. It may also serve the opposition to recall that when Biden was added to the 2008 ticket, it was in part an effort to strengthen then-candidate Obama’s foreign policy credentials. Joe Biden is no lightweight.

On the other side of the spectrum, Paul Ryan supporters are positioning the week’s rhetorical skirmish as a battle between fresh, wonky ideas versus the old and tired status quo. In the same Meet the Press broadcast, panelist and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich characterized the 42 year-old elected official as “one of the brightest people in Congress. I think he knows an immense amount of facts.” It is tempting to point out that personality traits that might render one well-prepared for an evening of bar trivia are hardly a recommendation for America’s second-highest office.

Debate watchers may also be curious as to what set of “facts” Ryan will be armed with on the evening in question. Will he bespeak the much-maligned, if personably delivered, “truth” about the Romney budget plan that Mittens tried to sell to registered voters last week, a plan infused with magical fairy dust that permits the elimination of the deficit without destroying the social safety net or cutting taxes further for the wealthy? Or will Ryan adopt the Dr. Phil-esque “get real” approach so yearned for by the likes of New York Times columnist David Brooks? Does Ryan have the courage to talk to likely voters like adults, detailing the real impact of a Romney administration?

Scheduled several weeks after the strangest, most deceptive Republican National Convention in recent memory, gamblers may want to place their bets on the fairy dust edition of Paul Ryan.

With the benefit of a higher “Q” rating and an established presence as a genial and intelligent public servant, a report this week from Yahoo! News distills Joe Biden’s mission for the evening to one simple goal: “Biden needs to enter the ring with his boxing gloves on. Ever since Romney picked Ryan as his running mate, the Obama campaign has been attacking the Ryan plan left and right, and Biden has to be ready to throw punches against Ryan’s economic philosophy.”

That’s right. Vice-President must accomplish what President Obama failed to do in his opening battle with Romney: put Ryan on defense and keep him there. It’s a winning strategy because Ryan’s budget plan is heartless, bad for America and when properly scrutinized, indefensible. Just keep smiling Joe and watch the young kid strangle himself.

Like the Work of the NFL Replacement Refs? Then Vote for Mitt Romney (September 25, 2012)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

I have to credit my boyfriend for suggesting this appropriate extended analogy. After several weeks of delayed games, inaccurate calls and the kind of under-preparedness that threatened to remove the integrity from NFL officiating, dire warnings came to fruition last night when the Green Bay Packers were essentially robbed of a victory. Although I am by birth a Chicago Bears fan, this was a uniting moment for football enthusiasts of all stripes. At the end of the day, it’s a love of the game that brings us together, and those who don’t stand in protest against the league’s continued lockout of unionized officials might want to consider who will side with them when their home team is cheated.

As my partner and I looked on in horror at the pandemonium that erupted at Seattle’s Qwest Field after the game’s controversial conclusion, he made a keen observation: “This is what will happen if the country votes for Mitt Romney.” Immediately, I asked for further clarification.

Basically the argument is this: President Obama has a great deal in common with the locked out NFL officials. These are the people that many fans, players and coaches take for granted during a normal season. They do their jobs without glamour, striving to make the best calls according to the league’s rule book. They don’t get it right every time, leading to the requisite jeers, but by and large, students of the game can rest confidently knowing that if nothing else, the referees decisions do not affect the match’s outcome. The best team will usually win. It is not until these shepherds are taken away that we feel the pain of their absence.

President Obama is just such a leader on a national level: a brilliant thinker and empathetic man entrusted with stewardship of the country in the midst of one of its most historically challenging epochs. Every call the POTUS has made since taking office in January 2009 may not have been the right one, but the choices were made through a combination of strategic thought and genuine respect for the American people. However much work lies ahead, in under four years, Obama has brought the union back from the brink of complete financial and foreign policy collapse.

Those that have grown impatient with the slow and steady progress of nation rebuilding would like to substitute Barack Obama for Mitt Romney, an ignorant charlatan who has made lofty promises about “putting people back to work” and “restoring the middle class” without the benefit of specifics. Seeking to capitalize on a stubbornly sluggish job market while conveniently forgetting that it was eight years of GOP policy making that landed us in this protracted mess, Republicans have the audacity to suggest we give them another go, because you know, destructive management is bound to yield completely different results this time. So send in the scab!

But as we have seen over and over again throughout this long campaign, Romney doesn’t have the chops to step into Obama’s shoes. He has no specific plans for uplifting America’s beleaguered middle class. His foreign policy ineptitude is now well documented, as is his disdain for the working poor and any average American struggling to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. To underscore Romney’s utter cluelessness, it is now apparent that he doesn’t possess the basic understanding of your average first grader in grasping why commercial airline windows can’t be manually opened.

Last night’s Seahawks/Packers game, which bore witness to two awful contest ending calls from officials, was a case study in inexperience compounded by frozen ineptitude. No lives were lost and I do not mean to suggest that the NFL scandal is on par with the dire consequences we are bound to collectively suffer by replacing Obama with a cartoon punchline. However, those who enjoy the sporting element of politics yet approach the coming election with seriousness were gifted with a foreshadowing allegory from, of all places, a football match. Imagine Romney in the end zone during a matter of national urgency, surrounded by a team of confused advisers more interested in saving face than protecting the honor of the institution. That’s our future should the Romney/Ryan ticket prevail.

Should We Forgive Romney’s ‘Off the Cuff’ Remarks? In a Word, No (September 15

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

Call it the 2012 Presidential campaign shot heard ’round the world. In a contest marred by gaffes and PR debacles of the diverse kind, Mitt Romney is staring down the barrel of hard video evidence that he just doesn’t give a damn about Americans occupying social positions outside the privileged one percent.

By now we have grown used to the candidate’s willful ignorance. Everyone not living in the United Kingdom enjoyed a good laugh at Romney’s clumsy insult directed at London, the host city of this year’s summer Olympics. Nothing was destroyed but a planning committee’s delicate feelings. Silly Mittens.

But Romney’s foreign policy ineptitude took a turn for the more serious last week when U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was killed in a terrorist attack, and the GOP challenger immediately sought to leverage the tragedy for political gain. Without waiting for full details of the incident and before expressing his condolences to victims’ families, Romney made an inexcusable, disingenuous play to tar Obama as an American apologist. As anti-American protests rage in areas where not so long ago, we celebrated “Arab Spring” democratic revolutions, it is important to ask to what extent Romney’s careless words fed the growing fires of Middle Eastern hatred.

Romney doesn’t give a fig what kind of trouble he stirs up overseas. As America works to restore its image from the out-of-touch “Cowboy Diplomacy” of the George W. Bush era, yeoman’s work in which President Obama has been largely successful, Mittens runs around shooting his uneducated mouth off about the long-running Israel/Palestine conflict and other issues which may score him points with his political base, but do nothing to reflect the traits of a leader who understands 21st century dynamics and a hyperconnected, interdependent world ecosystem.

However, until this week it was reasonably safe to assume that Mitt Romney’s blunderous foreign policy soundbites were unfortunate blabber from an unelectable candidate who nevertheless genuinely loves his country. Most of us are not so partisan that we can’t disagree with a man without questioning his patriotism (behavioral patterns of the far right wing notwithstanding). Apologies to the remaining voters who tried to believe that no matter who wins the November election, a real effort would be made to create jobs and otherwise throw the drowning middle class a lifeline.

We have all made dialectical miscalculations in the private company of friends and family members. Comments that would sound gauche in mixed crowds seem palatable around the familiar. Presidential campaigns are particularly scripted, messaged and strategized so when given a chance to go “off the cuff, ” who can throw stones at an exhausted, 24/7 news cycle-beleaguered contender? In making the case here, consider most of Vice-President Joe Biden’s dunce-cap worthy messaging errors.

Mitt Romney’s latest rhetorical scandal cannot be categorized as the mistake of an exhausted, relaxed man in the company of likeminded souls. How do we know this for certain? Just ask him. According to a report earlier this week from Yahoo! News, “Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama ‘victims’ and said they are reliant on government handouts.”

Well then. Allow me to take the opportunity to thank Romney for his honesty and candor, an occasion members of the voting public are not awarded often enough. I have to disagree withNew York Times columnist David Brooks when he writes “Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?” Brooks’ rhetorical question implies that Mittens’s characterization of Obama voters as lazy, needy bottomfeeders is merely an error, but in order to accept this position, one would have to willfully suspend belief in the candidate’s own words at the hastily arranged late-evening press conference. I don’t think most of us are prepared to do that.

 

Sense & Sensibility (May 12, 2015)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment
Elinor (Sharon Rietkerk) and Marianne Dashwood (Megan McGinnis)
Elinor (Sharon Rietkerk) and Marianne Dashwood (Megan McGinnis)

 

As the curtain fell on the Chicago Shakespeare Theater’s winning production of “Sense and Sensibility,” we found ourselves reflecting on a number of parallels between the new musical and Disney’s 2013 animated juggernaut, “Frozen.” As directed by CST’s Artistic Director Barbara Gaines, the expansive, romantic novel, like the cartoon megahit, is intelligently distilled for audiences to its fundamental narrative — the love story of two fiercely devoted sisters. Here’s the take from two female reviewers sharing the work, Becky Sarwate and Beth Dugan.

Becky Sarwate
Also similarly to the wildly successful “Frozen,” the adventures of Elinor (Sharon Rietkerk) and Marianne Dashwood (Megan McGinnis) are traversed through a combination of spoken dialogue and song. And though my personal favorite, “Wrong Side of Five and Thirty,” is unlikely to capture the zeitgeist on a “Let It Go” scale, the score by Paul Gordon is competent. Not brilliant, but seamless and well-sung by the well-chosen cast.

But music aside, the beauty of any rendition of the Jane Austen treasure is the nuanced, accepting and trial-filled relationship between decorous and restrained elder sister Elinor and passionate, unbridled younger sibling Marianne. The ladies’ divergent approaches to emotional life, contained versus unchecked, are dramatically tested by the relationships that unfold on the page and stage.

Wayne Wilcox as Edward Ferrars, teams with Rietkerk to absolutely nail the emotional game of chicken played between Elinor and Edward, founded on modesty and lack of presumption rather than craft. Wilcox’s unique brand of awkwardness made this Ang Lee devotee forget all about Hugh Grant.

McGinnis is given a script that renders the early Marianne a touch more self-aware and likable, which only serves her general predilection for blunt honesty. McGinnis’ grasp of irony and comedic timing are something special, and even those devoted Austenphiles who know the story’s denouement well will worry and root for Marianne’s happiness. And in another positive twist with this rendering, the chastened woman who marries Colonel Brandon (Sean Allan Krill) seems a lot happier with her choice than her literary counterpart.

And who wouldn’t be happy to land Krill’s Brandon? Willoughby, Schmilloghby, with all due respect to the talented Peter Saide. The material and the performance strike the right notes of the character’s steady stability, while imbuing him with more elements of lighthearted fun. Krill’s rendition of the aforementioned “Wrong Side of Five and Thirty” is heartbreaking, endearing and beautifully performed. Krill is the standout in a uniformly gifted cast.

“Sense and Sensibility” runs through mid-June. It is an all-ages must for Austen fans, and a fine time for anyone who appreciates good storytelling and a win for sisterly affection.

Beth Dugan
As a huge Jane Austen fan (“Sense and Sensibility” is my #3 favorite), I was elated to see this classic reimagined as a musical. The Dashwood sisters are some of my favorite siblings in literature, and the performances by Sharon Rietkerk and Megan McGinnis did them justice.

The inevitable stripping down of the plot was a testament to how subtlety complex Austen’s works are. Though they seem like simple stories about women trying to get husbands and dealing with family matters, they are nuanced, multi-layered and robust.

With the loss of Mrs. Dashwood, the younger sister Margaret and the majority of the minor character that add such richness to the plot, the production still wove an engaging and entertaining story.

The difference in the way Elinor and Marianne are portrayed is palpable. Marianne is less self-involved, more restrained and therefore, easier to like. Much of her obsession over Willoughby was cut, rendering her more a figure of pity rather than a creator of her own fate, as she is in the book.

Elinor is lacking her lightly sardonic wit and teasing manner, and is left with only her duty and practicality. With the third sister and widowed mother missing from the story, and from the list of Elinor’s burdens, she just comes across as a wet blanket. Though the luminous Rietkerk imbues her with life and verve, it is hard to respect Elinor as the stalwart rock of her family that she is.

Paul Gordon’s book, music and lyrics compliment the story well, as it is moves through its many moods of somber melancholy, joyful and finally celebratory. Though the songbook may not contain show-stoppers or hit tunes, the songs moved the story forward and add another layer to the performances.

The scene-stealing performance by Wayne Wilcox as Edward Ferrars is a high point of the show. He’s comedic timing for this version of Edward are perfect and a lovely foil for this version of Elinor, who is only dutiful and practical with little of her light humor and sardonic wit from the original story.

Director Barbara Gaines continues her winning streak here. “Sense and Sensibility” is a wonderful show, full of life and song. The performances are strong and memorable. Jane Austen has been given her due.