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.

After Romney’s Disastrous Week the Only Surprise is America Not Unanimously Voting Obama (September 15, 2012)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

Yahoo! News published a story this week, a joint venture with Esquire magazine, that shared the results of a recent survey the two media outlets commissioned from pollster Gary Langer of Langer Research Associates. The poll queried 1,000 likely voters on a range of topics designed to draw distinctions between sitting President Barack Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney. Results will be doled out in the next several weeks leading up the general election, however the first question posed to respondents was pretty straight forward with a rather unsurprising denouement.

“If the election were held today who would you vote for?” The answer? Amongst likely voters, Obama leads by four percentage points, 50 to 46. However the gulf opens much wider when the field is narrowed to voters who are already registered. In that case, Romney trails the POTUS by 11 percent, 52 to 41.

As voter registration postmark deadlines vary from state to state (some states cutoff entries 30 days before the election, while others leave opportunity open until just a couple of days prior), examining the responses of registered balloters becomes more consequential with each passing day. And it would seem that Republican attempts to disenfranchise the young, poor and certain minority groups just aren’t doing enough to stem the tide of momentum working in the President’s favor.

But polls are simply hypotheticals and while this news is encouraging less than two months before the ballot boxes officially open, it remains stupefying that the gulf isn’t much larger. While reading the Yahoo! story, it isn’t unreasonable to wonder if there’s any group that misfit contender Romney hasn’t done his best to alienate.

If you’re unemployed or otherwise struggling to make ends meet, a huge proportion of modern American society, there are the wealthy Romney family’s offshore accounts, dodgy tax returns and pathetic attempts to identify with real world problems to turn you off. If you’re a female, have a look at Romney’s flipflop from a pro-choice moderate to a pro-life intolerant who aligns himself with a Vice-Presidential candidate that opposes abortion in all situations, including cases of rape and incest, as well as instances where an expectant mother’s health is imperiled.

While we’re on the subject of Paul Ryan, are you an elderly American on a fixed income? Well then his plan to convert Medicare into a voucher program that exposes you to the business practices of private insurance companies ought to send you fleeing toward Obama. Are you an immigrant? The GOP can’t deport you fast enough. Person of any color? We didn’t see many of you at the recent Republican National Convention. How about a current or upcoming college student? Team Romney is tired of giving you “handouts” in the way of affordable loans and other financial aid that could guide you toward a 21st century job opportunity. If you’re gay, rest assured that the right wing will never stand up for your right to wed and raise a family. And Mittens’ deplorable handling of the Libyan embassy tragedy yesterday should go a long way toward alienating foreign policy wonks.

In fact all things considered, it’s sort of tough to comprehend how the poll Yahoo!/Esquire numbers don’t skew much father left. 95 percent to five sounds about right if you generously allow that there might just be that many independently wealthy, hawkish white males left in the nation. If Republican leadership did not receive the message in 2008 that they are out of touch with mainstream America, and it’s clear that they didn’t, let this be the year when they finally take themselves out to the shed.

Obama’s Convention Speech: The Real Mission (September 6, 2012)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

“But, mostly, I wish he’d be for something. I wish he’d rise above the petty tactical considerations that have shrunk him over the past two years. I wish he’d finally define what he stands for. A liberal populist? A Clintonian moderate? At some point, you have to choose.”

The quote above was pulled from “independent” New York Times columnist David Brooks’ latest effort. In a piece of commentary entitled “The Elevator Speech,” Brooks’ waxes nostalgically for the Obama before 2010, whereafter stymied by a do-nothing, Republican-controlled House, the administration’s agenda slowed to a virtual standstill. However, Brooks fails to recognize that this state of affairs was the albatross around Obama’s neck, referring to the post-2010 period instead as one where the POTUS’ “purpose did not survive contact with reality.”

Though I find myself frequently frustrated after a reading of Brooks’ punditry, headed into the main events of this week’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC, I was incensed. The continual reference to the first Obama administration as somehow lame duck boggles the mind, and it isn’t only independents and conservatives who are guilty of painting the President’s record in such broad strokes. The Facebook fan page “Liberals Against Obama” currently has 577 “likes” with the tag line “Take back the progressive agenda.” Postings from the group include gems such as this: “Looks like the Republicans are doing their best to scare people into voting for Obama :(” I only wish I were editorializing the sad face emoticon.

It’s hard to understand how Obama’s first term could constitute failure, especially viewed through the eyes of his liberal base. While it’s true that the last two years have been punctuated by debacles such as the debt ceiling debate, which ultimately saw the country’s credit rating downgraded, the left-leaning electorate’s only concern ought to have been a leader who failed to recognize that Speaker of the House John Boehner never intended to show up at the bargaining table. Yet it’s impossible not to admire Obama for the good-faith effort and for ultimately revolting against a Tea Party “compromise” that would have savaged the social safety net while doing precious little to generate revenue.

It’s tough to disagree with the impression that this week’s convention is a high-profile opportunity to reset the tone for Obama’s second term, as well as a chance to lay out a specific agenda that promises to address continuing social ills like the disintegration of the middle class. But compare this to last week’s Republican celebration which was light on specifics, high on crazy (Clint Eastwood) and factual gymnastics (the Paul Ryan speech) and created a partisan vacuum where the chosen Presidential candidate could not tout his greatest political accomplishments, seeing as they now sit too far to the left.

It is expected that the President will share his vision for job creation and revitalizing opportunities for the bottom 99 percent, while addressing other issues like immigration reform, climate change and a host of other challenges facing the country. But Obama’s address is also a ripe opportunity to do the one thing he has failed to do over the partisan screaming of the last few years: tout his MAJOR accomplishments. Interrupting the country’s financial free fall, rescuing the struggling auto industry, revamping the broken health care system in the face of dire opposition, advancing equality for GLBT citizens marked by the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” taking out public enemy #1 Osama bin Laden while displaying deft foreign policy skills in many other challenging situations and ending a pointless, costly war in the process. If this record represents failure, then sign me up for four more years of it.

GOP Convention: Tuesday Night Drinking Games (August 28, 2012)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

Whether anyone is ready for it or not, the Republican National Convention is in full swing. Though it is likely to be one of the dullest affairs in recent memory, hurricane warnings and the mutiny threats of Ron Paul supporters aside, conservative media outlets certainly can’t be accused of understatement. This morning’s online edition of The Washington Post did its level best to drum up the kind of hype typically reserved for community sporting events like the Super Bowl or the recently-concluded Summer Olympics. The paper’s TV section published a piece entitled, “Today in RNC TV: Where to watch the Republican National Convention.”

Can you picture it? Viewing parties at restaurants, bars and taverns across the nation! Drinking games! Take a shot every time a speaker calls President Obama a socialist! Do a keg stand for each each personality present who represents an assault on women’s rights! Can you imagine the drunkenness? Ah yes, these parties would outdo Prince Harry’s recent bout of Vegas revelry, and the naughty monarch and Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan boast roughly the same percentage of body fat.

Barring any last-minute interference from Tropical Storm Isaac, The Post reports that “At least 13 networks are covering the Republican National Convention in Tampa this week. Tuesday night, primetime events include a speech from Ann Romney, and Gov. Chris Christie with the keynote address.” Tampa, land of lot lizards and strip clubs, does seem like a fitting locale for the revelry. After all the city is nearly 63 percent Caucasian, Florida at large contains a disproportionate number of senior citizens and the State boasts an absence of individual income tax liability. If only there wasn’t that pesky business to avoid about Ryan’s plan to demolish Medicare as we know it, the site of the convention would be a mutual admiration society unparalleled.

While the GOP establishment celebrates its whitewashed, wealthy male homogeny, Ron Paul loyalists did threaten to make things interesting for a moment. However a last minute bargain deprived excited liberals and centrists from an anticipated burst of schadenfreude, the still-inevitable showdown between the Tea Party crackpots who have hijacked the conservative movement and the dwindling number of rational party members fighting for survival. Instead, ABC News reported “a compromise on Republican Party rules will likely prevent a convention floor fight on Tuesday. Republican National Committeeman James Bopp…explained the impetus for the proposed change, in the first place, as fear that Ron Paul supporters bound to Mitt Romney would break party rules and instead vote for Paul.”

Some events are just too delicious a prospect to actually occur. Imagine the embarrassment. Pundits and writers have been saying for years now that Mittens is the candidate so divisive and boring that even his own party is conflicted. Conventions are supposed to be about unity, no matter how forced. Too see this illusion crumble to pieces on national television…well it was a nice idea.

Instead we’ll be treated to inspiring words from ultimate Stepford wife Ann Romney, she of the tearful tithes, and Chris Christie, the popular Governor of New Jersey, considered a rising star of the Republican party. Supposedly the poster boy for responsible fiscal austerity, which may influence the content of his remarks, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman had a go at Christie’s pretension yesterday when he observed, “The Governor was willing to cancel the desperately needed project to build another rail tunnel linking the state to Manhattan, but has invested state funds in a megamall in the Meadowlands and a casino in Atlantic City.”

It may be wise to plan ahead and take the day off of work tomorrow (provided that eight years of the Bush regime left you with a job) if you plan to indulge in the Convention drinking game that I favor: a sip for every hypocritical utterance. Cheers!