PC Guerrilla Warfare: The Sportscaster Whose Apt Word-Choice Cost Him His Job

broken_tennis_ball_by_ Photo by mountainboy965C

The Backstory

Dateline Melbourne, Australia, in sunny mid-January of 2017.

The world of sport is abuzz with excitement over tennis’ first Grand Slam of the year.   Tweedy veteran writers, chatty ex-players, and disheveled bloggers, blessed with a surfeit of subject matter in the waning years of tennis’ richest era, feverishly weave narratives from the week’s trendy storylines.

Can Serena Williams reassert herself at the top of her sport at the age of 35?

Will Novak Djokovic rediscover his unbeatable 2015 form, or will his 2016 wobbles continue into the new season?

Can the sport’s rising, hot-headed youngsters dethrone any of the grizzled veteran champions?

Can Rafael Nadal produce in 2017 another miraculous return from injury as he did in 2006, 2010, and 2013?

What about Roger Federer and Venus Williams, both great champions over 35 — can either of them put together a strong run in Australia?

Starved of live tennis during the month of December and of Grand Slam action since September’s U.S. Open, the sport’s global fan base (whose semi-official slogan during the Australian Open is, “Sleep is for the weak,”) is as eager as the commentary corps for drama and action.  To satisfy fans with immediate, complete event coverage, many broadcasters deliver live streams of most or all competition courts throughout the two-week event.

The principal U.S. broadcaster is ESPN, a sports programming leviathan that began presenting the Australian Open in 1984 and now covers three of the season’s four tennis Majors.  ESPN supplies U.S. fans with streams from Australia of all 254 singles matches and many doubles matches, employing an army of on-air staff — some former players, some professional “talking heads” — who work either individually or in pairs to provide live play-by-play coverage.

Many of ESPN’s live-stream voices offer commentary both more analytical and more useful to the viewer than that of the big-name stars on ESPN’s flagship channels.  From this “B team,” one might hear:

“Although Joe clearly walked out today with a game plan to attack Steve’s backhand, he has changed tactics and is now hitting short to the forehand to draw Steve into net against his will and either pass him outright or hit a two-shot pass.”

By contrast, the less prepared and more ego-driven of ESPN’s stars might deliver rhetorical gems such as:

“This is painful to watch.”

(Coasting on his reputation, John McEnroe rarely seems to do in-depth homework and devotes much of his commentary to reminiscence about players he faced in the 1970s.  Chris Evert’s statements are at times so vapid that she has inspired a widely used, colorful hashtag.  Pam Shriver talks mid-match about her children.  When Mary Carillo doesn’t especially like the players in front of her, she tends to chatter about anything but the match; late in the 2014 French Open men’s final, she infamously digressed onto the subject of 1980s-era boxing.)

Prominent in ESPN’s live-stream broadcasting stable is Doug Adler, a 58-year-old former tennis pro who played during his college years the University of Southern California.  A veteran of commentary since 2004 and an ESPN employee since 2008, Adler is so adept at spontaneous play-by-play narration that he frequently covers matches without a partner.

.

The Fatal Moment

.

mic

.

It is Day 3 of the Australian Open, Wednesday, the 18th of January (and Tuesday evening, the 17th, in the U.S.)  First up in the main stadium, Rod Laver Arena, is 36-year-old American Venus Williams, the 13 seed and winner of seven Grand Slam singles titles, 14 Grand Slam doubles titles, and two Grand Slam mixed doubles titles, to accompany an Olympic gold medal in singles, an Olympic silver medal in mixed doubles, and a staggering three Olympic golds in women’s doubles.  Her opponent is Switzerland’s Stefanie Voegele, nine years younger, six inches shorter, and roughly 100 ranking spots below Williams.  One of the team of two ESPN live-stream commentators is Doug Adler.

Not surprisingly, the match is a rout.  Voegele is unable to counter Williams’ superior power, variety, movement, and court coverage.

Early in the second set, as Voegele struggles to hold her first service game, Adler says this:

“She misses the first serve, and Venus is all over her…You’ll see Venus move in and put the [guerrilla?/gorilla?] effect on, charging…”

What exactly does Adler say?  Please listen for yourself to the following 21-second video clip.

.

Update: The video above was pulled from YouTube on the day after I published this article.  Below is a new video.  Adler’s words begin at the 40-second mark.

.

The Controversy

.

Storm 2

.

Adler claims he said, “You’ll see Venus move in and put the guerrilla effect on,” adding that his use of “guerrilla” referred to a successful “Guerrilla Tennis” ad campaign undertaken by Nike in the 1990s.

The 1995 Andre Agassi Nike Guerrilla Tennis ad:

.

“Guerrilla” is indeed an appropriate descriptor for Venus Williams’ charge as she pounces on her opponent’s second serve.  Tennis writers and commentators frequently invoke the term “guerrilla” to characterize sneaky attacks.  Had neither player been of African ancestry, Adler’s apt comment would have passed unnoticed.

This particular match, however, made Adler famous.

Within minutes, social media were flooded with rage from indignant fans under the impression Adler had said “gorilla.”

New York Times reporter Ben Rothenberg, whose deliberately provocative and bratty online snark has earned him the nickname “Trollenberg,” decided to fan the flames.  Rather than ask Adler to clarify his intent, Rothenberg tweeted outrage to his 51,600 followers.

Rothenberg went so far as to dismiss out of hand the possibility that Adler had said, “guerrilla.”

br_011817

Why “doubtful,” Mr. Rothenberg?  Do you read minds?

.

The Aftermath

pink-slip

ESPN suspended Adler immediately after the Williams/Voegele match, demanded that he apologize the next day on every live stream (which he did, citing an unfortunate choice of words), forbade him to comment upon any more matches in Australia, and sent him home in disgrace.

Within days, Adler was fired by ESPN.

On February 14, Adler filed suit against ESPN for wrongful termination, stating that his reputation is “damaged forever.”  In the words of Adler’s attorney, David Ring, “It was not only political correctness gone overboard, but also a cowardly move that ruined a good man’s career.”

.

Justice?

scales

Since it is nearly impossible to discern from the recording whether the word uttered by Adler is “gorilla” or “guerrilla,”  it would be fairest and most reasonable to assess Adler’s past record as a broadcaster before branding him a racist.

Had Adler ever exhibited any signs of racism?  In his 13 years of full-time tennis broadcasting, had he ever referred in a less than respectful manner to Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Donald Young, Sloane Stephens, Taylor Townsend, Gaël Monfils, Dustin Brown, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Frances Tiafoe, or any other player of African ancestry?

I believe the answer to those questions is No.

Adler’s friends and colleagues, including African American radio host Larry Elder, attest to his character (although among Adler’s friends only Elder has had the courage to speak publically about the recent travesty).

There is every reason to believe Adler’s statement that the word he used was indeed “guerrilla.”

In effect, what happened here?

  • While providing commentary for a Grand Slam tennis match, Doug Adler used a completely appropriate word to describe a player’s sneak attack.
  • Some viewers misunderstood the word as a racial slur.
  • A social media mob called for Adler’s firing on the basis of that misunderstanding.
  • ESPN caved to the mob’s demands.

Should ESPN require that its on-air staff treat athletes and coaches with respect?  If they want to attract viewers, yes.

Is ESPN entitled to fire broadcasters who behave inappropriately on the air?  Certainly.

But was ESPN within its rights to fire a broadcaster, and effectively brand him a racist and thus torpedo his future career prospects, merely in response to the clamoring of an hysterical mob?

I say no.

The Courts will decide.

As a knowledgeable aficionado of the sport myself, I admit that I occasionally find Doug Adler’s assessments of and prognostications about specific tennis players wrong-headed.  While not always in agreement with his opinions, I cannot remain silent as he is railroaded out of his chosen profession at the instigation of a PC mob.

So here’s what I think:

Doug Adler is entitled to the benefit of the doubt from the world of sport.

Ben Rothenberg owes Adler a public apology.

ESPN owes Adler financial restitution and reinstatement as a tennis commentator.

Stay tuned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Gritty, Edgy Moodiness of Film Noir: 24 Classic Examples

nighthawks_by_edward_hopper_1942 Nighthawks (1942) by Edward Hopper

If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

If she is rude to the waiter, she will be rude to you.

If your dog dislikes him, walk away.  Slowly.

There is always a price to be paid for crossing the line.

Listen to your intuition.

Navigating through life would be so much easier if one always followed simple rules.   Too frequently, emotion trumps the rational mind, but a diversion away from one’s true course can provide an opportunity to learn valuable lessons — if one should be fortunate enough to survive, that is.
.
Cinematic exploration of the triumph of passion over common sense is the domain of Film Noir, an outgrowth of European Expressionism, which flourished in America from the early 1940s through the late 1950s.  The creators of Noir crafted their gripping stories by thrusting realistically flawed characters into morally challenging situations; then, rather than fashioning contrived outcomes, stood at a discreet distance and allowed human nature to take its course.
.
Most Noir films are “B” movies, the shorter pictures produced as undercards to the marquee features.  Constrained by small budgets, Noir offers crisp and sharp dialogue and tight plotting.  Short running times permitted none of the directorial self-indulgence endemic in modern-day film.
.
The genre’s archetypical black-and-white photography (budget-driven, once again) and the predominance of nighttime or half-lit daytime settings infuse atmospheric moodiness with menace.
.
Invariably the setting of a Noir — whether an opulent, hilltop apartment building in San Francisco, an unlit New York warehouse, a lonely desert road, or a dingy block of flats in a bleak Los Angeles neighborhood — is as essential to the story as any character in the film.
.
Because the contemporaneous Hays Code governed the messages and images films were permitted to convey, a fortuitous circumstance for lovers of the genre, in Noir films all crimes, all sins, and all errors of judgement are punished.
.
Inasmuch as motion pictures were a 20th-century contribution to the age-old tradition of transmitting life lessons through storytelling, Noir offered mid-century movie audiences a chance to engage in thought experiments — What if I were to give in to temptation?  What if I succumbed to the lure of something for nothing?  What if I took the wrong path?  What might happen? — within the safe realm of fiction.
.
There are hundreds of films in the Noir anthology.  Today I would like to recommend to you two dozen sparkling gems for your viewing enjoyment.  Accompanying each title you will find a list of stars, the name of the director, the setting, a brief description, and a theatrical trailer.
.
.

Classics of the Genre

lamppost

The four films listed here number among not only the best Noir of all time but also the best films of all time.

.
Director: John Huston
Setting: San Francisco
.
For a newcomer to Film Noir, The Maltese Falcon is a must-see.  Boasting a tight, brilliant plot, impeccable dialogue, and several iconic and career-defining performances, gets better with each subsequent viewing.
.
.
.
Director: Otto Preminger
Setting: New York City
.
A stylish, taut, and riveting drama.  As police detective Mark MacPherson (Andrews) gradually falls in love with the brunette (Tierney) whose murder he is called to investigate, he finds he is not alone in his obsession with the stunning Laura.
.
.
.
Director: Billy Wilder
Setting: Los Angeles
.
In this simple and compelling cautionary tale about the perils of passion, insurance salesman Walter Neff (MacMurray) finds the lure of illicit financial gain irresistible when his partner in crime is a knockout blonde (Stanwyck).
.
.
.
Director: Tay Garnett
.Setting: the southern California coast
Drifter Frank Chambers (Garfield) succumbs to the charms of a blonde bombshell (Turner) after a chance stop at her husband’s gas station.  His motive for subsequent criminal acts — avarice, lust, or a desire to save a damsel in distress — becomes moot as a series of irreversible decisions dooms him and his paramour.
.
.

The Element of Chance

brooklyn_bridge

Some of Noir’s most compelling stories place characters in hazardous situations not entirely of their own making.  Three highly recommended masterpieces —

.
Director: Rudolph Maté
Settings: San Francisco and Los Angeles
.
To my mind, this film is a must-see.  It employs a brilliant and innovative premise: after discovering to his horror that he has been poisoned, a very ordinary accountant (O’Brien) devotes his few remaining hours on Earth to identifying his murderer.
.
.
.
Director: Otto Preminger
Setting: the central California coast
.
Having run out of money to pay his fare, drifter Eric Stanton (Andrews) stumbles off a bus at an unfamiliar hamlet on the central California coast, where he finds himself drawn into the inhabitants’ rivalries, hatreds, and crimes.  Preminger’s trademark mastery of atmosphere keeps viewers transfixed through the denouement.
.
.
.
Setting: Los Angeles
.
As amnesic U.S. Marine (Hodiak) returning home after World War II finds himself mistaken for a wanted murderer.
.
.

Unwillingness to See or Reluctance to Act

sign

“If only he had seen her as she really was.”

“If only she had recognized the danger before it was too late.”

“If only he had had the strength of character to take the difficult stand.”

Human frailty provides a treasure trove of source material for Film Noir.  Three to watch —

Impact (1949)

.

Stars: Brian Donlevy, Helen Walker, Ella Raines, Charles Coburn
Director:Arthur Lubin
Settings: San Francisco and Sausalito, California; Larkspur, Idaho

.
Businessman Walter Williams (Donlevy) pays dearly for idolizing his glamorous and much younger wife (Walker) and refusing to see her as she is.
.
.
.
Director: Robert Siodmak
Setting: urban eastern U.S.
.
Washed-up boxer Ole Andreson (Lancaster, in his film debut) rejects the offer of a police job and opts instead for a criminal path that ultimately costs him his life.
.
.
.
Settings: Multiple, including Lake Tahoe, California; Acapulco, Mexico; and New York City
.
When an unexpected visitor turns up at the gas station he owns, retired private investigator Jeff Markham (Mitchum) finds to his chagrin that he cannot escape the errors of his past.
.
.

Consequences of a Single Decision

fork

The knife-edge, yes/no decisions made in a fog of emotion and without sufficient input from the cerebral cortex produce fascinating storylines for Film Noir.  At times a viewer wants to reach through the screen to shake sense into a self-destructive character.  Five of the best —

.
Director: Andre De Toth
Setting: Los Angeles
.
A classic Film Noir set-up: insurance investigator John Forbes (Powell) is bored with his job and suffocated by the financial responsibility of supporting his loving wife (Wyatt) and exemplary young son in post-War Los Angeles.  When in the course of his work Forbes meets a beautiful gangster’s moll (Scott), he sets his feet on a path sure to destroy his life.
.
.
.
Director: Edgar G. Ulmer
Settings: Reno, Nevada; rural Arizona; Los Angeles
.
Embittered jazz pianist Al Roberts (Neal) makes a split-second decision to hide the body of a man he did not kill and thereby seals his own fate.
.
.
.
Director: Ida Lupino
Settings: Rural southern California; Baja California, Mexico.
.
Two southern California pals (O’Brien and Lovejoy) tell their wives they are on a fishing trip when in fact they are bound for Mexico in search of extramarital excitement.  A stop to pick up a hitch-hiker upends their plans.
.
.
.
Director: Ida Lupino
Settings: San Francisco and Los Angeles
.
Lonely San Francisco businessman Harry Graham (O’Brien) pursues a friendship with the attractive and intelligent Phyllis (Lupino) during his frequent work-related trips to Los Angeles.  A one-night tryst puts Phyllis and Harry into a bind that Harry resolves by breaking the law.
.
.
.
Settings: Rural Wyoming; Los Angeles
.
Two friends on a hunting trip (Ray and Albertson) stop to help two stranded motorists who turn out to be bank robbers on the lam.
.
.

Capers and Action Films

Seabiscuit and John "Red" Pollard finally won the Santa Anita Handicap in 1940, defeating stablemate Kayak II. It was Seabiscuit's third attempt to win racing's biggest prize at the time. They had been beaten a nose by Rosemont in 1937 and a nose by Stagehand in 1938. Keeneland Library/Morgan Collection

Keeneland Library/Morgan Collection

By virtue of its taut plotting and crisp dialogue, Noir produced numerous riveting and satisfying films centered upon action and well developed set-piece capers.  Six not to miss —
.
.
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Setting: Los Angeles
.
Career criminal Johnny Clay (Hayden) decides to undertake one last heist, a burglary of Santa Anita racetrack, before settling down to marry his girl (Coleen Gray).
.
.
.
Director: Raoul Walsh
Setting: California, especially Los Angeles
.
Brothers Joe and Paul Fabrini (Raft and Bogart) struggle with loan sharks, hitch-hikers, rough terrain, sleepless nights, and conniving women as they endeavor to scratch out a living in the trucking business.
.
.
.
Director: Jules Dassin
Setting: California, especially San Francisco
.
With the help of other drivers and a local prostitute, wildcat trucker Nick Garcos (Conte) wages war on an unscrupulous produce supplier (Cobb) in order to save his family’s business and preserve his father’s honor.
.
.
.
Setting: Aboard a train from Chicago to Los Angeles
.
A police seargent (McGraw) charged with escorting a gangster’s wife from Chicago to a Los Angeles courtroom, where she will testify against her husband, finds he is sharing the train with the hitmen she is trying to elude.
.
.
.
Director: Don Siegel
Setting: San Francisco
.
A San Francisco dope-smuggling ring that slips packets of drugs into tourists’ luggage is stymied when a drug shipment disappears from the custody of an innocent mother and her little girl.
.
.
.
Director: Edward Dmytryk
Setting: San Francisco
.
A mentally ill man terrorizes San Franciso by killing women with a sniper’s rifle, all the while penning desperate letters to the police in hopes that they will catch him.
.
.

Relationships on the Edge

unhappy_lovers
.
The gritty realism of Film Noir produced some fascinating character studies focused on male/female relationships.  Three of the most engaging (and most chilling) —
.
.
Director: Nicholas Ray
Setting: Los Angeles
.
A budding romance between tempestuous screenwriter Dixon Steele (Bogart) and his new lady neighbor (Grahame) is badly strained when the police suspect Steele of murder.
.
.
.
Director: Fritz Lang
Setting: Monterey, California
.
Restless “black sheep” Mae Doyle (Stanwyck) returns to her family home after an ill-fated love affair.  She finds herself torn, with nearly disastrous consequences, between a level-headed man (Douglas) whom she finds boring and a difficult hothead (Ryan) whom she cannot resist.
.
.
.
Director: David Miller
Settings: A cross-country train; San Francisco
.
Successful playwright Myra Hudson (Crawford) falls deeply in love with and marries dashing actor Lester Blaine (Palance).  Her discovery that he plans to betray her transforms her passionate love into murderous hatred.
.
.

On Children

familly

The recent welcome news that I am to become an aunt for the seventh time has brought these poignant verses to my mind…

On Children

 
 

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

Kahlil Gibran

How, in 1919, could he have known? “The Second Coming” by William Butler Yeats

Horizon

   The Second Coming

 

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

 

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again; but now I know

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

 

William Butler Yeats       1919

Separating the Wheat from the Chaff: Ten Social Media Tips for the New Year

Quill_Pen

I hope 2016 has debuted on a positive note for you!

Over the holidays, I found the relatively quiescent social media world so restful and refreshing that I decided to seek continued peace by changing my online habits.

How best to optimize one’s social media time?  This is necessarily a personal calculation, but I would like to offer ten guidelines that I plan to follow in the New Year.

Output

Posting or tweeting in haste can land one in a quagmire of vitriol, escape from which can cost both time and emotional energy.

  • Do not tweet or post while angry.  If you feel compelled to respond to a provocative missive, jot your thoughts down in a text file and save them (or write them in an email to yourself only).  Wait an hour, and then reread your words before posting anything.

Exception: if a journalist gets his or her facts wrong, send a correction, but keep the message clear of emotion.

 

  • If you feel compelled to argue with someone, pause and ask yourself what in your own life you need or want to work on.  Redirect your energy toward improving yourself instead of firing off a response.

 

  • Similarly, before you criticize a public figure who has no power over your life (such as an athlete or an actor), redirect your energy toward your own goals.

Note that this reasoning applies to misdemeanor irritating habits and other small offenses.  An athlete who violates the rules of his or her sport, breaks the law, or grossly misbehaves merits reasonable public criticism.

 

  • If you disagree with a political post written by an “ordinary citizen” who is neither a journalist nor a member of the political class, keep in mind:(a) the author of the post with which you disagree has only one vote;(b) the author probably wants what’s best for his or her nation and the world but operates with a set of premises different from your own; and(c) the author is not your enemy.

It does no good to send an incendiary message to a relatively powerless citizen who happens to disagree with you about politics.

Exception: journalists and politicians have vast reach and influence.  Go ahead and correct them if they get their facts wrong.

 

  • If you find yourself in an online conversation that turns negative — for example, a cycle of “it’s so terrible that…” — either exit the conversation, or change its tone by saying something positive.

Life is too precious to spend time wallowing in the negative.

 

Input

While it is always tempting and natural online to add new connections, network growth can trigger an explosion of one’s news feed.  Not every post is a good use of time, and what is useful on one day might be a thief of time on a busier day.

Although for reasons of delicacy you may not want to Unfollow an online acquaintance, it is your right — and indeed your responsibility — to manage the volume and content of your news feed or timeline.

  • Don’t be afraid to use the Mute feature on Facebook or Twitter.  You are not obliged to read everything posted by your connections.  If one of your Friends generates an overwhelming volume of posts, or if a Friend posts messages whose tone or content is offensive to you, use Mute either for just a few days or for the indefinite future.

 

  • Similarly, “Turn off Retweets” on Twitter can reduce clutter from acquaintances who might forward too freely for your tastes.

 

  • For the occasional hothead, uninvited guest, or unpleasant personality whose posts or other activity you don’t wish to see, the Block feature is a blessing.

 

  • To quickly check highlights of your Twitter timeline when you are pressed for time (e.g., on a holiday, a travel day, or a busy workday), create a private List that includes only your “must see” feeds.

 

  • Sometimes the best way to cut down on social media time is to shut it off completely.

 

Very best wishes for health, happiness, and success in 2016!

More soon.

 

Quotes for Today

Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time; for that’s the stuff life is made of. — Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanac, 1746

Lost time is never found again. — Benjamin Franklin

 

In the Mood to Swing: An Upbeat Tribute to Glenn Miller

Marine

Time was when the music to which everyone danced was endowed with melody, harmony, and structure – when its creative experimentation was built upon centuries-old musical conventions – and when its practitioners devoted decades of study to the perfection their craft.

Such was the case in early 20th-century America, a crucible of conditions favorable to the development of popular music.  Decades of immigration from central Europe had funneled thousands steeped in musical traditions into crowded Eastern cities, where they could influence and challenge one another.  Unprecedented prosperity freed the young (men) to study and create music and supported a lively musical theatre as well as a burgeoning sheet-music industry.  Radio and early cinema broadcast tunes across the country.  The new rhythms and harmonic liberty of jazz inspired innovation.  From this cauldron of creativity emerged composers and lyricists such as Scott Joplin, Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein II, Lorenz Hart, Goerge and Ira Gershwin, Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, and Jerome Kern, and dance virtuosi such as Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, and Eleanor Powell.

The soundtrack to popular social life of the 1930s and 1940s was “Big Band” jazz – music that conveyed through upbeat, whimsical, and at times naughty songs the irrepressible American optimism that survived even the darkest days of the Great Depression.  Among the era’s virtuosic player-bandleaders were such men as Charlie Parker (saxophone), Duke Ellington (piano), Louis Armstrong (cornet), Artie Shaw (clarinet), and Benny Goodman (clarinet).

Perhaps the most beloved Big Band leader, whose wildly popular music in the 1930s and 40s was derided by critics precisely because it was popular, was trombonist Glenn Miller.  The creator of swing music whose “beauty…caused people to dance together” (and which enjoyed a revival in the late 1990s), Glenn Miller led a life inspiring for its relentless determination and poignant for intimations of what might have been.

G_Miller

Alton Glenn Miller was born on 1 March 1904 in Clarinda, Iowa, to a middle class family.  He spent his boyhood in North Platte, Nebraska, and Fort Morgan, Colorado.  Although Miller starred on the football field as a youngster, his passion was music.  His first instruments were cornet and mandolin.  At age 11, Miller had saved enough money from his job milking cows to buy his first trombone.

Leaving the University of Colorado at Boulder after only one year, Miller sought his musical fortune at the age of 20.  He worked steadily as a dance-band trombonist in Los Angeles and later in New York before trying to establish his own band in 1937.

Miller’s first band was undistinguished and folded in less than a year.  Discouraged but not defeated, he experimented with instrumentation and musical arrangement in search of the right sound. In a stroke of genius, he hit upon the idea of using an unprecedented five saxophones (or four saxophones and clarinet) in his band, in the process creating a revolutionary new musical blend that became his trademark.  The new band Miller formed in late 1938 was a smashing success.

Audiences grooved on the throaty, emotional warmth of the “Glenn Miller Sound.”  The new band shaped popular tastes and imprinted itself onto the public consciousness during the intense years of World War II.  Among the group’s numerous chart-topping hits are classics still enjoyed today.

Although Miller’s repertoire incorporated the rhythms and harmonies of jazz, he assiduously avoided one hallmark characteristic of jazz, improvisation.  Much like his contemporary, the perfectionist Fred Astaire, Miller emphasized rehearsal and insisted on precision.  Critics disparaged Miller’s “letter-perfect playing” style, but audiences flocked to hear his band and bought his records by the millions.

The Glenn Miller Band played its last stateside concert on 27 September 1942.  At the age of 38, Miller had decided to join the armed forces to “do his bit” for the War Effort.  That fall, he was commissioned into the Army Air Corps as a “assistant special services officer” at Maxwell Field in Montgomery, Alabama.  In spite of resistance from some of his tradition-minded superiors, Captain (and later Major) Miller devoted his skills to modernizing and overhauling the service’s band and orchestra program.  In the evenings, he performed in local nightclubs and service halls and on local radio programs.

Capt_Miller

By 1944, Miller’s military music program had become so successful that he received permission to form a 50-piece Army Air Force Band and take the band to England.  Through the summer and autumn of 1944, the Army Air Force Band under Miller’s direction performed 800 concerts in Great Britain and made studio recordings for the Office of War Information.  Miller’s catchy tunes bolstered the spirits of servicemen and civilians alike as the Allies forced a German retreat in France.  In the words of Lieutenant General Jimmy Doolittle, commander of the Eighth Air Force in England,

“next to a letter from home, [Glenn Miller’s music] was the greatest morale builder in the European Theater of Operations.”

The Army Air Force Band scheduled a series of concerts for troops stationed in France for the Christmas season of 1944.  On the night of 15 December, Miller took off from RAF Twinwood Farm near Clapham en route to Paris.  Aboard the single-engine UC-64 Norseman were Miller, Lt. Col. Norman Baessell, and pilot John Morgan.  On that foggy, icy night, the small plane disappeared over the English Channel.

The remains of Miller’s plane have never been found.  Numerous theories have been advanced to explain its mysterious disappearance, including the possibility that it was hit by a bomb jettisoned by an Allied plane returning home.  A recent study concluded that Miller’s flight was probably doomed by a faulty carburetor of a type known to ice up in cold weather.

Miller left behind his wife, Helen, two adopted children, Steven and Jonnie, and a gaping void in the American music scene.  What he might have achieved had he lived past 1944 will sadly, in the words of the late preeminent musicologist Gunther Schuller, “forever remain conjectural.”

In 1953, Universal Studios produced a wonderful biopic, The Glenn Miller Story, starring James Stewart and June Allyson and featuring ten Miller tunes.  The film – which I strongly recommend as both historical document and great entertainment – was hugely successful at the box office and helped to cement Miller’s status as a mid-century American cultural icon.  To this day, orchestras sanctioned by the Glenn Miller estate continue to perform Miller’s music in the U.S., the U.K., and continental Europe.

After 75 years, Glenn Miller’s snappy, reedy jazz continues to embody his upbeat energy and optimism.  To anyone interested in discovering the Miller repertoire, I recommend the two-disc set Glenn Miller – Greatest Hits.

Fortunately, many of Miller’s greatest tunes are also available on YouTube.

Moonlight Serenade

This masterpiece from 1939 is one of Miller’s most beloved and atmospheric love songs.

 

Chattanooga Choo Choo

A fun and catchy tune recorded in May 1941, Chattanooga Choo Choo appears in the film Sun Valley Serenade.

 

Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree (with Anyone Else but Me)

This cheeky wartime love song, recorded in February 1942, spent 13 weeks on the Billboard charts and ranked 12th for the year in sales.

 

String of Pearls

Recorded in November 1941, String of Pearls is one of the Glenn Miller Band’s #1 hits.

 

Tuxedo Junction

This song originated with a college dance band called the Erskine Hawkins Orchestra.  The Miller band’s 1940 recording reached #1 on the charts.

 

In the Mood

One of my favorites, and one of the best jitterbug/swing songs of all time!

Recorded in August 1939, In the Mood sat at #1 on the jukebox list (precursor to the Billboard charts) for 13 weeks.

 

 

 

Quote for Today

“America means freedom and there’s no expression of freedom quite so sincere as music.” – Glenn Miller

And They’re Off! Handicapping the 2016 U.S. Presidential Horse Race

Combat

In the heady early-morning hours of last November 5, when most of the 2014 U.S. midterm races had finally been decided and conceded,  weary political commentators sat and closed their eyes for a brief rest.  After only a few seconds, as a unit they rose, refreshed, and launched into speculation about the 2016 Presidential race.

Today, with 15 months until General Election ballots are cast, the 2016 Presidential field is the most crowded in history.  The first order of business is the Primary season, through which individual states, beginning with Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, will help the parties to select their Presidential nominees.  Seventeen combatants are vying for the Republican nomination, while five have entered the Democratic race (so far; more on that below).

The race begins in earnest today with the first Republican debates.

I would like to offer some thoughts about what is at stake in this (and every) Presidential election.  I will briefly profile the colorful array of candidates and explain why the most important split in U.S. politics is not between the Democrats and the Republicans.

How Washington Works – A Citizen’s Summary

Capitol

The Federal government is divided into three ostensibly co-equal branches: the Executive, headed by the President and composed of a myriad of departments and agencies led by political appointees; the Legislative, comprised of the House and the Senate, and charged with oversight of and budgeting for the Executive branch; and the Judicial, headed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is charged with evaluating the Constitutionality of actions taken by the other two branches.

For more about the Founders’ Constitutional design for the Federal government, please see my post of last autumn entitled, “What’s All the Noise About? – A Guide to the 2014 U.S. Midterm Elections.”

Today, official Washington, D.C., appears to be a den of iniquity fueled by money, avarice, power, and ego.  An incestuous network of consultants, lobbyists, and party leaders – many of whom are former government officials – works hand-in-hand with legislators and agency staff to craft laws and regulations.  Favors are sold to the highest bidder in exchange for campaign contributions, or for loan forgiveness, or for leniency in blackmail plots, or for Heaven knows what else.

Gargantuan Federal departments, many of which fall outside the scope of government as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, endeavor each year to spend or squander every penny of their annual budgets.  Perverse incentives dictate that any department not using its entire budget receives a smaller allocation for the next year.

Additional perverse incentives ensure that almost no Federal employee, regardless of level of incompetence, is ever fired.  Federal managers face mountains of paperwork if they ever wish to prune their dead wood.

Lawmakers and agency staff draft rules that micromanage citizens’ lives as well as industries across the economic spectrum.  In response, businesses, non-profits, and even foreign governments send lobbyists to Washington to represent their interests.  As the laws become more intrusive, lobbying increases, and the financial stakes grow.

Consequently, Washington’s entrenched leadership class, composed of long-term legislators, civil servants, consultants, lobbyists, and heads of non-governmental organizations (and their lawyers), is deeply invested in a system of graft that funnels money into their pockets (or, in some cases, into their campaign coffers) while shackling the citizenry with intrusive rules and regulations.

Ugly, isn’t it?  The stench hovering over Washington arises from more than its history as a swamp.

So what can be done?

The only way to reduce the corruption intrinsic to Washington, D.C., and practiced by both political parties, is to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government.  If regulations were scaled back, if laws were less intrusive, if taxpayer-funded handouts of “pork” were removed from Federal budgets, and if Federal departments and agencies were shrunk to more closely approximate the Founders’ vision, the need for lobbyists and consultants and their slush funds would evaporate.

None of these reforms appeals to the Establishment wing of either political party.

The Party Establishment and the Grassroots Rebels

Throne

The Democratic Party, founded in early 1830s, and the Republican Party, founded in 1854, control the levers of power in the Federal and State governments.  Each party garners roughly half of the vote in any given election.

The “base,” or “grassroots,” of the Democratic party is an alliance of academics, ethnic minorities, highly-educated professionals, women, homosexuals, young voters, and organized labor.  In general, the Democratic base believes that government at all levels can and should be used as a tool to redress what they consider to be social ills.

By contrast, the Republican base, which is generally more Caucasian, more devoutly religious, less highly educated, and more tied to the business community, believes that the most effective solutions to social problems, and the means to prosperity for everyone, lie in the individual liberty and concomitant individual responsibility that have long been central to the American experience.  Individual liberty necessarily requires small government.

The parties’ bases disagree sharply regarding the size and role of government, but there is no such schism between the Establishment wings of the respective parties.  Both favor the type of vast and convoluted government that sustains the Washington graft machine.  Since they serve Washington and not the citizenry, both Establishment wings are increasingly isolated from their grassroots voters.

Although the Democratic Establishment shares with its base a commitment to big government, the Establishment allies itself with Wall Street, large corporations, and deep-pocketed donors to an extent that alienates some in the Democratic base.

The relationship between the Republican Establishment and its base is so frail as to be on life support.  The Republican base has become increasingly disillusioned by candidates who espouse small-government principles on the campaign trail and then drop any such pretensions when they reach Washington.  For its part, the Republican Establishment treats the small-government base and the candidates they prefer as contemptible impediments.  In the 2014 election cycle, the Establishment made its disdain for the base clearer than ever by employing underhanded tactics in several hotly-contested primaries.

Every four years, during the Presidential Primary season, each party’s Establishment and its wealthy donors, who are accustomed to buying what they want in Washington, fight tooth and nail to ensure that the party’s nominee is “one of them,” a candidate who can help to maintain Washington’s status quo.

The most important schism in U.S. politics is not between the Democrats and the Republicans but between the entrenched “leadership class” and the taxpaying citizenry.  Our leaders and their surrogates in the media spew fiery, hot-button rhetoric to divide us from each other, and specifically to make everyone hate the small-government Republican base, while their endgame is the protection of their cozy, gold-plated, communal feeding trough.

Thus are the battle lines drawn for the 2016 Primary election season.

Candidates in the Democratic Field

Donkey

From the beginning of the 2016 election cycle, conventional wisdom has suggested that selection of the Democratic candidate for the General Election would be less a nomination than a coronation.  In spite of four other candidates’ entry into the race, by media consensus the candidacy has until recently belonged to Hillary Clinton.

First Lady from 1992 to 2000, Senator from New York from 2000 to 2008, failed candidate for President in 2008, and Secretary of State from 2008 to 2012, Hillary Clinton has been preparing to assume the mantle of the Presidency for many years.  Perhaps out of determination to prevent surprises from derailing her triumphal run to the 2017 Inauguration, the reflexively secretive Clinton has run a hyper-controlled and almost opaque campaign this year, going as far as to refuse for weeks at a time to take questions from reporters and, later, to cordon reporters into a roped-off sidewalk corral.

Clinton_Circle

In recent weeks, though, Hillary Clinton’s inevitability has suffered a series of blows from scandals that one might argue have been self-inflicted.  Scandal is not new in Hillary Clinton’s career.  Its rich history dates back to her husband Bill’s days as Governor of Arkansas.  (One can find more by searching in either Google or Wikipedia on “rose law firm,” “whitewater,” “travel gate,” or “Hillary Clinton commodities investment.”)

What has most troubled the Democratic party about Clinton’s difficulties of late is that the scandals are starting to seriously erode Clinton’s poll numbers.  Recent polls have shown Clinton lagging behind Republican candidates in key swing states, rapidly losing her lead over the other Democratic candidates in early primary states, and – most damagingly – underwater (i.e., with more disapproving than approving) in national voter approval and trustworthiness numbers.

Some voters are bothered by Secretary of State Clinton’s failure to foresee or prevent the loss of four American lives on 11 September 2012 in Benghazi, Libya.  Others might be bothered by her having lied to the families of the Benghazi victims while standing in front of the flag-draped caskets recently arrived on U.S. soil.  Still others might be disturbed that as a self-described feminist she proffers nary a word against female genital mutilation, honor killings, child marriage, or other horrendous oppression of women and girls common in countries that just happen to donate to her family’s foundations.  The appearance of other corruption related Clinton foundation donations might alienate still other voters.  In addition, she faces tough questions and possibly a criminal indictment related to the illegal private email server that she maintained in her home during her tenure as Secretary of State.

It is because of Mrs. Clinton’s plummeting approval ratings that the Democratic Establishment, and specifically the party’s non-Clinton faction (which is rumored to hate the Clinton faction), has scrambled in the press in recent days to float other candidacies.  Rumors are flying that Vice President Joe Biden or current Secretary of State (and 2004 Presidential candidate) John Kerry might enter the race. In response, the Clinton campaign is suddenly calling for the party to schedule a debate, which forum Clinton (ever keen to maintain control) had previously resisted.

Four other candidates have entered the race for the Democratic nomination:

  • Lincoln Chafee, 62, former Senator from and current Governor of Rhode Island, a former Republican turned Independent turned Democrat.

Chafee_Circle

  • Martin O’Malley, 52, a former Governor of Maryland who is running third in most polls.

O'Malley_Circle

  • Jim Webb, 69, former Virginia Governor, a Navy veteran and former college professor.

Webb_Circle

  • Bernie Sanders, 73, Vermont Senator and devout socialist who is running second in most Democratic polls.

Sanders_Circle

Bernie Sanders has drawn strong support from the Democratic base with his advocacy for a high minimum wage, taxpayer funding of all university education, single-payer health care, and forced redistribution of wealth.  It is in part Sanders’ strong showing in head-to-head polls against Clinton that have prompted Democratic party leaders to look for a new frontrunner.

The Democratic field might change dramatically in the next two months.  The posturing, gambits, and chess moves promises to be fascinating to watch.

Candidates in the Republican Field

Elephant

The Republican Primary race offers the largest, strongest, and arguably most entertaining field in election history.  Among the contenders at the top of the polls are governors and former governors, Senators, and private citizens who have never held public office.  The field is also younger than usual and far more racially diverse than the current Democratic field.

Atop most polls is Donald Trump, outspoken 69-year-old real estate billionaire and TV personality.  Perhaps because he has no need to court campaign donors, Trump has set himself apart from his rivals with a series of brash denunciations of business-as-usual in Washington politics.

Trump_Circle

Trump’s appeal to the Republican base stems from his candor and his willingness to challenge the Republican Establishment.  His rocket-flight to the top of the polls ought to serve as a warning to the Establishment.  If party leaders commit the same error in 2016 as in 1996 (Dole), 2008 (McCain), and 2012 (Romney) – i.e., shoehorning their favorite candidate into the nomination – they will likely see in 2016 the same result: a loss in November.

The fire-from-the-hip impulsiveness that has propelled Trump to prominence may also be his undoing in the Primary race.  In light of his record of impolitic, unfiltered brashness, it is likely that eventually an outlandish statement will knock Trump out of the top tier of candidates.  If (when?) Trump falls, though, his supporters will not move en masse to the Establishment favorite.  This is an important point that seems to have eluded Republican party leadership.

In second or third place in most polls is Jeb Bush, 62, the former Governor of Florida, son of the 41st President, George H. W. Bush, and younger brother to the 43rd President, George W. Bush.  Jeb!, as calls himself publically in an effort to declare that he’s his own man, is the Establishment favorite.  He is unlikely to appeal to the base, because of his history of either hewing to the Establishment line on hot-button policy topics or, in a few recent cases, publically repeating Democratic talking points.  Bland and usually personable (except when name-calling at Donald Trump), he stumbled badly at the first candidates’ forum last weekend in New Hampshire, stammering throughout what one blogger called the worst performance of the evening.

Jeb_circle

Since Americans in general (and, historically, Republicans in particular) hate nepotism, Jeb faces a headwind by virtue of his last name that would persist after the end of Primary season if he were to secure the nomination.  He remains the party leaders’ top pick, though, because he would do their bidding.

Also consistently near the top of the polls is Scott Walker, 47, the current Governor of Wisconsin.  Walker is loathed, despised, and demonized by the media, because at the beginning of his term as Governor he took a stand against organized labor by partially restricting the collective bargaining rights of some public-sector unions in Wisconsin.  The ensuing high political drama saw weeks of protests carried out by teachers who were skipping school and culminated in the spectacle of Democratic state senators fleeing to nearby Illinois in an effort to scuttle the vote.  Walker and his legislative colleagues held firm.  The measure passed.  In the years since, Wisconsin municipalities have had an easier time making their budgets.  None of the dire consequences predicted by the State Capitol protestors has come to pass.

Walker_Circle

Walker is a bête noir to most of the media, but the truth is that he has done a good job as Governor of my home state of Wisconsin.  He took over a state with an ugly budget deficit and returned it to fiscal health.  Unemployment is down, taxes are down, and high school graduation rates are up.

To the Republican base, Walker represents victory for small-government principles.  He took controversial stands, held firm, and won legislative battles.  He has won statewide election three times – his original election in 2010, an attempted 2012 recall heavily funded by out-of-state Democratic interests, and his reelection in 2014.  Easy-going and articulate on the stump, he is said to have “won” the New Hampshire candidates’ forum.

If Trumps falls, Walker is one of the leading contenders to pick up his vote.  That said, Walker has yet to prove himself in national debates and specifically on foreign policy topics.  In my opinion, he would be well served if he were to drop his annoying habit (which he shares with a few other candidates) of referring to himself as “we.”

A candidate who arouses passionate feelings in both the base (admiration) and the Establishment (loathing) is 44-year-old Texas Senator Ted Cruz.  A graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, Cruz has built a reputation during his two years in the Senate as a serious thorn in the side of the Establishment.  Cruz spearheaded several attempts to modify or overturn legislation especially troublesome to the Republican base, such as the Affordable Care Act.  Each such attempt was ultimately stopped by Republican Establishment leaders in the Senate.

Cruz_Circle

Cruz is a highly articulate advocate for small-government principles.  He comes across as a clear thinker.  Off-the-cuff, he can be a brilliant speaker.

Counting against Cruz is the fact that his admirable verbal agility might turn some in the base, which historically distrusts demagogues, against him.  The fact that his wife is an investment banker might also put off some base voters who are suspicious of the world of high finance.

Cruz has created such a strong brand for himself, though, that if he performs well in debates, “gotcha” media interviews, and campaign events, his base support could carry him to the Republican nomination.

A fifth candidate who is especially intriguing is Dr. Ben Carson, 63, who retired in 2013 after a brilliant career as a pediatric neurosurgeon.

Carson_Circle

Carson grew up in abject poverty in Detroit.  His single mother insisted that Carson and his brother read a library book every week and submit to her a book report, which she proceeded to mark up.  Carson has said that it wasn’t until years later that he had realized his mother had barely been able to read the reports that she had graded.

After allowing his hot temper to steer him badly as a youth, Carson turned his life around and earned high grades in high school.  He turned down an appointment to West Point in favor of a spot at Yale, where he studied psychology, followed by medical school at the University of Michigan.  While on the faculty of The Johns Hopkins University, Carson was renowned as one of the best pediatric neurosurgeons in the world.

Carson rose to political prominence in February 2013, when he delivered a National Prayer Breakfast speech sharply critical of the present government’s priorities.  Since entering the Presidential race, after a few rookie mistakes with hot-button media traps, Carson has presented a consistent message of small government and personal responsibility.

From a pollster’s standpoint, Carson’s greatest strength is his favorability.  According to a recent poll from Quinnipiac University, Carson is the least known of all of the current candidates, but among the poll respondents who do know him, Carson has both the highest favorability and the lowest unfavorability of any candidate in the field.  In short, when voters get to know Carson, they like him and what he stands for.

Carson is articulate, soft-spoke, thoughtful, polite, and better than any candidate I have ever seen at laughing at himself.  If he performs well in the Primary season’s test events, he could be one of the last few candidates standing.

The 12 remaining candidates in the race for the Republican nomination are, in alphabetical order:

  • Chris Christie, 52, the charismatic and bombastic Governor of New Jersey, who can be a riveting speaker but who, because of his behavior in 2012, is viewed by many in the base as self-aggrandizing and/or untrustworthy.

Christie_Circle

  • Carly Fiorina, 60, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who has distinguished herself in media confrontations on the campaign trail.

Fiorina_Circle

  • Jim Gilmore, 65, a U.S. Army veteran and former Governor of Virginia.

Gilmore_Circle

  • Lindsay Graham, 60, U.S. Air Force veteran and Senator from South Carolina, who made his name in the House of Representatives during the 1998 impeachment trial of President Clinton.  During his Senate tenure, though, Graham has taken some puzzling positions, seeming at times rather like a ventriloquist’s dummy.

Graham_Circle

  • Mike Huckabee, 59, former Governor of Arkansas, TV host, and failed 2008 Presidential candidate.  Dispenses home-spun populism with unctuous charm.

Huckabee_circle

  • Bobby Jindal, 44, the very successful Governor of Louisiana and one of two southern Republican Governors of Indian descent.

Jindal_Circle

  • John Kasich, 63, Governor of Ohio and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Kasich has worked to shrink the size of government in Ohio, but for 2016 he seems to be trying to sell himself as an Establishment alternative to Jeb Bush.

Kasich_Circle

  • George Pataki, 70, former Governor of New York, who was in office during the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Pataki_Circle

  • Dr. Rand Paul, 62, an ophthalmological surgeon and current Senator from Kentucky, who launched himself from the Libertarian movement built by his father, Dr. (and former Representative) Ron Paul.  Recently Rand Paul’s campaign has faltered, because he is reportedly unwilling to give big donors the face time they require.

Paul_Circle

  • Rick Perry, 65, former Governor of Texas, U.S. Air Force veteran, and failed 2012 Presidential candidate. Perry might be the most genuine and likable candidate in the Republican field, but his proclivity for committing gaffes will probably doom his candidacy early on.

Perry_Circle

  • Marco Rubio, 44, Senator from Florida.  The Cuban-American son of a maid and a bartender, Rubio has parlayed his good looks, intelligence, and strong speaking skills into a leading spot among the Republican Party’s rising stars.  Because of positions he has taken in the Senate on a few hot-button issues, Rubio is not trusted by some in the base.  Also working against him is his susceptibility to stumbling when he is in the spotlight.

Rubio_Circle

  • Rick Santorum, 57, former Senator from Pennsylvania and failed 2012 Presidential candidate.  Santorum is an earnest and articulate advocate of a form of populism that fails to resonate with much of the Republican base.

Santorum_Circle

Tonight in Cleveland, Ohio, the Republican candidates will hold their first debate, which actually had to be divided into two sessions in order to accommodate the bumper crop of candidates.  The top 10 in recent polling will meet this evening at 8 p.m. EDT, while the remaining 7 will face off in an “undercard” debate at 5 p.m.

Predictions

The Democratic Side

As of today there is a Civil War brewing within the Democratic party that makes the Primary race very difficult for an outsider to predict.  If President Obama’s Justice Department proceeds on its current track toward indicting Hillary Clinton for crimes related to her private email server, the Party will probably find its nominee by enlisting someone, such as Joe Biden, who isn’t yet in the race.  If the Justice Department backs off, Hillary Clinton will almost inevitably be the nominee.

The Republican Side

Before considering 2016, a few words about what happened in 2012:

From the beginning of the 2012 Republican Primary season, a “non-Romney” candidate was always ahead of Mitt Romney in the polls: first Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, then Rick Santorum, the Newt Gingrich.  The fact that Romney never led until he only one opponent remained should have signaled the Establishment that the base didn’t like Romney.

Romney’s 2012 opponents all had attackable weaknesses.  After Rick Perry imploded from a debate gaffe, the Romney camp systematically took out his challengers through vicious ad campaigns and/or loaded debate questions, until Romney was the inevitable nominee.

At that point, the Republican Establishment arrogantly assumed that the pesky hayseeds in the base would do as they were told, swallow the candidate fed to them, and vote for Romney in November.  In this, the Establishment had miscalculated.  One reason Barack Obama won reelection, in spite of garnering fewer votes than he had in 2008, was that much of the Republican base stayed home, believing that the difference between a Romney presidency and an Obama presidency would be negligible.

(I think a Romney administration would have differed sharply from the current Obama administration in the foreign policy arena, but from the standpoint of size of government, the base voters who stayed home may have been right.)

In 2016, the “non-Jeb” field is much stronger than were the 2012 “non-Romneys” – better qualified, more experienced, more articulate, and less vulnerable to scandal.  The Republican Establishment will have a very hard time knocking off all of the “non-Jeb” candidates this time around.  I believe at least one from among Walker, Cruz, Trump, and Carson will finish the Primary season ahead of Jeb Bush.

 

That said, I will make one prediction with confidence: if Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton win their parties’ nominations, the next President of the United States will be Hillary Clinton.

 

Candidate photographs provided by Wikipedia.

 

Quote for Today

“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” ― Plato (ca. 425 – ca. 347 B.C.)