WHO IS (or isn't) READY FOR THEIR CLOSEUP?

Have you ever wondered what campaign season would have been like back in the 1950s if the candidates had their P.R. gurus producing TV commercials? How would the public have perceived the not-so-television-ready Harry Truman in candid shots from the campaign trail mixed with slickly produced sound bites from his speeches? Truman was the guy who once said, “All my life, whenever it comes time to make a decision, I make it and forget about it.” You can just see the campaign marketing team going pale and starting to sweat.

If there is one thing that the creative team on a campaign doesn’t want the public to see it is anything authentic to the candidate’s persona. Come on. Do you think even one person on the Rick Perry campaign would have authorized release of the video of his recent dinner speech? You know, the one where he was evidently either drunk or high. One could posit that in that video we voters saw the real Rick Perry for the first time. Reality can be so humiliating sometimes, right? Oh…you didn’t see it? Watch:

We are in the early stages of a year long, fully-produced deluge of campaign propaganda films and sharply-edited television ads. All are aimed at convincing us of the integrity, ethical stability and approachable gravitas of the presidential hopefuls. Couple that with some scripted, coached charisma and some hyper-patriotic background music and there you have it – the U.S. version of political campaigning. It is the political version of musical theatre – it has all the elements – except maybe dancing. But think about it: political campaign TV ads and musical theatre compel you to pay attention by appealing to your emotions, your passion and your love of a happy ending. Is a Herman Cain campaign ad really all that different than your typical Broadway protagonist – the age-old story of an unknown everyman who comes from behind and steps into the spotlight? Remember Ruby Keeler in “42nd Street?” Get the parallels? And yes, I just went there – I compared Herman Cain to Ruby Keeler.

Well, maybe not. I mean that last web-only ad with the campaign manager smoking the cigarette and Cain smiling that sort of shit eating grin for a few seconds too long at the end? If ever somebody needed a Mike Nichols – or even a Mel Brooks – it’s poor Herman Cain. Cain may be the one candidate most in need of producing and directing assistance of any candidate in recent history. When confronted by aggressive media reporters about his alleged sexual harassment struggles in the late 1990s, Cain scolded the reporters and told them he was not going to discuss it. Watch:

Oh Herman. Don’t you know? Hasn’t the guy with the cigarette told you? The more you piss off the press the more predatory it becomes. And the next thing you know, Herman, the stories of your peccadillos trump policies in your media coverage.

Somebody seriously forgot to tell people like Cain and Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum that running for president in the 21st century is all about packaging. Anything you try to hide behind the package -- like a husband of questionable sexuality who runs a clinic that tries to pray the gay away (Bachmann)—will find a headline somewhere, which will go viral in about two seconds, which can undo all the hard work you’ve done so far to put forth a squeaky clean image. And any history you have of spreading extreme rhetoric that runs counter to majority thinking – like Santorum’s crazy rantings about homosexuality being akin to adultery and incest – will find the wrong kind of headlines and fully unravel your meticulously crafted all-American, family man image.

This is the first presidential election in the history of the U.S. that has this much media and technology chronicling its every millisecond. This current crop of GOP would-be-chief execs appears to be trying to play the presidential campaign game by old media rules. What none of them seem to grasp is that these days if you say something truly stupid or ill-conceived or wildly inaccurate at dinner in Palm Beach, everybody in Palm Springs will know about it by dessert.

That leads to two trends that work directly against us voters: First, it means that the smartest image-makers among the campaigns will script everything so tightly that we will not ever have an opportunity to truly know who the candidate is or where he or she stands on the most divisive issues; and second, it will further cause the candidates to speak in made-for-TV/web sound bites intended for viral dissemination. In short, we get less reality than ever before because of the mass paranoia among the campaigners that their words will be mis-interpreted or worse – fully understood by the masses.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that extremists like Bachmann, Santorum and a couple of others will be voted off the island any minute now. Cain may linger for a while. After all, his antics are entertaining, if not exactly presidential material. Hard to say. And Perry? Maybe fewer cocktails before the next after-dinner speech may be
in order for him. The GOP hopeful who becomes the nominee this time is the one who understands the pervasiveness and power of traditional and new media. This time the one who Tweets right, Facebooks compellingly and who understands the real impact of inevitable and constant visibility will be the one who survives and takes center stage at the GOP convention August 27 in Tampa, FL. Along the way, the winning candidate will probably have to succumb to photo ops with the likes of Snooki, interviews with reporters with their own agendas and late night repartee with the Leno/Letterman/Fallon/Kimmel types.

Is it simple show biz or is it a race to see who will be the next leader of the free world? You be the judge.

HERE COME THE TEAVANGELICALS

Here’s a disturbing image: On Saturday, the governor of the second largest state in America stood on a stage with a group of ministers at an event sponsored by the American Family Association. If you are not familiar with this group, just know it is a Miss.-based organization that claims the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion only applies to Christians. The AFA is currently sponsoring a boycott of Home Depot, a company it has deemed too gay friendly. The group also opposes abortion and routinely releases rhetoric that makes it a borderline hate group. It is with this group that Texas Governor Rick Perry stood in solidarity at an event called “The Response” on Saturday.

The rally at which Perry spoke is one of the most high profile examples of what is becoming known as the “Teavangelical” movement. The inevitable collision of the religious right and neo-conservative politics is now a full-fledged movement. That it excludes so many segments of the population does not seem to bother potential presidential candidates like Rick Perry and candidate Michele Bachmann, and that should hotly bother the rest of us on so many levels. Chief among them is the American tradition separating church and state, a principle that dates back to the beginning of our nation. Here, for example is what President Thomas Jefferson said in 1808: “Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”

Conversely, Rick Perry (left) has now aligned himself with a group that is unashamed of its commitment to white, ultra-conservative Christians, and to its belief that God alone should be guiding the political process. Nobody mentions free will. Nobody mentions civil rights. Nobody ever utters the word “democracy.” It has become clear that in Rick Perry’s world, if you are gay, Muslim, black, Jewish, a believer in freedom of choice or an atheist, you don’t really have a place in modern America.

In an increasingly crowded list of Republican presidential candidates, Perry is not alone in his assertion that the solution to our nation’s woes is a return to God. On the same day Perry stood alongside the AFA, former Minnesota Governor and current presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty said this to a gathering in Iowa: “…we need to be a nation that turns toward God, not away from God.” Pawlenty also paraphrased the Old Testament: “If my people, who are called by name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I’ll hear from heaven, forgive their sins and heal their land.” Pawlenty even has a website called PawlentyFaith.com, where the lead video is only about his Christian faith. In it, he says, “My faith is very important to me; it influences everything I do.” Watch:

Pawlenty and others who are blurring the line between religion and politics often refer to the founding fathers and emphasize their stated faith in God. No one disputes that they were men of faith. In fact, many of us respect that. But the founding fathers never made a move to emphasize one faith or one belief as that which should guide the American government. In 1823, James Madison wrote, “The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both.” The point is that just as Mrs. Pawlenty harkens to the founding fathers to support her narrow belief system, others can point to the founding fathers to support opposing views. Let’s instead rely on our collective intelligence and our ability to make strong decisions based on our intellect. Wouldn’t that put us all on more even ground? Wouldn’t that really reaffirm our belief in the democracy?

Saturday was a big day in conservative circles. In addition to Perry’s questionable decision to stand firm with the AFA, and Pawlenty’s teavangelistic rant in Iowa, Michele Bachman (right) found herself endorsed by 100 pastors and Christian leaders. Of course, each of them was careful to note that they were personally endorsing the tea party queen bee, and not endorsing her on behalf of their church. That’s because they don’t want to lose their tax-exempt status, which hangs in the balance whenever their church dives too deeply into the political arena. Since 1954, the IRS has prohibited churches from endorsing political candidates.

So what drives this burgeoning religiosity across the nation? Is it some sort of spiritual awakening? And if it is, what sort of spirituality would accommodate such exclusivity? Or is it possible the increasingly assertive religious right is due to the prolonged economic distress in the U.S.? Perry and others are making statements that seem to imply our economic and political future are in the hands of God. I, for one am not ready to concede that much of my free will, are you? When voting day comes, I’ll most respect the candidate who presents the clearest platform for progress – economic, social and political –and who respects everyone’s right to worship or not worship. I’m Jewish. In the Teavangelical’s version of America, there really isn’t a space for me, and my only reaction to that is that I’m not having it.

I don’t think Americans in majority are having it either. History shows we Americans rarely vote en masse for extremism of any kind. The teavangelical view of America is a closed set. The movement is discriminatory. That’s not who we are. If you want to know what I have faith in, it is the collective reasonableness of the American people not to allow us to be beamed back to the 1950s.

DANGER – DANGER! MICHELE BACHMANN IS TALKING CRAZY TALK

Have you noticed that nobody seems to argue that a woman can’t be President of the U.S. anymore? As recently as the 2008 presidential election, many people debated Hillary Clinton’s viability as a candidate, simply because “the country is not ready for a woman President.” I have not heard one person say that this year about the two women who have made noises about becoming Chief Exec, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin. From my vantage point, the reason we aren’t hearing the sexist argument we heard in ’08 is simply that there are so many bigger and more substantive arguments against either of these women holding a high office in the U.S. government. Palin, through her behavior and misguided statements has made it clear to the public that she is not really prepared to be a national legislator or leader. Bachmann, however, while similarly ill prepared to lead the country, is soldiering on, and right now, polls show her gaining ground.

Polls this far out from the election don’t mean a whole lot. Everybody knows that. Still, there are a lot of reasons to reject her as a candidate. Radical liberals will talk about her neo-conservative views. But a lot of us out here are really more centrists than liberals, and we’re doing our best to be open to all possible candidates – as long as they cut the crazy talk. Come on: Can somebody tell me why a significant part of the electorate is taking someone serious who thinks the founding fathers in 1776 were “working tirelessly to abolish slavery?”; someone who thinks homosexuality is a disease and whose own husband counsels homosexuals to simply read the Bible and become celibate as the antidote to their apparent affliction?; someone who said out loud that the Obama administration is “afraid” of her?; who stretches the truth and exaggerates, time after time, like the time she said President Obama’s trip to India last year cost the taxpayers $200 million a day?; or the time she … well, you get the picture, right?

Panels of talking heads on Fox News will argue that media is overstating Michele Bachmann’s crazy talk. They will tell use the sexism card, arguing that were Bachmann a man, she would be given a free pass on some of her frequent public gaffes. You know, gaffes, like the time she said John Quincy Adams was one of the founding fathers of our country, when in truth, in 1776 Adams was nine years old. Or like the time she got American hero actor John Wayne confused with serial killer John Wayne Gacy. Woops, there I go overstating Michele’s “misstatements.”

Listen, she is out there every single day facing cameras and microphones and throngs of voters. I get it. It’s hard to not say the wrong thing now and then. Keywords: NOW AND THEN. But Bachmann routinely makes mistaken historical references, and exaggerated statements about social issues that she clearly has not truly studied. Way back in 2004 she said this about gay people: “Any of you who have members of your family that are in the lifestyle-we have a member of our family that is. This is not funny. It's a very sad life. It's part of Satan, I think, to say this is gay. It's anything but gay." Her tune has remained constant on this particular ditty.
That reminds me of the story about Bachmann, when she was state senator. She went to the ladies room during a gay rights rally and a lesbian ex-nun approached her to ask her her views on one of the issues being discussed. Bachmann bolted from the restroom, reportedly screaming, “Help, I’m being held against my will,” and ran to a waiting SUV in tears. It begs the question: What will would-be “President” Bachmann do when a gay American tries to talk to her, say, at a press conference, or at a State dinner? Will she scream bloody murder and report it to the police as she did after the incident with the former nun?

There are more weighty issues to consider regarding Bachmann’s attitude toward gay people. First, the issue of gay marriage is not going away anytime soon. Whether she likes it or not (and she clearly does not), gay Americans are gaining ground in their quest for equal civil rights. She would not be able to simply avoid the issue. Further, the U.S. provides hundreds of millions of dollars in international funding to prevent and fight the spread of AIDS in underdeveloped countries. People of Bachman’s mindset often still see HIV/AIDS as a “gay” disease. Will she fight to cut off this funding?

And then there’s that pesky little issue of Marcus Bachmann, her husband. It is widely reported now that Marcus Bachmann (right, with Michele) has a clinic that dedicates itself to “reparative” therapy designed to turn gay people straight. He denies this, but former clients have come forward to reveal what happened when Bachmann got ahold of them and tried to “cure” them. If you really want to know who Michele Bachmann has been married to for the past umpteen years, you need to hear what John M. Becker, a happily married (to a man) gay man who went undercover recently to investigate Bachmann’s clinic. You can read about his experience here, but just know that he was assured his “lifestyle” was not legitimate and that he had to do everything possible to change his sexuality. Did I mention the Bachmann clinic is state and federally funded? Watch this CNN report about the Marcus Bachmann clinic controversy:

Then, just days ago, it was revealed that in 2006 Michele Bachmann said, ““The Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.” So, let’s do the math. Michele Bachmann wants to be President, while she submits to her husband, who believes gay people are sick and need to be cured. An undefined percentage of the American population is gay. Since the Bachmanns are in concert in their belief that Satan is dancing around inside gay people’s heads, will she simply choose to fully marginalize the entire homosexual population of this country, including her own lesbian sister? And if she can see herself doing that to gay people, who else will she exclude from the American dream? What other population segments do not fit neatly into the narrow Bachmann acceptance category? Let’s see: We know Democrats are not allowed in. We know that many Republicans are not running parallel with the Bachmann philosophies. We know people who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, which Bachmann did at 16, are not in favor. We know that strong, assertive women who do not adhere to wifely submission are on the outs. Let’s add it all up now. Who remains? Just the Tea Party.

There is not, and never has been a presidential candidate who would spread the legislative and socio/economic love to all segments of the American population. But there has rarely been one whose political and societal scope has been as limited as that of Michele Bachmann. The danger in remotely considering her as a serious candidate is the precedent that it sets. Few people truly believe she will be the leader of the free world. It is inconceivable. But the more steam her quest gains on the campaign trail, the more our electoral system is trivialized. And the more personal power her narrow band of supporters begins to feel, the more the rest of Americans have to fear about their politics, their personal choices and their human independence. You know what? Right now in America, Michele Bachmann is dangerous.