The Voice of Treason

Innards Redux: Part 2

Writing by treason on Saturday, 28 of October , 2006 at 12:02 pm

Okay, okay. To be fair, in the four seasons of The First 48 there have been fifty episodes and fewer than a half dozen were shot in Kansas City. It’s just odd that when I decide to watch the show, those are the episodes airing. Is someone trying to tell me something?

Nevertheless, I’m still keeping my eye on other states’ elections. Frankly, because I’m always considering moving to a more promising state. But based on what I’ve seen of candidates, political ads, and televised debates, I’m starting to consider relocation outside the continental United States. Truth be told, I’m looking at other galaxies.

We had driven through America’s midsection looking for hope. Not the city in Arkansas, but rather that thing that gives you incentive to get up in the morning. Dodge City was only a grim reminder of the future. You know it’s a problem when Paul Harvey takes the time, as he did just this week, to bring it to listeners’ attention. Eleven year-old Hispanic boys, he said, are shooting each other in the streets of Dodge City.

And then there’s ACORN. Everywhere I’ve lived there’s been voter fraud: why would I be surprised that ACORN is registering imaginary voters in Kansas City? Throughout “The Innards of America” - the description of our Heartland tour here on The V.O.T. - I refer to Missouri as a blue state. By the end I had corrected myself, but maybe I wasn’t wrong, after all. I’ve been keeping an eye on the grassroots effort there to change the state color and it appears that if Missouri doesn’t go blue this November it will, at best, be purple.

I’d mentioned a website during the tour and I still visit it. And there’s another I read regularly, as well. The first, Raytown Progressive Action (Organizing For Progressive Action in Raytown, Missouri), is a more strident political site, and the second, Gone Mild (Aging Gracefully and Dispensing Wisdom From Kansas City), as that name might suggest, is a more readable, thoughtful one. I’ve determined that Dan, the author of Gone Mild, is my age. A devoted St. Louis Cardinals fan, he waxes poetic about the 1968 team the way I do about my team: the 1969 Chicago Cubs. He says he was eight in ‘68; I was nine in ‘69. I can read Dan, who is clearly on the other side of the political scale, because he is generally reasonable, tries hard to be balanced, displays a sense of humor, and regularly exhibits an appreciation of many things that I hold dear. Where we would be unable to converse like adults would be on the subjects of Reagan and Clinton. I might go into detail on this another time, but I’ll say here that when he writes about Bill he always follows his name with something akin to “God, I miss him!” There’s something about this that reminds me of Muslims who are required to say “peace be upon him” every time they speak of Muhammad. (It’s a tad creepy, Dan.)

Anyway, I’ve noticed that as we get closer to election time, it’s become more difficult to read these sites. I believe Dan is attempting to remain as sensible as possible, but it’s the people who comment on his posts who are getting a tad irrational. These are individuals who insist that, as Democrats, they are smarter and superior to those hick Republicans, yet as we draw nearer to November 7, these people are sounding more and more like government school meatheads. They’ve even forgotten how to spell and construct simple sentences. Could it be true what T says? Does partisanship really make you stupid?

There are certainly plenty of examples to cite this election season. Frankly, too many to list here. Let me just refer to one that is actually related to the topic of Missouri. I don’t even want to get into the debate over Michael J. Fox and Rush, or the nature of the ad, or even my position on stem cell research. No, I’ll save that for another day.

My irritation with the ad in question is less with the importance of the issue and more with marketing. I’m having trouble with the concept of truth in advertising. No, I’m not talking about misrepresentation of Claire McCaskill’s opponent’s stand on stem cells. I’m not talking about Fox, his position on the issue, or the supposed exploitation of his illness. I’m not talking about my frustration with the absence of facts regarding stem cell research in general. No, I’m talking about what is ridiculous, but still determines the results of elections all over the world.

You see, my Dutch grandmother, Bessie, was so enamored of Teddy Roosevelt that she, in 1906, named my father after him. Sure, T.R. was young and energetic, but was she smitten with his looks or his policies? I wonder: If she had had television and Internet access, would she have done the same?

I have spent many years around actors and believe me, I’m not being snarky or catty here, but it’s hard to describe what it’s like to be looking at someone in front of you, their resume, and their five…ten…twenty year-old headshot. If I have to see that antediluvian headshot of Claire McCaskill again my head will explode.

Please believe me when I say that looks are not that important to me. I’m still irritable over the televised Kennedy/Nixon debates. Too often I’ve watched debates on TV and listened to them on radio, and I tell you: The two are completely different creatures.

I’m not even sure I knew what Claire looked like until I saw, on Gone Mild, her ancient headshot compared to a photo of her opponent Jim Talent - who Dan ungraciously describes as fish-like. Claire, in her photo, looks a little like FNC’s Page Hopkins. Young, trim, blonde. Quite attractive.

Then I saw the real Claire. Again, not to be snarky or catty, because I really disliked the attacks on Linda Tripp and Katherine Harris, and I detest them, too, when they’re aimed at Hillary. My beef with Hillary isn’t her looks, and if Republicans think they can build a campaign on that, 2008 is going to be uglier than any unflattering photo of Hill they can dig up.

Now, according to Dan, Claire sent a letter to bloggers, asking them to avoid posting any nastiness regarding her race with Talent. Keep it true, keep it dignified. Let’s not get personal or negative.

“No election is worth this, and I believe that we need to set an example. As tempting as it might be, especially in the anonymous world of the web, to get down in the mud with them, I hope we can all resist the temptation. Please. It’s important…Let’s win this thing the old fashioned way…with great ideas, hard work, and good manners.”

That’s admirable, keeping it true, but my issue, once more, is the whole truth in advertising thing. People sometimes base their vote on looks, and Claire simply does not resemble that old photo anymore. Hell, I don’t look like my four year-old driver’s license photo anymore, so I certainly wouldn’t use it if I were running for office.

I’m sure Dan in Kansas City looks at Claire and doesn’t see that she just doesn’t match her headshot. He is blinded by partisanship. I understand completely. As a partisan myself, I tried not to be offended when George Bush recently chewed his roll the way a yak chews withered leaves and twigs.

But if Dan thinks that the Cardinals won the World Series because they played so well, he’s fooling himself. They won because the Tigers played so badly, losing on fundamentals. The simple, no-brainer rules of baseball. Like how, when, and to whom to throw the ball.

If Republicans lose Congress next week, it won’t be because the Democrats showed particular skill, it will be because the Republicans consistently and annoyingly dropped the ball and allowed the other side to snatch victory away.

As a die-hard Cubs fan would be expected to say, “There’s always next year!,” but, like the Cubbies, if the Republicans don’t get some crackerjack management in place, play by the rules, and remember the basics, they’ll be playing to lose.

Category: Uncategorized

• Add this post to
• Del.icio.us -
• Digg -
• Reddit

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.