Broadway feeling the pinch?

By any measure, Broadway's Spring Awakening has been an enormous success. And yet I have to say that I would have expected a far longer run:

They don’t do sadness, not even a little bit. But it’s hard not to feel sad for the members of the cast of the Broadway show “Spring Awakening,” who learned on Thursday that it is scheduled to close Jan. 18. Adapted from the 1891 Frank Wedekind play of the same name, “Spring Awakening” combined a youthful cast with a pop score written by Duncan Sheik and Steven Sater and choreography by Bill T. Jones to yield a 21st-century hit. The show won eight Tony awards in 2007, including best musical, original score, choreography and direction of a musical (won by Michael Mayer); the cast recording also won a Grammy Award. “Spring Awakening” (the cast members Alexandra Socha and Hunter Parrish are above) will have played 29 previews and 859 performances at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, preceded by an Off Broadway run at the Atlantic Theater. The closing of “Monty Python’s Spamalot” has also been scheduled for Jan. 18.

Hairspray is also scheduled to close, on Jan. 4. All shows go down eventually, but I have to wonder what kind of effect the economic downturn has had on these announcements. And will a long-term recession--- with the resultant decline in people's discretionary spending--- have a major impact, not just on shows getting produced, but on the types of shows that get produced? 

Third Party Watch: Nader's Blitz

In an attempt to break the Guinness record of "most campaign events in one day," Ralph Nader will be making 21 distinct appearances across the commonwealth of Massachusetts today:

The independent presidential candidate is scheduled to make 21 campaign stops in Massachusetts on Saturday, beginning in Westfield at 8:10 a.m. and ending with a stop in Stockbridge at 10:10 p.m. and then Sheffield at 10:50 p.m. His campaign claims the tour will give him the record for most campaign stops in a single day.

Nader, by the way, is appearing on the ballot in 45 states this year, though he's not expected to make a significant dent in the popular vote of either major candidate. 

The Ground Game

David Plouffe held a conference call with reporters today, arguing that the map is looking solid for Obama. The best part:

He added that the campaign is "surprised" by McCain's campaign performance in the Granite State, "We'd thought there might be a chance he'd over-perform in New Hampshire, given his history with the voters there." Instead, the Palin pick has driven away McCain’s traditional independent base in New Hampshire, Plouffe added.

The most surprising story of this whole campaign is the total collapse of McCain's brand as a maverick or a moderate. But it's a self-inflicted wound.

More on Obama and Prop 8

We know our friends down at Red Yellow Blue pretty well, so we're not awfully surprised that they have a different take on what Obama's role should be on Prop 8:

Obama's quietness on Prop 8 does not mean he is not against it; it is merely political common sense. It is in keeping with his campaign: consider that on BarackObama.com, under the Issues flyout menu, there are 25 choices of general themes, from Civil Rights to Women, with a miscellaneous "Additional Issues" tab. Hate crimes and employment discrimation are two sub-issues under "Civil Rights" where sexual orientation is mentioned, but GLBT does not merit its own tab.

To clear up a (relatively minor) technical point, I would note that the Obama website certainly deals with LGBT issues by name, just not in the "issues" section. You have to click "LGBT" under the "people" tab, which brings you to a page with video, issue statements, and a side-by-side comparison with John McCain. The same is true for "Republicans," "People of Faith," and "Small Business" owners. Surely Red Yellow Blue does not believe that Obama is strategically marginalizing any of those groups.

Obama has come out publicly against Prop 8, and has dispatched Michelle as a quasi-ambassador on this and other LGBT concerns. But he hasn't spoken much about it.

More from Red Yellow Blue:

The myopic view I'm referring is one in which GLBT rights trump all other issues, period. This view requires a Democratic candidate to campaign out-and-out for gay rights, even if it means losing conservative voters in critical states. Sullivan's outrage against Obama on Prop 8 is equivalent to feminists' protests against the Augusta National Golf Club. By which I mean it focuses on what is technically a civil rights issue in the absence of urgency or global context. Feminists should concede that women's admission to golf is not the most pressing issue facing women in the U.S., let alone facing their sisters in Africa and Asia.

This is, to put it delicately, nonsense. First of all, neither Sullivan nor we have expressed anything close to "outrage" on the issue. We've simply requested that Obama record a 30 second spot to play in a few targeted markets close to election day in a state he has absolutely no chance of losing. The reason is simple math: likely black voters in California currently favor Prop 8 by a margin of 58-38. If he has any sway with this community (and it's not far-fetched to believe he does), an Obama ad could very well hold down this margin significantly, and thus defeat Prop 8.

Imagine an Obama spot that went something like this:

Hi, I'm Barack Obama. I wanted to take a moment to talk to you about Proposition 8. It's a divisive constitutional amendment here in California designed to distract from the vital issues we face in this election. I know there are disagreements on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that all people have the right to live lives free of discrimination, and not to have their rights taken away from them by right-wing extremists. I hope you'll vote for me this November 4th, and when you do, please, vote against Prop 8.

This is the ad that is somehow going to make Ohio factory workers concerned about layoffs, Colorado moms concerned about McCain's their kids' health care, and Virginia coal miners concerned about gas prices, suddenly switch gears and vote for the guy who believes "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" and has a new economic plan every twenty-four hours?

In order for that to happen, a hearty combination of the following things would have to be in place: (1) persuadable voters in OH, VA, FL, etc. with televisions tuned into California media markets; (2) a Republican candidate willing to demagogue the issue, or even discuss it; (3) a loathing of gays among those persuadable voters that's so intense, they would readily ignore every other issue and vote against a candidate who took any position mildly favorable to gay rights on a consitutional scheme in another state.

Needless to say, none of the above is even remotely true. If this is the lesson Red Yellow Blue took from 2004, they are drastically over-reading the stats. Karl Rove's strategy of ensuring constitutional refurenda in 11 states was moderately successful at increasing turnout among evangelicals, but none of this had anything to do with where John Kerry stood on the issue. (And, of course, he strongly opposed gay marriage, at least publicly.) These people voted for the bans en route to voting for Bush, not the other way around. There is no evidence that any undecided or originally pro-Kerry voter switched over the marriage issue. If this had occurred, Bush would have taken Michigan and Oregon, where gay marriage bans bulldozed to victory and Kerry had healthy victories.

Finally, I detect a pervasive disdain for the whole Prop 8 fight in Red Yellow Blue's post. I don't believe they quite grasp the import of this fight. Thousands of couples in California are already married. The Supreme Court of California has bestowed what most legal scholars agree is a fundamental constitutional right on a long-persecuted minority. This amendment, for the first time in all of American history, would be an affirmation of that right by the populace of the largest state in the union. That affirmation now stands a 50-50 chance. (By the way, if the "myopia" Red Yellow Blue posits really existed, and if the LGBT community was truly politically tone-deaf, we'd be wasting a lot more time and energy on the likely-to-pass bans in Arizona and Florida.) A small nod from a man with a lot of political capital (especially in California, and especially among blacks) is not at all too much to ask.

Cowering in fear whenever Republicans bring up a controversial issue is what led directly to Democratic defeats in 2000, 2002, and 2004. I have no doubt that Bob Shrum and Mark Penn would advise Obama against making my ad--- but that's about as good a reason I can think of to do it.

Road Rage

Apparently poor judgment and uncontrollable temper runs in the family. Let's call him Joe the Threat to Civil Order:

A 911 tape, reportedly of Sen. John McCain (web|news|bio) 's brother Joe, could prove controversial for the McCain camp since the call was not for an emergency, but rather to complain about being stuck in traffic.

The call came into Alexandria's 911 system on October 21.

Operator: 911 state your emergency

Caller: It's not an emergency, but do you know why on one side at the damn drawbridge of 95 traffic is stopped for 15 minutes and yet traffic's coming the other way?

Operator: Sir, are you calling 911 to complain about traffic? (pause)

Caller: "(Expletive) you." (caller hangs up)

The complaint call about traffic on the Wilson Bridge forced the 911 dispatcher to call back. The voice mail on the other end, appears to belong to Joe McCain, brother of presidential candidate, John McCain.

This happened yesterday, by the way.

I'm tempted to look up whether rage is a genetic trait, but I think we can all guess the answer.

Can anybody think of something more selfish, petty, and crass than calling 911 to complain about traffic? It does occur to me that 911 could well join the McCain-Palin list of "socialist" institutions, joining taxes, NPR, and fire hydrants. So it makes sense that McCain's brother would be fighting the good fight, out to make sure that if some young girl's father just had a heart attack and needs immediate medical assistance, that girl will hear nothing but a busy signal on the other end of the phone. That's what America's all about.

Fake America Tip: How to Make a Latte

Welcome to the first installment of Fake America Tips, an occasional series that aims to help fellow gay-loving coastal anti-American elites live elitier, coastalier lives.

Tip #1: How to Make a Latte.

Sure, you love the way Spencer, your secret homosexual crush, fellow UU parishioner, and favorite barista at the Starbucks you stop at while biking to Yoga each morning, makes your soy latte. But what if you could do it homemade?



For best results, make sure to have WQXR on in the background while pouring over the New York Times crossword puzzle.

Fun Fact: Westsylvania

Hey, did anybody know that there was once a proposed state called "Westsylvania?"

Many settlers in the region believed that the governments of Virginia and Pennsylvania were too far removed from the west and were apathetic to western concerns. Inspired by the ideals of the American Revolution, in the summer of 1776 settlers in the region proclaimed their independence from Pennsylvania and Virginia by petitioning the Second Continental Congress to recognize Westsylvania as the fourteenth state. In "The Memorial of the Inhabitants of the Country, West of the Allegheny Mountains," the petitioners reviewed the dispute between Pennsylvania and Virginia, which they believed would "in all Probability terminate in a Civil War". They also informed the Congress that "Land Jobbers" were facilitating unlawful encroachment on Native American land, which would produce "a bloody, ruinous & destructive War with the Indians...."

Didn't quite turn out that way. Though fun to imagine if it had. I guess it'd be mostly racists and rednecks.

Obama and Prop 8

A new poll shows Prop 8 going down, which is a breath of fresh air given the deflating news coming out of other recent polls on the topic. The bottom line is it's going to be close.

Andrew Sullivan thinks Obama should be doing more to defeat it:

All this makes it vital, in my opinion, that Barack Obama strongly and unequivocally oppose Proposition 8 in California, rather than keeping mainly quiet as he has done so far. We need him to make an ad opposing it. This is a core test of whether gay Americans should back Obama as enthusiastically as they have in the last month. If he does not stand up for gay couples now, why should we believe he will when he is in office? And if black Americans are the critical bloc that helps kill civil rights for gays, that will not help deepen Obama's governing coalition. It could tear it apart.

I happen to agree with Andrew. Barack Obama has, by far, the best gay rights credentials of any major nominee in American history, and he's made a habit of including "gay and straight" in his laundry list of people who are "all Americans." This would just add to the image that he's a brave and thoughtful leader who will actually, you know, lead. It's not like gay marriage is 50 points down in California; this is potentially a winning cause, and a strong endorsement from the Man is likely to help move people for real. It's one of those moments.

GOP to McCain: "You're no Bob Dole"

Responding to this Washington Times interview in which John McCain suddenly blasts the Bush Administration (for policies he supported 90 percent of the time), a senior Republican strategist writes to Mike Allen in Politico:

The fact is, when you’re the party standard-bearer, you have an obligation to fight to the finish. I think they can still win. But if they don’t think that, they need to look at how Bob Dole finished out his campaign in 1996 and not try to take down as many Republicans with them as they can. Instead of campaigning in Electoral College states, Dole was campaigning in places he knew he didn’t have a chance to beat Clinton, but where he could energize key House and Senate races. I think you’ll find these sentiments shared by MANY of my fellow Republican strategists.

What's wrong with Socialism, Mr. McCain?

I'm not talking about Communism or Marxism or Leninism or Maoism. But seriously, what's wrong with a few social democratic reforms, akin to what works in nearly every other major industrialized democracy?

First of all, Barack Obama's proposals don't amount to anything close to "socialism"--- whatever that even means in 2008. Here's Steve Coll in The New Yorker:

Obama and McCain disagree about what the top federal-tax rates on individual income, corporate profits, and capital gains should be. The two candidates do not disagree on the principle of progressive taxation—McCain might be sympathetic to a flat tax, but he has not come out for one; presumably, he is influenced by the fact that a progressive system, in which the rich pay proportionately more than the poor, is more popular politically than a flat tax would be. Within the progressive system that they agree on, Obama thinks the top rates should be higher than McCain thinks they should be. In the case of the top federal-income-tax rate, the difference between them is not very large—Obama wants to go up from Bush’s thirty-five per cent top rate to Clinton’s top rate, a little over thirty-nine per cent. This is the change Obama was discussing with Joe Wurzelbacher, the unlicensed contractor who has become known as Joe the Plumber. Obama’s plan means that even for the richest of filers, the difference between his tax system and McCain’s concerns approximately $45,000 in additional taxes for every $1 million wealthy filers earn in income after they reach the highest possible bracket. That’s enough to buy a small B.M.W., yes, but in the great scheme of things, this does not seem to qualify as an argument about socialism.

At any rate, if Barack Obama's tax plan is evidence of a "socialist" society, then so is Social Security. And so is Medicare. And so is the Post Office. And Amtrak. And, I guess, NPR could be called "state-run media." For that matter, these days, Wall Street could be called "state-run financial markets," at least in the short term.

If McCain were willing to honestly lay out true orthodox conservative ideology--- eliminating all entitlements, leaving health care to the free market, cutting capital gains taxes--- then we could have a conversation about the merits of global economic philosophy. (For the record, ours is a mixed economy.) He won't do that, of course, so it's nothing but empty rhetoric.

Wingnut Conspiracy Theory of the Day

This is the nuttiest/juiciest thing I've heard all day (perhaps all week), via some fringe wingnut named Jack Cashill. His theory is that Bill Ayers ghost wrote Barack Obama's acclaimed first memoir, Dreams from my Father.

Evidence continues to mount that Barack Obama had substantial help from Bill Ayers in the creation of his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, a book that Time Magazine has called “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.” The evidence falls into five general categories, here summarized:

The discovery of new matching nautical metaphors from both Ayers and Obama that almost assuredly came from the same source: Ayers, a former merchant seaman.
The discovery of a Bill Ayers’ essay on memoir writing, whose postmodern themes and phrases are echoed throughout Dreams.
A newly discovered book chapter from 1990 that shows clearly and painfully the limits of Obama’s prose style the year he received a contract to write Dreams.
The revelation by radical Islamicist Rashid Khalidi that Ayers made his “dining room table” available for neighborhood writers who needed help.
A refined timeline that shows Ayers had the means, the motive and the time to help Obama when he needed it most.

Pennsylvania: McCain's Last Stand

The consensus seems to be congealing: John McCain is screwed.

For one thing, he has less than 1/3 of the money that his rival, Barack Obama, has to toss around; Obama's got so much dough that his team's now talking about running ads in Kentucky and South Carolina, since there's no more air time or office space left in actual battleground states. In total, Obama's raised $618 million, about double McCain's haul. And McCain, whose name graces the landmark (and spectacularly unsuccessful) Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (aka McCain/Feingold) has had to rely on public financing since the end of the Republican National Convention, leaving him a total of $84 million for the entire general election.

Oh, and he's also trailing, in most national polls, by double digits.

Electorally, Obama is on a strong track to capture each and every state won by John Kerry in 2004--- including the once-thought-to-be-battlegrounds of New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. This brings him to 252. Add in Iowa and New Mexico, which he's virtually certain to win, and he's up to 264. There's been some debate over whether the McCain campaign has decided to essentially "pull out" of Colorado, but numbers don't lie: the Centennial state has seen very little of Sir Maverick on television. Assume a tidal wave of Latinos and young people, and you can add Colorado's 9 electoral votes to the Obama side. Now we're at 273, which is enough to clinch it. Add in Virginia, and you've got 286.

So isn't it over, then, you ask? Shouldn't I go back to having a life, shouldn't we all chill out and watch the world series with friends, start paying attention to our kids again? SHOULDN'T THIS GODFORSAKEN THING END?

Well, yes, actually. Except that McCain, never one to lurch about or take a gamble, has decided to hinge his entire campaign on taking a state that hasn't voted Republican in twenty years: Pennsylvania. He hasn't led there, by the way, since April. So this election will likely come down to the Philadelphia 'burbs, where Kerry crushed Bush, as simply not enough people live in Western ("racist," as Congressman Jack Murtha so delicately put it) Pennsylvania to make a difference. I'll do a more detailed analysis of the Keystone state soon, but for now let's just pause, as Democrats, to contemplate, like, the total awesomeness of this election.

Re-Beginnings

It's 13 days until the 2008 Presidential Election, and I've voted to start my blog again.

In case you didn't notice, it's been a while: my last post is from January 2005, when I was a junior in college, which probably explains why I was outraged about everything all the time. I no longer trust strong emotions, particularly not when it comes to politics. They get in the way of deciphering endless streams of poll data.

But I haven't stopped thinking a lot about politics. In fact, I probably think even MORE about politics than I did then. Though hopefully I also know more. I do now happen to live in Washington, DC, where I've already attended a congressional hearing and several Supreme Court arguments. So look out for some "On Location" posts, where I get to act like an actual, grown-up reporter!

Check back here often, for fun links, cutting analysis, and probing discussion.

Here's something to get you started, via Slate: Why do voters in 'Red States' spank their kids much more often?