Showing posts with label Gail Collins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gail Collins. Show all posts

Friday, September 30, 2022

Quote of the Day (Gail Collins, on Candidates’ Desperate Fundraising Campaigns)

“Cynics might presume that no candidate has ever, in history, actually reached a fund-raising goal. Really, do you ever remember getting a note saying: ‘Thanks, guys! We’ve got all the money we need now! Give to your pet shelter.’

“You do have to feel some sympathy — Senate campaigns are wicked expensive. The question is whether you should respond to this barrage of email requests for donations. The downside, as you probably suspect, is that it will make you an even more popular target.”—Political commentator Gail Collins, “Do You Think Your Newfound Popularity Has Something to Do With Politics?” The New York Times, Sept. 8, 2022

Friday, February 4, 2022

Quote of the Day (Gail Collins, on Robocalls)

“Never pressing any number during a telephone pitch is a generational law similar to the one your parents or grandparents had about not inviting door-to-door salesmen to come into the house.”— Op-Ed columnist Gail Collins, “The Robocall Rebellion,” The New York Times, July 29, 2021

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Quote of the Day (Gail Collins, on This Unique Presidency)


“We’ve had previous presidents with corrupt political associates, presidents sloshing around in sex scandals and presidents who appeared to have no clue of how to turn on the lights in the White House, let alone run a government. But we've never had one who managed to hit all three markers, while simultaneously using the nation's highest office to further his private asset accumulation.”—Gail Collins, “Our Gold-Leaf Presidency,” The New York Times, Apr. 19, 2018

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Quote of the Day (Gail Collins, on One Outcome of This WeinerSpitzer Summer)



“It could be pretty exciting. The entire city would come to a halt as the two staffs fired rocket launchers at each other. The movie version would be in 3-D and star Channing Tatum as Eliot Spitzer.”—Gail Collins, forecasting what would happen if disgraced pols Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer win in their comeback attempts in New York, in “New York Sizzles,” The New York Times, July 11, 2013

WeinerSpitzer—I get indigestion just imagining the possibility!

Saturday, June 2, 2012

Quote of the Day (Gail Collins on John Edwards, ‘Deep As a Melted Ice Cube’)


“There was a time when many of the great minds in the Democratic Party thought John Edwards would be the perfect presidential nominee. He was cute and from the South, and the son of a millworker, and he talked about poor people and had lots of position papers.

“Unfortunately, he was about as deep as a melted ice cube.”—Gail Collins, “Mr. Edwards and the Shrimp,” The New York Times, June 2, 2012


This post will not consider John Edwards’ worth as a husband, father or human being, nor what “God’s plans” might be now that the former U.S. Senator from North Carolina has (at least temporarily) escaped the pokey in the wake of his acquittal on campaign-finance charges. It’s not merely because I considered some of these matters before and see no reason to revisit them, but also because, when you get right down to it, the blogosphere has come to a consensus on all of this surpassing any Presidential landslide I know of.

Nor will I consider the legal niceties that allowed him to walk. If you want to know why, after weeks of testimony and all kinds of documentation, enough jurors thought that “the evidence just wasn’t there” to convict, just ask members of Congress (most of whom are attorneys, like Edwards himself) how they  pass legislation that looked simple enough to garner complimentary headlines (e.g., CAMPAIGN-FINANCE REFORM PASSED), but impossible for jurors to make head or tail of.

But there’s another aspect of the case hardly considered in the din of recent headlines, a matter that Ms. Collins opened up for discussion inadvertently: the media enabling of a Southern-fried narcissist in an empty suit and a $400 haircut.

I’m a faithful reader of Ms. Collins, but nowhere do I recall what she related in her most recent column: a conversation with Edwards on his support of South Carolina shrimpers who wanted to ban the import of South Vietnamese fish. That longstanding omission is surprising, since the car talk between columnist and candidate quickly demonstrated that Edwards was the human equivalent of Gertrude Stein's definition of Oakland: i.e., “there is no there there.” Other Times readers who actually went to the trouble to check the paper’s online archives likewise found no such mention of this conversation before now.

At the same time, virtually every reader of Collins over the past few years knows that she has repeatedly (more than 60 times, as of three weeks ago) observed that on a family vacation some years ago, Mitt Romney placed the family dog Seamus on the car roof.

Nor was Collins the only member of the media to observe that Edwards was intellectually incurious and out of his depth. Two and a half years ago, after the Senator acknowledged, following months of denials, that he had indeed fathered a child through former campaign videographer Rielle Hunter, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen admitted he had put aside doubts about Edwards’public-policy acumen, concerns that came from the most reliable sources: namely, the candidate’s Senate colleagues and his own conversations with Cohen.

Let’s consider the nature of these discoveries for a second. They came not to unknown hoaxers phoning to ask the candidate’s position on a country about which he knew nothing (as when staffers from Spy Magazine called Capitol Hill offices in 1993 to inquire about congressmen’s stances on Freedonia, the mythical nation sent up in the Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup). No, these were widely read, veteran columnists at the two U.S. newspapers most responsible for the ongoing media conversation, the Times and the Post--writers with the same worldview as Edwards and, therefore, not inclined toward skepticism or "gotcha" moments.

Most of all, the superficial, clichéd, uninformed responses came concerning the issue on which Edwards based his Presidential campaign: inequality. If Edwards couldn’t have been bothered to find the facts about something that mattered to him, how would he have fared in the Oval Office on matters about which he cared little?

What does it say about the Newspaper of Record that it could offer only the most shallow analysis of why Mitt Romney arrived at his position on the debt (i.e., a large portion of it derived from his Mormon faith), but it could say nothing about a shallow former U.S. Senator, Vice-Presidential candidate, Presidential aspirant, and Attorney-General wanna-be?

I'm not a Tea Partier who screams about unfair treatment of GOP candidates deemed stupid. (As far as I'm concerned, if Dan Quayle were a TV series, it would be "F Troop.") But I'm afraid Ms. Collins needs to explain more convincingly why she never conveyed her concerns about Edwards' lack of gravitas till now. Unfortunately, any such explanation would have to allow that her acceptance of the candidate's views predisposed her against examining his record more critically. 


This week's cover story for the New York Observer, on the tensions created at the New York Times under publisher/CEO Arthur Sulzberger Jr., quotes executive editor Jill Abramson congratulating the staff for its coverage of President Obama’s support of gay marriage, noting that it was an example of “how deeply we have grown as a newsroom and how much more all of you are doing, as we create new and richer layers of journalism.”

Lack of vetting for a candidate as vacuous as Edwards, however, is hardly a point of pride. In fact, it should be as much a matter of soul-searching as Judith Miller's erroneous reports about Iraq's nonexistent nuclear program on the eve of the war. After all, the last election induced much hand-wringing about the dangers of an attractive, charismatic candidate who also happened to be inexperienced, incurious and lazy--and a heartbeat away from becoming President.The press, led by the Times, patted itself on the back for pointing out Sarah Palin's flaws. The press--very much including The Times--will earn more of the country's respect when it scrutinizes such a candidate who happens to be a male Democratic liberal as it will for examining a female Republican conservative.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Quote of the Day (Gail Collins, Oddly Fixated on a Romney Oddity)

“Maybe we could get over his [Mitt Romney’s] driving to Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car if he’d just admit it was because he was too cheap to hire a dog-sitter. Maybe.”— Gail Collins, “The Mitt Romney Pardon,” The New York Times, December 1, 2011




In ancient Rome, the senator Cato the Elder, no matter what the occasion—not merely speeches, but even parties, when, then as now, attendees undoubtedly preferred to talk about anything but affairs of state—would invariably urge anyone unlucky enough to be within earshot, “Carthago delenda est!” (Carthage must be destroyed.) So insistent was his agitation that it’s an open question whether colleagues eventually declared war on Carthage simply to shut Cato up.



The same kind of obsession appears to have gripped Gail Collins. Perhaps in school, she learned about Cato’s fixation and its impact. Now she’s applying the same principle in her own way. Since 2007, she has told readers constantly about how Mitt Romney, on vacation some years ago, strapped his Irish setter Seamus to the roof of the family station-wagon on a long trip to Canada.



This little anecdote, which reached a climax (if you want to call it that) with Seamus pooping in mid-drive—and the future Massachusetts governor and Presidential aspirant demonstrating his managerial and problem-solving skills by driving into a gas station, commandeering a hose, washing down dog and car, and continuing on his merry way—shows the capitalist-turned-politico to be a little bit weird, to be sure. If you’re a liberal, I wouldn’t dispute the point if you saw it as symbolizing how Romney's private-equity capital, Bain Capital, would treat workers in companies it acquired: like dogs. (Seamus, having, like all good dogs, gone to heaven since the long-ago incident, is unavailable for comment on this point.)



This little tale would undoubtedly have disappeared in its original source—a seven-part series in the Boston Globe, just as Romney was launching his first Presidential campaign—except for the oxygen provided by The New York Times op-ed columnist. Now, it has attracted such notice that it has even spawned a Web site, Dogs Against Romney.



I remember the first time I read Collins’ description of this. I laughed like crazy, feeling confirmed in my distrust of the businessman-turned-politico. Then, while continuing the habit I had developed back when she was with New York Newsday of reading her religiously, I noticed something even odder than this odd tale itself: Collins couldn’t seem to stop writing about it. The joke stopped being funny around the third time I read it--and believe me, Collins has written about this far more than that.


How much has she discussed it? Well, a September 13 post on the Politifact Web site offered a count of 19 times that Collins has mentioned this. It has slipped into at least a few more columns since then.



In her most recent column, quoted above, I thought that Collins would finally make it through a whole article without talking about this. But it turned out to be one long tease. Perhaps under the (in this case, erroneous) principle of saving the best for last, she tantalized longtime readers, only to leave the incident of the dog on the car roof as the conclusion.



Why does Collins write so insistently—fixedly—on this subject? A few possibilities:



* Maybe she thinks some reader hasn’t heard this story. Late in his career, asked why he continually to hustle, New York Yankee great Joe DiMaggio replied, “There is always some kid who may be seeing me for the first or last time. I owe him my best.” Perhaps, even despite the 24/7 circus of cable news and blogs (not to mention old-fashioned media of newspapers and network news), Collins figures, somebody out there has, astonishingly, never heard this revealing story.



* Maybe she believes she needs to help baby boomers who are finally showing their age. The first sign of this could be loss of memory--though, if the prototypical boomer has somehow forgotten about this story after the many, many times Collins has mentioned it, that must be one very, very forgetful reader.



* Maybe she believes in giving her Times readers what they want. Occasionally you hear about rock ‘n’ rollers expressing annoyance about playing their hits (Joni Mitchell has chastised fans calling for “Both Sides Now” by noting that Van Gogh was never asked to repaint “Starry, Starry Night”). But readers are a bit different. Still, if Times readers liked this once, Collins might figure, why not employ the virtue of recycling beyond its original environmental context?



* Maybe she has one of those maddening computer glitches. It’s possible that Collins has one of those programs that, when a certain combination of keystrokes appears--“Mitt Romney,” say--her word processing software automatically inserts the story of Seamus. Perhaps by this time she wants to turn this feature off but can’t. I bet her operating system is Microsoft. Mac users praise their computers while carping about those from Bill Gates, whom they know as “the anti-Christ.” This could explain everything. Even with such a persistent problem, though, there are remedies. I know computer-savvy people who could troubleshoot this. If matters get really bad, there’s always Best Buy’s Geek Squad, anyway.



* Maybe she (or at least her copy) is possessed by Evil Supernatural Forces. Speaking of the anti-Christ….Demonic possession can’t be entirely ruled out. I can offer some referrals here, too, though exorcisms aren’t normal specialties of the priests I know.



* Maybe, to concentrate on her next book project, she needs to conserve her energy. A deadline always pops up sooner than expected. A long-range book project requires sustained thinking--something hard to accomplish when a newspaper editor is breathing down your neck, wondering when that copy will appear. Collins already took one leave of absence for such a project in 2007. Taking another would strain relationships at the Times.



Whatever is happening, Collins needs to solve it and move on. If they haven’t already, Times readers are going to gripe soon that there are too many issues these days to waste their time on poop (metaphorically and actually speaking) from a long time ago. As a corollary, they’re also likely to complain that they’re missing out on more recent, even more astonishing satiric targets because Collins has her eyes off the ball.



The Times op-ed page takes itself far too seriously, so it needs all the levity it can muster. Right now, Collins and colleague Maureen Dowd are the only ones on the job.



The strain of it shows. Writing about the same politician, day after day after day, can sap a writer’s powers of invention. I tremble to think of what might have happened to Dowd’s sanity if she had to go once more into the well to dredge up her “Bushfellas” trope—and yet, even she didn’t use the idea anywhere near as extensively as Collins has done with Seamus Rodney.



If a strain on the imagination could tax a Pulitzer Prize winner such as Dowd, think of what it can do to Collins. And let’s not even think about the possibility that Romney might make it to a second term.