A Conversation with Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)

You are pretty friendly with the president for a Democrat, though. He used to call you Nellie, right? And you didn't appreciate it.

Well, I thought it was not as macho as something like ''Hunter.'' I wanted something more macho, more in line with my outdoorsmanship. He told me Nellie was after Nellie Fox, the baseball player. But I told him it could also get confused with a horse. Or a nervous Nellie. And so last Friday, I said, ''Look, Mr. President, can we come up with a negotiated settlement like 'Benator'?'' I asked him also, for the sake of Karl Rove and the other person in the car, ''How long have we been negotiating?'' And he said, ''Four years.'' I said, ''Well, it's about time we get a negotiated settlement.'' I suspect, while I consider the negotiation over, there'll have to be a sidebar at some point on nicknames. He'll come back with something. He and I have enjoyed the back-and-forth banter, which really extends from the time we were governors together.

Senator, you

are no

'Benator.'

Posted by: Ace at 08:04 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

As of last night, when I caught The Aviator, I've seen them all. I know I've reported on what will win. For those who may want to fill their Oscar dance card this week, I'd see the nominees in the following order.

5. Ray: Patton is the prototype for biopic. Take one sliver of the protagonist's life and go from there. Unfortunately, Ray tries to cover too much ground, including Ray Charles' impoverished and tragedy-filled childhood, his rise, and his fight against heroin addiction. Even with this broader canvas, the film is repetitive. Jamie Foxx's performance rises above mimicry, but this is a missable film.

4. Million Dollar Baby: Eastwood's picture is occasionally elegant, and always sparse, but when all is said and done, there's not a damn thing in this movie that is unexpected. For the last third, it is a dead man walking and a chore to stay for the bitter finale. Worse, the picture is sloppy. Early on, a relationship between Eastwood - a plagued boxing manager - and a Catholic priest is merely hinted at (really, played more for laughs). Later, when Eastwood must truly rely on the priest, the scene is stiff and unconvincing. Another, between Eastwood and an estranged daughter, is unrevealed, which is a cheat and a waste of time. Good performances, no great shakes.

3. The Aviator: I expected it to be awful. Gangs of New York awful. It wasn't. DiCaprio partially overcomes his central handicap (he looks like a reptilian boy) to bring us the audacious and increasingly insane Hughes. Scorsese keeps a pace and infuses the film with inventive camera-work (much of the picture is flight). Cate Blanchett owns Katherine Hepburn, an actress who never separated acting from being. It's a solid, big, Hollywood picture.

2. Sideways: This film masks a love story - not between Paul Giamatti and Virginia Madsen, but between Giamatti and his polar-opposite, old college roommate Thomas Haden Church. The two men go on a long wine-tasting (Giamatti's thrill), pussy-hunting (Haden Church's aim - he's to be married), golf week in California wine country. They each meet women. Giamatti falls in love with Madsen, Haden Church irresponsibly dallies with Sandra Oh. In the end, Haden Church's immaturity ruins Giamatti's chances with Madsen, yet Giamatti must still attend to his friend, as if they were knights bonded by a blood oath. It is a distinctly male concept usually only revealed in films of violence and retribution. Here, however, the bond is established in subtle scenes of the two characters simply abiding, cheering up, or laughing with and at each other. It's a great, smart picture.

1. Finding Neverland: Johnny Depp's turn as J.M. Barrie - who becomes a father/uncle to the four sons of the widow Kate Winslet while he writes Peter Pan - is perfect. I was watching Donnie Brasco the other day on TNT. There's really nothing Depp can't do. He is a real special talent and in the film, he is capably supported by Winslet, Julie Christie (as Winslet's domineering and protective mother), and Dustin Hoffman (Depp's financial backer, Charles Frohman).

But the film is stolen by actor who plays one of the young sons, Peter. Over the past several years, there have been some stunning performances by children. The two daughters in last years' In America, the two children in The Others and Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense come to mind. But Freddie Highmore's Peter is so affecting and deft, I was knocked over.

This is a touching, expert film, ultimately about very simple and some might say sentimental concepts. It is no slave to historical accuracy (it states rather frankly at the outset that it is merely "inspired by true events"). For example, Barrie did become close to the family and eventual guardian to the chilren, however, he befriended the family prior to the death of their father, and six years prior to the opening of Peter Pan. There were also five boys, not four.

There are also persistent rumors that Barrie's real-life interest in the children may have been sinister. The film addresses the rumors briefly with a simple denial of such monstrous allegations by Depp. Another of the five boys (Nico) strongly denied the insinuations, stating that Barrie "was an innocent--which is why he could write Peter Pan" and Barrie's primary biographer finds no basis for the claim. What cannot be denied is that for three of the boys, their ends were tragic - one was killed in WWI, one drowned in 1921, and Peter threw himself under a subway train in his 60s.

None of which detracts from the fact that Finding Neverland is the best picture of the year.

Posted by: Ace at 07:53 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 789 words, total size 5 kb.

Franken prefers a forum where rebuttal is impossible

The better to lie:

It's harder to find real achievements in the years since the Dixiecrats jumped the aisle, fleeing the old Democratic Party of Eastland, Stennis and Russell to their sunny home in the new Republican Party of Goldwater, Helms and Trent "We-Wouldn't-Have-Had-All-These-Problems" Lott.

Stennis served as senator from Mississippi until 1989; Eastland until 1979; Russell until 1971. All as Democrats. West Virginia's Robert Byrd still serves today, as a Democrat, occasionally dropping the "n" bomb. South Carolina's Ernest Hollings - of "wetbacks" and "darkies" fame - just retired LAST YEAR as a Democrat.

This is typical Republican race-baiting: the cynical use of race to push an agenda. Take the confirmation battles over Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales. When Democrats held up the confirmations for reasons (lies, torture) clearly having nothing to do with their race or ethnicity (black, Latino), Republican officeholders and commentators accused Democrats of racism.

Which Republican officeholders? Franken does not say.

As for commentators, I only know of Washington Post columnist Colbert King, who wrote:

Boxer said to Rice: "I personally believe -- this is my personal view -- that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth." Loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war. Ponder the weight of that statement. It comes close, at least in spirit, to the picture of Rice sketched by political cartoonist Pat Oliphant a few weeks ago. In case you missed it, Oliphant drew a big-lipped, bucktooth Rice perched like a parrot on President Bush's arm. Bush was speaking to Rice in baby talk, with Rice replying: "Awwrk!! OK Chief. Anything you say, Chief. You Bet, Chief. You're my HERO, Chief."

It's hard to imagine a more demeaning and offensive caricature of a prospective secretary of state, let alone the most senior official on the national security staff. It's equally difficult to understand what prompted Boxer to imply that Rice is little more than a diligent echo of Bush's thoughts. There's nothing in Rice's background or in her performance to suggest that she is a mindless follower of presidential orders. In fact, Rice comes across as just the opposite . . . But slurring her as a hollow-headed marionette controlled by Bush? What's that all about? It calls to mind John Sylvester, a white radio talk show host in Madison, Wis., who recently went Boxer and Oliphant one better -- or worse. "Sly," as he calls himself, went on the air and caricatured Rice as a servile black, laboring slavishly for the Bush White House. He called her, of all things, an "Aunt Jemima."

King also wrote My disagreement with the Bush administration on Iraq has been spelled out in past columns. I'm also a member of an editorial board that has been critical of administration policies -- and by extension, Rice -- on several foreign policy fronts. For example, when it comes to opposing oppressive regimes, this administration, despite its soaring rhetoric, has come up way short. But characterize Condoleezza Rica as a presidential stooge? Count me out.

As for race-baiting, it is Franken's stock-in-trade.

Posted by: Ace at 07:19 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 553 words, total size 4 kb.

Must read FoxNews transcript in which Eric Burns relates that Stephen Ambrose told him conclusively that there was no single source called "Deep Throat"-- it was an invention inserted into the book at the editor's suggestion.

H/t to John Fund, actually, who pointed the article out to me.

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

***Sort of an exclusive. Must credit Ace. Because, you know, no one ever does.***

Watch John Fund's Political Diary column in the WSJ this Tuesday. He's sitting next to me now, and I asked him what he was working on. I begged him for a tease for his column, and he offered: "Newt Gingrich is running for President in 2008."

The man will not crack about how he's come to know this -- from Gingrich himself, from friends, from the formation of exploratory committees and the like -- and just keeps saying "You wanted a *tease.*" And he won't give me more than a tease, darn him.

But there you go. On Tuesday, Fund will report Gingrich is running for the Presidency.

Posted by: Ace at 11:39 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

PBS is running a riveting series, The Perilous Fight: America's World War II in Color

In 1941, as America entered World War II, there were 1,000 televisions in use in the USA, Hollywood was only beginning to experiment with color film, and most Americans received their news through the radio. During the war, film was used by the military, not for distribution to the public, but to document the war effort for military purposes. Realistic color added a new dimension to imagery, one that proved invaluable to the United States government.

The federal government seized all color film in the U.S. for the war effort. War-related activities both abroad and at home were documented in color, including war production and the building of the Alaska railroad. The government also used color film to document medical procedures and new warfare techniques. Some military cameramen focused their cameras on their experiences abroad and captured peaceful moments unrelated to the war effort, such as a bicycle trip through the countryside of England.

While the European campaign was almost completely shot in black and white, the Marines exclusively used color film. The campaign in the Pacific was the most heavily documented during the war. Color films such as The Battle of Midway were distributed to solicit public support of the war effort and dramatically increased the purchase of war bonds. Color was by no means standard or familiar to the American audience. Most films and newsreels that were shot in color were not distributed in color; they were transferred to black-and-white stock or archived by the military.

It wasn't until the late 1970's that the National Archives in Washington, D.C. received film holdings from World War II. For many reasons, color film remained undiscovered; poor record-keeping, the assumption that most film originals were in black and white and the time required by researchers to find the color stock kept the public from seeing color film from World War II.

Highly recommended.

Posted by: Ace at 10:47 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

This has nothing to do with CPAC, but Slublog, who's been on fire, made me laugh with this photoshop.

What dream sustains Oliver Willis' bleeding heart?

Why, love, of course.

Posted by: Ace at 10:31 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

It's the anniversary of one of the most significant, and costly, battles in WWII, and this post tells you why you should remember.

Meanwhile... Squidly has pics of our boys patrolling in keeping the peace in Iraq.

Thanks to Jason for the second item.

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

Matt Drudge joined Ann Coulter for the Q&A.

The first questioner asked about Norman Mailer, asking something like "Is he a communist or just a washed up hack?"

Matt endorsed Chris Rock over Norman Mailer. Coulter suggested that if you want to read a liberal who's actually a good writer, you should read Gore Vidal. (I assume she means his historical novels and not his idiotic essays.)

The next questioner asked about liberals using appeals to emotion to sell their ideas, such that they are, and wondered if Republicans shouldn't do similarly. (BTW, I think Republicans do, of course, use appeals to emotion during campaigns. Everyone does.)

Ann doubted that emotion could be used to persuade men to vote Democratic, as most were already Republicans: “Their glands prevent most men from being a Democrat."

She continued (paraphrased again): "It isnÂ’t so much that they communicate by emotion, that elevates what they do... they attack. The NYT has become Out Weekly, outing the gay relatives of Republicans... I thought they *liked* gays."

"Their method of arguing about the capital gains attacks is to investigate whether youÂ’re into S&M."

Drudge added that the Democrats were at war among themselves, noting his own little story that Geffen is "eating" Hillary (and not in a good way, one presumes).

Another questioner quibbled with Ann's statements that Condi Rice might not be ready to run for President, as she had never run for office before.

“Going to this century," Ann said, "there had never been a previously-unelected man being elected President, apart from Ike, which is a special case." But she did note that she herself had previously supported people with no previous electoral experience: Buchanan, Keyes, etc.

But she maintained that Condi needed testing: "I think that you have to run for something first. I love Condi Rice.... there’s some ineffeble quality. She ought to challenge Boxer or Feinstein.” (Major applause.)

Drudge added that in the new century youÂ’ll see non-elected people rising to president... if Oprah ran, sheÂ’d be the Democratic nominee.

Another question: How can we define Hillary so that the American people know what she's all about?

Ann (paraphrase): I think people know who she is, but I think they love her anyway.

She then spoke about Democrats' stubborn refusal to even consider changing their policy, and their constant belief that they just need to find new ways to "get the message out."

She went on: They have two positions on why they keep losing– they couldn’t get their message out– "Maybe we can advertise RU 486 on NASCAR cars!" – or tht the voters are dumb. That’ll bring em out!, she said with gleeful sarcasm.

Drudge added that the Democrats can't just keep calling the voters stupid and then expect them to vote for them two years later. TheyÂ’re also counting on people not remembering one election to the next, he said, but the Internet to their horror keeps track of these things.

About Ward Churchill, Ann once again demanded: Why is treason treated as an acceptable form of speech? I think it should be treated as racism now is, no longer acceptable.

She then began exhorting the collegian-heavy crowd to take down their leftist professors: Â’Its very easy to provoke liberals.... it doesnÂ’t take much and itÂ’s a lot of fun. I think there should be campaigns against professors like Ward Churchill.... expose them.

Drudge suggested that we use "performance art" to draw attention to radical profesors, noting that mockery is the best way to attack them. (I agree, of course.)

Coulter roused the crowd by painting a very bad 20 years for the Democrats: All the intellectual ferment on colleges campuses is coming from the right... they have all the ideas... we are sweeping the youth of America... they are going the way of the Whigs.

Posted by: Ace at 10:19 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 648 words, total size 4 kb.

Estrich suggests that Michael Kinsley's Parkinson's disease may be to blame for his "failure" to publish women writers.

In the parlance of Mary Beth Cahill, I suppose a degenerative and debilitating disease is merely "fair game."

Posted by: Ace at 09:35 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.