Vox News

Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum gestures while addressing the crowd at a rally on Tuesday in Boise, Idaho. (Charlie Litchfield, Press-Tribune/AP)

Rick Santorum's new machine-gun ad: Will it work? (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 02.15.12

Rick Santorum’s got a tough new ad out that depicts Mitt Romney as a machine-gun toting twit. Will it help Mr. Santorum withstand negative attacks from the Romney campaign in the crucial upcoming Michigan primary?

The “Rombo” spot is about 30 seconds long and starkly simple. It shows a cackling Romney look-alike darting around a parking garage, firing mud from an automatic mud weapon at a cardboard cutout of Santorum.

“Romney and his super PAC have spent a staggering $20 million brutally attacking fellow Republicans,” says the ad narrator. “Why? Because Romney’s trying to hide from his big-government RomneyCare, and his support for job-killing cap-and-trade.”

At this point the gun jams – not surprising, it’s firing dirt slurry – and spits out a splotch onto fake Romney’s white shirt.

“In the end, Mitt Romney’s ugly attacks will backfire,” the ad concludes.

One thing that goes unmentioned is that the Santorum target never gets hit. Romney fires and fires, yet the visage of the ex-Pennsylvania Senator stays as pure as Newt Gingrich’s self-image. Clever!

OK, we’ve got this to say about the ad: if nothing else, it’s a mud shot across Romney’s bow. Santorum is not going to sit on his poll lead in Michigan and wait for Romney to come after him. He’s going to take some preemptive punches.

But the message here is just a little bit opaque. A casual viewer might think, “What’s going on here? Why is Mitt Romney smiling? Guns?”

The obligatory “I’m Rick Santorum, and I approve this message” is actually at the beginning of the ad, at least as seen on the web. Is this to make sure viewers know the point of the thing, and that it’s not a Romney ad of some kind? That was our impression.

Santorum’s further problem may be that he’s bringing a dirt gun to a tank fight. Sure, he’s risen in the polls, and he’s even ahead in Michigan, where Romney grew up and his dad was governor. But Romney’s got enough cash to blanket the airwaves of Detroit, Lansing, and Grand Rapids with his own message.

Politico reports today that the Romney campaign is devoting at least $1.3 million of its hard-money resources to the purchase of Michigan airtime prior to the state’s Feb. 28 vote. The pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future undoubtedly will spend millions more.

On the campaign trail Romney’s already double-flipping, hitting back at the Santorum spot that’s hitting Romney for hitting Santorum. (Or is that triple-flipping?)

“That is the nature of politics, which is that you always accuse the other guy of doing what you’ve done yourself,” said Romney in a Wednesday morning Fox News appearance.

As to the natty Romney double in the ad, real Romney had this to say: “The guy looked pretty good, didn’t he?”

Read entire post | Comments

Southeast High School students Tyrail Smith, left, and Michael Brown take a close look at the life size Abraham Lincoln replica while visiting the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum with classmates Friday in Springfield, Ill. Feb. 12 is Lincoln's birthday. (Seth Perlman/AP)

Abraham Lincoln, vampire hunter? What if it were true? (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 02.14.12

Abraham Lincoln’s been called a lot of things: Honest Abe, Father Abraham, the Great Emancipator, the Rail Splitter, even The Ancient One. But Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter? That’s a not one park rangers at the Lincoln Memorial commonly use.

Yet a new horror/history movie “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” opens June 22, and if the just-released trailer is any guide, it’s going to be a blockbuster. Think Stephen King meets Doris Kearns Goodwin, as filmed by Wes Craven, with a reincarnated Fess Parker in the starring role.

OK, that’s not exactly the movie’s provenance. It’s from a book of the same name, by Seth Grahame-Smith. Benjamin Walker plays Abe.

Mr. Grahame-Smith also wrote “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies,” which we could never convince our book group to read. 

The Vampire Hunter story is that Abe’s mother dies mysteriously, apparently due to some supernatural cause. He eventually learns that vampires are behind the South’s system of slavery. He gets himself elected president and fights the Civil War to end the fang-toothed scourge. Ax-related mayhem ensues.

Lest we of the Pundit’s Club get uppity about this alleged desecration of our 16th president’s true story, the Abe/vampire mash-up is getting a cautionary OK from the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill., according to the Los Angeles Times. Library staff members have been treated to an extended viewing of scenes from the upcoming film.

“We enjoyed it”, museum spokesman Dave Blanchett told the Times.

This got us to thinking: What if Lincoln really was a vampire hunter? That would explain some things about his personal history that historians argue over today.

His Moods

Lincoln’s tendency to melancholy and black moods was well known in his lifetime. What was the source of this personality trait? If he was worried about vampires, that would explain a lot.

His Strength

Lincoln’s body was unusually shaped, with long arms, a tall frame, and so forth. In the modern era some have tried to link him with various physical conditions that resulted in an odd body shape. But if he was swinging an ax constantly to ward off evil, wouldn’t he develop into an unusually strong chief executive.

His Tenacity

Lincoln was a gentle man who fought the Civil War ferociously, accepting nothing but total victory. This made sense if he wanted to ensure the Union’s survival and the death of slavery. It would also make sense if he needed to ensure that vampires would flee the US to other continents.

Also, if it’s successful, “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” could open up a whole new film genre: the wonky horror film. Think “I Know What You Did Last Sequestration,” “The Blair House Witch Project,” or “Scream 5: The GOP Debates Continue.”

Got any suggestions for Washington  horror movies of your own? Tweet them my way. Maybe we can get a hashtag going. #realscaryDC, anyone?

Read entire post | Comments

Actor and director Clint Eastwood speaks with reporters during the opening of the Warner Bros. Theater at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington earlier this month. (Cliff Owen/AP)

Clint Eastwood Chrysler ad: why some Republicans support it

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 02.08.12

Many Republicans didn’t like Chrysler's Clint Eastwood Super Bowl ad, “It’s Halftime in America.” Former Bush White House political guru Karl Rove was perhaps the biggest name to voice his dislike of the spot, which featured Mr. Eastwood talking in his iconic granite-chip voice about Detroit and the auto industry’s renewal.

The ad – and the positive way in which some Obama administration officials responded to it­ – “makes me nervous about the link between big government and the big businesses it bailed out,” wrote Mr. Rove in a Feb. 7 Fox News opinion piece.

Now, we’ve written before that as a native Detroiter we saw the ad as a paen to the Motor City and its resilience in the face of adversity. And that’s how Eastwood himself is portraying it. In a statement released earlier this week to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, the former mayor of Carmel, Calif., said that he thought the ad was something all politicians could get behind.

“It was meant to be a message about job growth and the spirit of America,” said Eastwood.

And here’s an interesting development: some Republicans are defending the ad, as well.

There’s GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, for one. “I liked the tone of that ad,” he said in a Feb. 8 campaign stop at a Jergens Inc. plant in Cleveland. “The world has counted us down before and we’re just regrouping,” he said.

OK, it’s not like Mr. Gingrich is part of the current GOP establishment. But would you have thought that someone presenting himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney would go against Rove? Hmm, you’re right. That might make sense. Rove defines the GOP establishment. Gingrich needs to have a second-half primary comeback himself.

He’s not the only Republican in Eastwood’s corner, though. The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, Bobby Schostak, told reporters in Washington on Feb. 9 that it hadn’t crossed his mind the ad could be interpreted as pro-Obama.

“I thought it was one of those great Detroit messages – we’re back and we’re fighting, working hard and producing great cars,” said Mr. Schostak, according to a report of the meeting in the Detroit News.

Republican lawmaker Rep. Darrell Issa of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has also backed Eastwood, whom he calls a personal friend.

“He loves American iron. He loves America, and for him to make that commercial was completely appropriate to who he is,” said Issa, according to the News report.

So what’s going on? Well, since we’re a pundit of sorts, we’ll put on our infallibility cloak and see what theory we can come up with.

It’s our belief that Rove, who is a very smart guy, is trying to frame an important issue for the coming general election campaign.

Democrats joke that Obama’s slogan in 2012 will be “Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.” Rove wants to neutralize the second part of that statement.

The ex-Bush aide knows that government bailouts in general are unpopular with voters. So he wants to remind us that bailouts are what propped up the auto industry. He uses the word numerous times in his Fox opinion piece, along with references to “billions in taxpayer dollars.”

The Obama team, in contrast, wants voters to see the auto firms through a gauzier lens. They know that a string of profitable quarters and some hot new products have raised the reputation of the firms formerly known as the “Big Three.”

Gallup poll data shows this trend. In 2009, at the depths of their troubles, the auto companies had only a 24 percent positive approval rating among Americans. But by last August that figure had almost doubled, to a 42 percent positive rating.

Thus the Eastwood Chrysler ad may be just a bystander, if you will – a convenient pretext for both sides to begin efforts to try and shape opinion on an important aspect of the 2012 race.

Read entire post | Comments

This Chrysler ad starring Clint Eastwood titled 'It's Halftime In America' aired during Super Bowl XVLI Sunday. (Chrysler Group LLC/AP)

Clint Eastwood isn't endorsing Obama? How that doesn't detract from the ad.

By Gloria Goodale, Staff writer / 02.07.12

The dustup over Clint Eastwood’s Super Bowl “half-time in America” Chrysler ad – with the White House tweeting its surprise, Republicans crying foul, and the actor denying any intentional endorsement – nonetheless raises the question: How much do celebrity endorsements matter these days?

After all, says Fordham University political science professor Christina Greer, “Clint Eastwood is very respected.” Despite the fact that he has not been a supporter of President Obama, she says, "this is being interpreted as a Democratic commercial." As such, she adds, “this could provide an interesting bump,” for the president.  

Hollywood A-Listers have been corralled into the political arena for decades – Clark Gable and Jimmy Stewart were high-profile Republicans, for instance – but the ability to transfer fan love to a candidate has never been direct and is hard to gauge. While certainly not defining, celebrity “dust” is an undeniable and occasionally potent part of the political calculus, especially as presidential elections have gotten closer and the Internet has made viral celebrity reach almost unimaginable compared with the pre-Internet age.

“Just look at Mitt Romney standing on that dais with Donald Trump,” says Anthony Nownes, a professor of political science at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, adding that while he might not have considered Mr. Trump an important ally in the fight, “Romney thought so and certainly got a lot of attention for the move.”

In an attempt to quantify the rub-off effect, Professor Nownes conducted a study of celebrity impact on the political views of some 300 voters in the run-up to the 2008 election. He used the then-wildly popular football player Peyton Manning as his test subject, revealing to his study participants that  the athlete was a Republican who supported GOP causes.

“Most of the people who were exposed to that information increased their view of the GOP,” says Prof. Nownes. “Not a lot, but that is significant,” he adds, especially as we move into a time where elections are being decided by very few votes.

History shows that a top-shelf endorsement is no guarantee of an easy victory, says Republican strategist David Johnson, who worked on Sen. Robert Dole’s 1988 presidential campaign. He points out that movie A-Listers Gary Cooper and John Wayne supported losing politicians such as Thomas Dewey and Wendell Wilkie. “Of course, they jumped on the Ike bandwagon, but Eisenhower could have won without that,” he says with a laugh, “after all he defeated the Nazis, how can you beat that?”

He ticks off the list of big-name celebrities who fell on the losing side of the ticket over and over, from Bob Hope in 1964 with Barry Goldwater to 1972’s GOP Nixon landslide. “George McGovern had Paul Newman and Robert Redford on his side and it didn’t help him one bit,” he points out.

Increasingly, in a digital age where the public is placing more and more value on authenticity, the public’s perception of the endorser makes a difference.

“Do celebrity endorsements work?” asks Len Shyles, a Villanova University communication professor, via email. “Yes and no,” he says. “In the case of those coming from celebrities of quality and who are viewed as being of good judgment, and who do not fall from grace, they can’t hurt.”

Veer from that aura of credibility, as happened in the case of golf legend Tiger Woods, he adds, and the value of an endorsement can actually be negative.

Politicians need to weigh the upsides and downsides carefully, says Matthew Hale, associate professor at Seton Hall University. In general having Hollywood actors directly involved in campaigning hurts more than it helps, because they are generally targeted as card-carrying members of the so-called "liberal elite."

But, he says this Clint Eastwood ad is different.

“It was for a car company, not a president, so even though the message – that America is coming back and coming back strong – works for both, it is not a movie star directly campaigning for Obama,” he says, adding, “it is Dirty Harry and he is an icon on the right, and to have him say things are getting better and America is coming back is a huge plus for Obama.”

This is not the first time the president has been helped by celebrities, he notes. The Oprah effect in 2008 was considerable, with many pundits suggesting her strong endorsement of Obama was instrumental in getting out the vote.

But that was not the only help he received. Also in the 2008 campaign, Mr. Hale points out, Will.i.am produced a video called "Yes We Can," which featured celebrities singing the words to an Obama speech. It captured his message of hope and change perfectly, he adds.

The door can swing both ways, however, notes Professor Nownes. He notes that while the GOP may have benefited in his study from people’s positive feelings about Manning, their feelings toward Manning actually eroded.

“People don’t want their celebrities to be taking sides,” Nownes says, “so it cuts both ways.”

Read entire post | Comments

This advertisement provided by Chrysler Group LLC, shows actor Clint Eastwood, featured in an ad titled "It's Halftime In America," which aired during Super Bowl XVLI, Sunday. (Chrysler Group LLC/AP)

Chrysler Super Bowl commercial: Why Detroit loves Clint Eastwood (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 02.07.12

Clint Eastwood’s Chrysler Super Bowl ad is still getting a lot of national attention, if you haven’t heard. Many Democrats think it’s an implicit Obama campaign ad, since it talks about “halftime in America” and the return of Detroit from the economic scrapyard. “Remember the auto bailout? Yeah, that was us.” That’s the Democrat’s new mantra.

Some Republicans are upset about that same thing. Former Bush White House political guru Karl Rove said he was “offended” by the ad. Now, Rove is a pretty smart guy, so he’s probably trying to get in the way of Obama wrapping himself in Chrysler’s flag. (Think they don’t have a flag? You’ve never been to Chrysler headquarters. GM and Ford have flags too.)

But it’s our view that this argument is easily overblown. As we’ve said, most of America did not view this ad, and think, “Oh, we’re so happy the White House provided financing for Chrysler to negotiate a quick managed bankruptcy and end up in the arms of an Italian automaker that used to be known for poor quality!”

No, they saw that ad, and they saw Detroit staring back at them – a flawed, proud industrial giant that’s trying to claw its way back. And it’s right that Clint Eastwood was the face of this. He was great in the role, for one. For another, he’s beloved in the Motor City.

We’re speaking here as a Detroit native, someone whose first job in journalism was a Detroit News paper route. We’ve got three Bill Freehan autographs. We could hear the Ford tractor plant from our house. Didn’t know that Ford used to actually make farm equipment in the Detroit area? Now you do.

Detroit’s a shadow of itself now. They talk about letting parts of the city go back to nature. But the city is angry, and proud, and both resentful and grateful to anyone in Washington who will give it a chance.

The headline on the News website this morning was not, “Was Eastwood ad political?” It was “Chrysler’s hourly employees to get bonuses early.” That’s what’s important in the Motor City.

The “political” argument over the Eastwood spot misses the point of the ad, argues News columnist Daniel Howes today. It’s really about how Detroit collapsed in its own mistakes, and how everyone has to come together to bring it back, and how much that costs – in lost jobs, shuttered dealers, broken dreams.

It’s also about whether Detroit’s experience “is a harbinger for the nation,” writes Mr. Howes. Look upon us, and see yourself. This is what we all have to do to recover.

And that brings us back to Eastwood. He’s a movie star, a Republican, a former mayor of Carmel, Calif. That’s pretty far from a Detroit experience.

But he’s in the ad because he’s a Motor City icon. It’s not because he smashed up lots of Detroit iron in the Dirty Harry flicks. It’s because of “Gran Torino,” Eastwood’s flick about a retired blue collar worker defending his beloved car and his racially changing neighborhood.

This attitude was best summarized by the city’s unofficial columnist laureate, Mitch Albom of the Detroit Free Press, in a famous piece for Sports Illustrated called, “The Courage of Detroit.”

We’ll skip through the parts of the book about the church that’s hanging on, and the unassuming sports stars. You should read the whole thing, though – it’s a great piece of work. Mr. Albom is much more than a guy who wrote some book about angels.

But at the end the author goes to see “Gran Torino” with a friend. The film was shot in Detroit, he notes, and Eastwood seemed to fit in fine during his time there. No one bothered him. He’d even visit the local hardware store for stuff.

The story is fairly predictable. But, Albom notes, the Michigan audience stayed in its seat, even after the movie ended. They stayed through the credits, and the closing music, until the very last scroll – a shot of cars driving down Detroit’s Jefferson Avenue.

“Three words appeared – MADE IN MICHIGAN”, Albom writes. “And the whole place clapped. Just stood up and clapped. To hell with Depression. We’re gonna have a good year.”

Read entire post | Comments

Undated photo shows actor Clint Eastwood appearing in the Chrysler Super Bowl commercial 'It's Halftime in America,' which aired on Sunday. (Chrysler/Reuters)

Chrysler Super Bowl commercial: Was it really pro-Obama? (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 02.06.12

Was the Chrysler Super Bowl commercial a boost for President Obama’s reelection campaign? Some happy Democrats thought so after they watched the spot, which features Clint Eastwood talking tough about Detroit and the auto industry’s recovery.

“Another great Chrysler ad – the US auto industry is back,” tweeted the Michigan branch of Mr. Obama’s reelection campaign following its broadcast just prior to the second-half kickoff.

David Axelrod, once and (likely future) top political aide to Obama's national campaign, added this tweet: “Powerful spot. Did Clint shoot that, or just narrate it?”

Some Republicans, on the other hand, were aghast. “Agh. WTH? Did I just see Clint Eastwood fronting an auto bailout ad???” tweeted conservative pundit Michelle Malkin as the Super Bowl's second half began.

Calm down people. Sometimes an auto ad is just a promotional tool for vehicles, not another division point in the endless war of words between the political red and blue. We think ordinary voters will see the ad as a good example of a common commercial category: the corporate flag-waver.

Yes, we can see how the excitement got started. The ad is a great piece of work. Mr. Eastwood narrates in a voice hard as granite chips. He walks down a dark alley, talking about how it’s half time in the game, and half time in America, too. People are worried and out of work, and they're wondering what they’re going to do to make a comeback, because their lives aren’t a game.

“The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together. Now Motor City is fighting again,” says Eastwood.

Eastwood goes on to say he’s seen lots of tough eras, and in the end Americans all rallied together and found a way out. While he talks, sepia cuts of industrial activity segue into shots of moms, kids, firefighters, and so forth.

Then, suddenly, at 1 minute 27 seconds into the commercial, Eastwood emerges into the sun, and the face of the toughest octogenarian in America looms into the camera. “All that matters now is what’s ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And how do we win?” he says.

Whoa. Images matter in ads, to point out the obvious. When that craggy visage appears, viewers aren’t thinking, “I guess it’s great the Obama administration ushered Chrysler through a managed bankruptcy, providing temporary financing that allowed assets to be bought by Fiat.”

No, they’re thinking, “That guy is over 80, but it looks like he could still take Eli Manning.”

The ad is selling pride, American pride. It implies that the good people of the United States rolled up their sleeves and brought the firm that controls Jeep back from the brink. It elides the fact that without government intervention, no amount of sleeve-rolling would have kept Chrysler alive.

You’ll notice that the brief shot of an actual identifiable auto in the commercial is of a Jeep, a brand whose strong sales are helping Chrysler into the black. No Fiat 500s anywhere. (Though Fiat had its own Super Bowl spot for the high-performance Fiat 500 Abarth.)

For the record, Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne issued a statement saying that the Eastwood ad has “zero political content.” And Eastwood himself is a well-known Hollywood Republican. He’s said he always votes GOP for president, although he’s yet to indicate any preference in the current race.

Read entire post | Comments

Actor and television host Stephen Colbert throws a hat into the crowd which belonged to former Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain during a rally at the College of Charleston, South Carolina, in January. The Stephen Colbert super PAC has reported raising more than $1 million, what is the money spent on? (Jason Reed/Reuters)

What did Stephen Colbert super PAC spend its money on?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 02.01.12

Stephen Colbert’s super PAC released its first Federal Election Commission report this week, in case you haven’t heard. Lots of media coverage has focused on how much money the group has raised: over one million bucks, so far. That’s a lot, considering that donors know their checks are bolstering a comedic enterprise, albeit one that’s satirizing the current political money system to make a point.

But when political pros analyze a donor organization they look at where the money is going as much as the amount coming in. So we took a morning to go through the expenditures portion of the Colbert report, and it’s pretty interesting.

First off, there were no zeppelin purchases as far as we could see – Jon Stewart joked about that during the brief period he controlled the Colbert super PAC cash. No unicorn purchases either, despite the fact that Colbert appeared to be riding one in a super PAC-financed advertisement. There were no purchases of jewelry from Elizabeth Taylor’s estate, no Trump Tower condos purchased as a super PAC clubhouse, no dollars converted into Narnia currency to create a secret slush fund for Aslan.

In total, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, as the super PAC is officially known, spent $151,521.01 in calendar year 2011. Here’s where it went:

Colbert's posse

If you total it up, the biggest category of Colbert expenditure was for writing and media consulting services, at around $12,389. The bulk of this went to individuals who work for "The Colbert Report" show, or production companies identifiably linked to Colbert. Our favorite in that regard was the $175 that went to Well Read Doofus Productions, a Brooklyn consultancy run by Colbert staff writer Scott Sherman.

The above figure does not include the money Colbert paid to his bosses. Yes, the FEC report lists a $2,000 payment to Comedy Partners, the corporate subsidiary which operates the Comedy Central network on which Colbert’s show appears. Payoff? Hush money? Bribe? It would be irresponsible of us to speculate that the payment was any of those things.

T-shirts

The Colbert super PAC web site offers for sale a T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase “Turtles don’t like peanut butter.” No, we don’t know what that means, but whatever it is, the on-line shop notes the shirt “is not available in turtle-neck.”

The costs connected with this little enterprise are considerable. Adding up design, production, and storage and on-line order handling, last year the super PAC laid out about $10,569 related to T-shirts. We think it’s defensible to say Colbert is running a donor-supported shirt business as opposed to a super PAC. (That would be legal, in case you’re wondering.)

Political ads 

Ads, on the other hand, weren’t the biggest expenditure category, strictly speaking, though we bet a lot of the “Posse” money (see above) went into their creation. The FEC filing lists a total of $5,930 paid directly to Iowa television stations in 2011 to broadcast Colbert-produced satirical ads, such as the one that urged Iowans to vote for “Rick Parry, with an ‘A.’ ”

The super PAC also listed $5,350 paid to “Media Ad Ventures,” a Springfield, Va., political ad consultancy that specializes in production and ad placement.

Genial on-screen lawyer sidekick

Trevor Potter, a former chief of the FEC, has figured prominently in episodes of 'The Colbert Report" dealing with the super PAC. He provides on-screen legal advice with trademark geniality, smiling as he basically tells Colbert that, yes, folks can channel all the money they can afford into the political system, without divulging their identities.

But avuncular does not come cheap. The FEC report lists $6,049.61 paid to Caplin and Drysdale, Mr. Potter’s firm.

Website

Think the Internet is free? Think again. Funny websites don’t come cheap. Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow sent $6,760 to Electric Pulp in Sioux Falls, S.D., to build its website. Sioux Falls? We’d probably better not say anything snarky – we’ve got relatives living out that way.

Read entire post | Comments

Actor and television host Stephen Colbert arrives to host a South Carolina primary rally with former Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain, at the College of Charleston, South Carolina, in this January 20 photo. Stephen Colbert's super PAC disclosed Monday night that it has raised more than $1 million. (Jason Reed/Reuters)

Stephen Colbert super PAC raises $1 million. How does that compare? (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 01.31.12

Stephen Colbert’s "super PAC" disclosed Monday night that it has raised more than $1 million. A total of $1,023,121.34, to be precise. The vast majority of it came from individual donors, including Jimmy Carter. Of course, this particular Jimmy Carter lives in San Diego and is not an ex-president, but it’s still an exciting name, no?

A Kennedy – Trevor Kennedy – also sent a few hundred bucks, as did Gavin Newsom, lieutenant governor of California, and a number of people who listed fake names that are unprintable on a family website.

But here’s our question: Is $1,023,121.34 a lot of money in the world of super political action committees? Is the Colbert organization part of the 1 percent, campaign finance-wise, or part of the 99 percent?

It’s definitely middle class. One million bucks is nothing to be ashamed of, as PACs go. The conservative Club for Growth super PAC has raised about $1.3 million this election cycle, for instance, according to the watchdog group Center for Responsive Finance.

But scroll down the super PAC listings at the Center for Responsive Finance's Open Secrets website and you see that Colbert’s group can’t measure up its checkbook with the big dogs. Consider American Crossroads, a super PAC linked to GOP guru Karl Rove, a frequent Colbert target. (On "The Colbert Report,” the comedian has depicted Mr. Rove as a canned ham wearing glasses.) American Crossroads has raised almost $7 million this election cycle. Is that a canned ham we hear, laughing while its aspic jiggles?

Then there’s Restore Our Future, a super PAC that supports Mitt Romney. It’s the wealthiest such organization in the current race, having raised more than $12 million this election cycle. That can buy a lot of anti-Gingrich commercials. (We’ve checked – there is no truth to the rumor that Restore Our Future drove to its vacation cottage with its cash strapped to the roof of the car.)

Even Endorse Liberty, the super PAC that endorses Ron Paul, has spent more than $3 million this cycle. That would have bought a lot of zeppelin rides and unicorns.

Zeppelin rides and unicorns are what the Colbert-linked group has pretended to lavish cash on, of course. Colbert has regained control of the organization, by the way, as we predicted he would. He had turned it over to Jon Stewart while he pretended to explore a run for president of South Carolina. When he wanted it back, Stewart held it hostage. Colbert regained his money Monday night after an extended chase scene that traveled through both shows, involved Stewart hiding on the set of “The View” in a wig, and featured ample amounts of great 1970s-era chase-scene music.

On his show, Colbert noted that he had gotten his money back just in time for the Jan. 31 deadline for super PACS to release donor information. Not just his group, but other such independent expenditure groups would now be releasing info, he noted.

“It’s a great day for transparency because tomorrow voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida will finally have the vital information that would have been useful before they voted,” Colbert said.

Yes, you got it – he’s making fun there. That’s why he’s got a super PAC, to comically illuminate the faults and absurdities of the US campaign finance world.

Read entire post | Comments

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer points at President Obama after he arrived at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Wednesday, in Mesa, Ariz. (Haraz N. Ghanbari/AP)

Did Gov. Jan Brewer pick a fight with President Obama to sell books? (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 01.27.12

The subject of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and her finger-wagging tiff with President Obama is still burning up the Internet. Just go to Twitter and type in “Jan Brewer” – the tweets will pile up faster than you can read them. It’s as if she’s suddenly become as Web-popular as Ron Paul.

So here’s the obvious question: Did she intend to have some sort of confrontation there Wednesday in front of the cameras at the Phoenix airport? We think probably not – in politics, as in life, happenstance usually explains more incidents than does conspiracy. But whatever her plan, Governor Brewer has benefited from Waggate in at least one respect: She’s selling a lot more books.

That’s right. Her memoir “Scorpions for Breakfast” was published last November to generally underwhelming sales. Earlier this week, Amazon listed it as the 285,685th bestselling book in America. By way of comparison, Newt Gingrich’s Civil War novel, “The Battle of the Crater,” is currently No. 39,967.

But for a conservative Republican political author, there’s nothing like an appearance with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Channel in which your book title gets mentioned. On Amazon’s bestseller list, “Breakfast with Scorpions” on Friday was ... eighth! That’s an unbelievable jump. In terms of political bookmanship, that puts Brewer up there with Sarah Palin and “Going Rogue.”

Sarah Palin wrote the forward to “Breakfast with Scorpions,” by the way. In it she calls Brewer a “down-to-earth mom committed to public service and principled leadership.” So Brewer is definitely a member of Ms. Palin’s "mama grizzly" club. Also, Brewer herself in the book calls New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie “incomparable,” so maybe she’s one of those conservatives who is still hoping he jumps into the presidential race.

Anyway, jealous authors of books critical of Obama policies are already pleading online with the White House to pass along a copy to the president, so he’ll get peeved and argue in public with them, too. Next stop: Swiss bank account!

As to the letter Brewer handed Mr. Obama, which was the MacGuffin that got the tiff started, the Arizona governor belatedly decided to release its contents. It’s not exactly combative, in terms of political rhetoric: “We both love this great country, but we fundamentally disagree on how to best make America grow and prosper once again,” Brewer wrote.

As for Obama himself, he told ABC News Thursday that the incident was “a classic example of things getting blown out of proportion.” After reporters peppered him with questions on the subject, White House spokesman Jan Carney went further, saying, “I really assume you guys have more important issues to cover than this.”

Read entire post | Comments