Let The Wild Rumpus Begin: Maurice Sendak (1928-2012)

Maurice Sendak, as the New York Times aptly put in today's obit, is "widely considered the most important children’s book artist of the 20th century, who wrenched the picture book out of the safe, sanitized world of the nursery and plunged it into the dark, terrifying and hauntingly beautiful recesses of the human psyche."  He was 83.

His books, particularly Where The Wild Things Are, resonated with me as a kid.  But, interestingly (at least to me) was my rediscovery of Sendak as a parent and how much I enjoyed reading his books to my children.  Family favorites included In the Night Kitchen, Very Far Away, Outside Over There and Kenny's Window, as well as the countless books he illustrated.

In January, he was interviewed by Stephen Colbert in an epic two-part episode in which Colbert sought advice on how to write a children's book.  Sendak's wonderfully acerbic wit was on full display:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Stephen Colbert's Iconic Influence

I've written before about Stephen Colbert's subversive brilliance.  In 2006, at the height of George W. Bush's popularity, Colbert literally spoke truth to power at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.  Staying in character, he courageously and hilariously skewered the President and mocked the all-too-compliant national press.

And this preposterous election season he has demonstrated like no one else the destructive consequences of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision by creating his own Super PAC without much trouble.  During his very brief run for the presidency, he gave up control of the Super PAC, on the air, legally transferring it to his close friend and Comedy Central cohort, Jon Stewart, and renaming it "The Definitely Not Coordinated with Stephen Colbert Super PAC."  Among other things, this bit of political theater demonstrated how the rules which prohibit coordination between the candidates and their Super PACS are so transparently ineffectual.

Last week, at the gala celebrating TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people, at which he was so honored as an "icon," he lit into David Koch, one of his co-nominees, as only Colbert can -- with biting irony laying bare the destructive influence of money in politics -- especially Koch Brothers money.

Of course, all of us should be honored to be listed on the TIME 100 alongside the two men who will be slugging it out in the fall:  President Obama, and the man who would defeat him, David Koch.
Give it up everybody.  David Koch.

Little known fact -- David, nice to see you again, sir.

Little known fact, David's brother Charles Koch is actually even more influential.  Charles pledged $40 million to defeat President Obama, David only $20 million.  That's kind of cheap, Dave.
Sure, he's all for buying the elections, but when the bill for democracy comes up, Dave's always in the men's room.  I'm sorry, I must have left Wisconsin in my other coat.

I was particularly excited to meet David Koch earlier tonight because I have a Super PAC, Colbert Super PAC, and I am -- thank you, thank you -- and I am happy to announce Mr. Koch has pledged $5 million to my Super PAC.  And the great thing is, thanks to federal election law, there's no way for you to ever know whether that's a joke.

By the way, if David Koch likes his waiter tonight, he will be your next congressman.

While the mainstream media focuses on the horse race -- who is ahead in the polls and whose rhetoric is scoring the most political points -- we have come to rely more and more on comedians like Colbert to bring to the fore meaningful issues that have real influence on our national well being.

Could There Still Be A Race For The Republican Nomination?

DonkeyHotey

by Fuzzyone

I have thought for a long time that there was little chance that anyone but Romney could capture the Republican nomination. He has the money and organization that all but Ron Paul lack, and Paul just can't appeal to enough Republicans. But now Public Policy Polling has a poll out showing Gingrich with a six point lead over Romney in South Carolina:

Newt Gingrich ................................................. 34%
Mitt Romney..................................................... 28%
Ron Paul ........................................................... 15%
Rick Santorum................................................... 14%
Rick Perry .......................................................... 5%
Buddy Roemer.................................................... 3%
Someone else/Not sure ...................................... 2%

Even more interesting, or at least entertaining, is that if Stephen Colbert is included he gets 8%, taking a bit from everyone. Colbert's Super PAC, now run by Jon Stewart (which lovechilde wrote about the other day) is running ads urging people to vote for Herman Cain, who has dropped out but whose name still appears on the ballot, but it is hard to know how that will impact things.

What is likely to have an impact is Perry's announcement that he is dropping out and endorsing Gingrich.  That leaves only Gingrich and Santorum fighting for the non Romney, non Paul vote.  The problem they both have is lack of organization and money. But a strong showing in South Carolina could bring in the money and after Florida on January 31 there are not any really big events until March 6, Super Tuesday.

I still doubt anyone can beat Romney, at least anyone who is in the race, and tonight's ABC interview with Newt's second wife does not seem likely to help him. Still, this might be a more interesting race than I would have expected a few weeks ago.

Speaking Truthiness To Power: The Subversive Brilliance Of Stephen Colbert

I've always been more of a Jon Stewart fan than a Stephen Colbert fan.  I sometimes find Colbert's "character," his faux Bill  O'Reilly, over-the-top and exhausting, as the real O'Reilly must be.  But Colbert has the ability to expose the absurdity of our politics and the media's complicity in it like no one else.

In 2006, at the height of George W. Bush's popularity, Colbert was invited to speak at the White House Correspondent's dinner where, staying in character, he literally spoke truth to power, courageously and hilariously skewering the President and mocking the all-too-compliant national press.  And the beauty was that it was done in such a deadpan manner that a clueless Bush didn't get that he was the joke and lamely laughed along while the reporters squirmed uncomfortably.    

As Frank Rich wrote, "the moment when the American news business went on suicide watch . . . [was] when Stephen Colbert, appearing at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, delivered a monologue accusing his hosts of being stenographers who had, in essence, let the Bush White House get away with murder (or at least the war in Iraq)." 



His latest project is even more remarkable.  Boldly illustrating the destructive consequences of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, he created his own Super PAC without much trouble.  As Dan Froomkin and Paul Blumenthal at Huffington Post explain:  Colbert "has managed to pierce the veil of dullness to actually demonstrate -- in an electrifying way -- just how dangerous and corrupt the current system of political campaign financing has become."

Colbert has spent much of the past year on a crusade to accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals in order to make political statements and lavish himself with luxuries. In so doing, he may have helped bring the troubling issues surrounding campaign finance to the public's attention more than either the reform community or traditional media.

He received approval in June 2011 for his Super PAC, and using this vehicle,

Colbert has exposed many of the potential dangers of the current campaign financing system, including the influence of PACs and unlimited-donation super PACs, secret contributions by big donors, the failure of regulators, and the coordination between campaigns and supposedly independent groups.