Make Them Famous and Know Their Names?
I have to admit I was impressed when all those republicans revolted during the bailout saga. I may not agree with the principles at work but I have to admire people who stuck by theirs even as their own president and candidate pointed at the falling sky.
Of course, then somebody offered them some candy and they happily climbed aboard. So much for principles. Oddly, though, Senator McCain claimed to be the one who convinced them. If we were writing this as a movie we might say that the character isn't tracking. And if a character isn't tracking in the third act, you usually have to go back to the first act to find out why.
"I'll take this old ink pen and every single pork barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk as president, I will veto it, I will make them famous and you will know their names."
Well, he didn't make them famous, did he? Not the members of either party who shoved their crap into this bill. See the problem? You can't really have your character say that line and then a few scenes later have him sign a bill called the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which is bloated with an additional $150,000,000,000 for things like tax breaks for a certain type of wooden arrow, rum importers, race track facilities, Exxon-Valdez plaintiffs (I'm not making this stuff up), and film and TV production (sorry guys, that shouldn't have been in there either).
Yes, Obama also signed the bill. The difference is that Obama hasn't continually claimed that eliminating "pork" is the remedy for all that ails us. He also didn't claim ownership over that bill the way McCain did.
There's another rule in screenwriting that applies here. If you have a character violate his own code of principles, he has to pay for it. For two whole movies Michael Corleone made his family his primary motivation. Then he killed Fredo and lost his soul.
McCain claims that country is his motivation for everything. Admirable. But you can't say "Country First" and then pick an imbecile to help run said country during its toughest times.
You can't say "Country First" and then employ a campaign strategy that shamelessly resurrects said country's shameful history of racial tension in order to divide it against itself.
You can't say "Country First" and then allow your running mate to tell reporters how happy she is to be cleared of "even a hint of unethical behavior" when referring to a report which condemns her unethical behavior.
Again, if the character violates his own principles he has to pay for it. That usually happens in the third act. If we're doing our job as screenwriters the character can't win. And in the denouement we must leave him with the residue of his own undoing.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You've got a point. (albeit I disagree with you trying to keep Obama & Dems clean in this)
Im furious at McCain for signing it. I think he was pushed into signing because everyone was screaming "the sky is falling and the worlds going to end" and let us not forget that Republicans are unpatriotic for not passing it (Pelosi), and we are headed towards the Great Depression (Obama).
I wish he would of stuck to his guns, but considering the fear that propagated throughout the US... I do not think he had much choice and it still pisses me off!
I think we should get rid of every single person that voted for it...on either side...but that leaves us with a little problem...
What do we do with Obama & McCain?
I couldn't agree more. It's not the scope of the earmarks, it's the principle. This was an emergency measure to address a crisis. And then additional measures were added to make it more appealing to those that were likely to vote against the bill.
If congress - from either side of the aisle - can insert special conditions for special interests in an emergency bill, then the process is fundamentally broken. I was waiting for McCain to call out these issues after he made such a big deal about earmarks. And then he said *nothing*. It doesn't matter if it's a $200M bridge to nowhere, or $100k to correct an excessive tax.
The bailout bill is just that, and shouldn't have been anything more. And McCain should have gotten back on his soapbox instead of worrying about losing the'wooden arrow' vote.
Isn't McCain's tragedy more of the classical sense, in that he has a character flaw that causes his inevitable demise? I see him not so much struggling between good and evil as responding to his own nature, which would seem to be a desperate need for validation, by any means possible. He attributes his actions to conscience and duty, but I see need and greed. If he wins, we all get to experience his tragedy.
Oops, sorry; this doesn't make sense unless you understand that I was trying to reply to the thoughtful comment posted by hydeseek, who makes some very good points about McCain’s dormant conscience. One of my lesser flaws is computer clumsiness!
McCain's Commanding Officer said of McCain. I have only one word to describe John McCain.
DECIET !!!!!!!!
DESEAT !!!!!!!!!!
"I believe McCain is hiding a conscience"
Really well. Very, very well. Read the Rolling Stone article, and ask yourself "Did he ever have a conscience"? Or was he always amoral?
One suspects his "maverickyness" is little more than bursts of petulance and personal animosity.
Maverickyness is just a word he's invented to replace "adult temper tantrum"
Yeah, but to be fair, that Rolling Stone article was way too heavy-handed. I agreed with the basic gist that Mr. McCain is only in it for personal glory rather than some true belief that he's making a positive impact in US history. However, some of the "proof" was ridiculous. Like using his test scores as proof that he's somehow dumb when I've seen countless instances of highly intelligent people doing poorly at school b/c the work isn't challengin
Anyway....
Re reading the article, I see the reference to "Exxon-Valdez plaintiffs (I'm not making this stuff up)". This would be Alaskan Fisherman earmark to the benefit of the state of you know who!! May have tried to bury by using Exxon-Valdez plaintiffs but that is "Alaskan Fisherman".
Part of the earmarks awarded in the bailout agreement were for "ALASKAN FISHERMAN".
I have written, complained, called out MSM about this -- no one has every included the comment in their reports about it but have made reference to the kids arrows, etc.
Michael, you need to get the full story on the arrows.
They were absolutely NOT "pork" or even a tax break.
The real story is that through a legislative mistake, toy arrows were being outrageously overtaxed, at a rate from 50-100%. This was just fixing that egregious overtaxing.
Sure, it can be argued whether this particular bill was the place to do it or not. But the fact remains that this needed to be done, and it was definitely a good thing.
I'm sure there was other pork in the bill, but the arrows are a poor example. Learn the facts on it and find a different one to blame.
I agree. I think everyone just sort of throws the arrow thing out there because it sounds so ridiculous. But really, it's probably one of the more beneficial things tacked on there: it lowers the cost of arrows that Boy Scouts need to learn archery. That's relatively harmless to the economy, and beneficial to the scouting program that exists to educate and enrich the lives of America's youth.
You're either opposed to the bailout based on principle or you're not. And you're either opposed to earmarks or you're not. And, yes, an earmark is money stuffed into a bill that has nothing to do with that bill, which is exactly what happened here. This isn't a debate about whether or not the arrow issue is a good one. The TV and Film production issue is a good one too. It didn't belong in the bill and for republicans who had been saying no to the bill to suddenly say yes because they got some money for something only signals that those principles aren't really principles. And for McCain to say that he wouldn't sign any bill that had earmarks only to sign a bill with earmarks is fundamentally hypocritical. That's the point. The rest is totally and completely irrelevant.
Let me guess, ... The Boy Scouts of America depend upon imported arrows? And the tariffs were too high? What a pathetic excuse for a silly earmark. If it is submitted as law, it should stand or fall on its own merits! Earmarks are a disguting circumnavigation of our Constitution in my estimation.
No, ... the way I see it, the three page abomination took a ream of paper to catch enough thieves to pass. It should have been clean, unencumbered and supportable on its merits alone. Sadly that did not happen.
The notion that an earmark, whatever one might choose, sweetened the pot enough for legislators to approve the bailout, ... simply defines the price for which our Congress will sell their souls, and our freedoms.
So make a bill about the blasted arrows. It does not belong in the bill designed to save our world from collapse. There' s a principle in there somewhere.
That's exactly what McCain is - a character in a movie in his own mind. Nobody believes him. All his supporters admit he lies, just say that every politician lies. He only has left the crazies, the stupid and the cynics. McCain doesn't even try to tell the truth anymore, and his promises change every day now so he doesn't even expect anyone to believe him.
I think power the ultimate aphrodisiac was Michael Corleone's primary if not initial motivation just like John McCain's.
Both were soldiers once, and believed in service to their country. But somewhere along the line they got their taste of power and it was as addictive as heroin.
McCain seems like a tragic Shakespearian king at this point, torn between good and evil. When he defended Barack against that woman who thought he was a terrorist, for the first time we got a glimpse of human decency out of the man. Whether or not that was for political gain is a question for the ages.
But somewhere under all that clenched fisted rage I believe McCain is hiding a conscience. It might be tucked away in some bunker deep within the recesses of his mind, or heart, but he knows how ignoble his campaign has been, and that he bears ultimate responsibility.
Or maybe he doesn't. Maybe like in Viet Nam he's just a grunt at heart, carrying out orders for his party without ever accepting culpability or considering the ramifications therein.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
