Category Archives: To Be Filed

Jonathan Chait on "rigged elections" in this country. Actually, I don't think it's that horrendous that Trump refused to say whether or not he would respect the outcome of the election. True, there is a fever dream out there among some that any election that doesn't go their way is a fraud, a cheat, a crime, a theft of democracy, etc. Seeing a lot of lawn signs and bumper stickers and knowing how all your friends voted is, after all, an infallible way of knowing how the entire country voted.

But if you want to increase some folks' belief that their votes are not honestly counted, just spread the notion that they have to the accept the outcome without question, no matter what evidence might turn up of incompetence or skullduggery. Trump was wrong to say that he's sure it's rigged and that a million dead people are already in line to cast ballots or whatever he said. He's especially wrong when he defines "rigging" to include the media being against him since, first of all, it isn't as unanimous as he makes it out to be and secondly, to the extent it is, it's his own fault for attacking them, blatantly manipulating them and giving their fact-checkers so many fibs to itemize.

Also, lots of newspapers saying he'd make a dreadful president is legal. And not the same thing as deliberately miscounting ballots or manufacturing spurious votes.

Still, I think it's okay to wait until you see if there's any actual evidence of voter fraud before you promise to say the outcome in legit. What if Hillary somehow gets eighty zillion votes in Alaska? And anyway, Trump promising to accept the outcome of the voting is pointless since if it's closer than the polls now suggest, he won't validate it no matter what he says now. And he may not no matter what the official total says. This is Donald Trump, remember.

Ben Casselman offers a good recap of where the two candidates stood last night on certain key issues. And yes, I'm as amazed as anyone that they even talked about key issues.

Boy, am I glad that's over with. This one bothered me a bit less than the first two. Maybe Trump was a bit less interested in thrilling the Hillary haters or maybe he's numbed my ability to cringe at childishness on the part of someone running for the presidency.

I tried to think "If I were undecided, would anything here make up my mind?" but Trump seemed so unqualified and dishonest that I couldn't put myself in the place of someone who didn't see a clear choice. Even if I liked some of the things he proposes to do, I don't think I would trust him to feel any obligation, once in office, to do a single one of them. In any case though, I didn't hear anything new tonight and I'm pretty sure Trump needed something new.

• Trump accused Hillary of being "nasty." She must be thinking, "What next? Being fat-shamed by Chris Christie?"

Here's a good interview with Bernie Sanders. And here's a paragraph in it that seems worth quoting…

One of the great crises we face — and what the campaign demonstrated — is how far out of touch most Democratic leaders are with their constituents. That we can go into state after state and take on the entire Democratic establishment, in some cases win landslide victories, tells you that the gap between the Democratic leadership and grassroots folks is very, very wide. It is enormously important that we revitalize American democracy, that we get people thinking about the issues that impact their lives and their families' lives and their neighbors' lives, and start figuring out the route forward to address those issues.

Now, you may think that's pretty simple. If you are not feeling well, you go to the doctor, right? The doctor makes the diagnosis and provides the treatment. And yet that is not what we do in talking about politics. That is certainly not what television does in talking about politics, and Americans know it. What are the problems facing the country? Do we really even discuss them? One of the successes of our campaign is that we hit a nerve and said, "Yeah, these are the issues. Why isn't anybody talking about them?"

Take a look at the political websites for the last month or two. Do you see a lot of discussion about issues? I don't. I see people talking about whether Donald Trump is a molester, whether the election will be rigged, whether Hillary's e-mails say what some want to say they say, whether Trump is mentally unstable, etc. Not a lot there about what to do about Syria, income inequality, creating more jobs, controlling health care costs and getting insurance for more people, etc.

We aren't even arguing much about Gay Rights, Abortions and Gun Control and we always argue a lot about Gay Rights, Abortions and Gun Control. They may not be resolvable issues but at least they're issues.

• I'm beginning to think that what Donald Trump calls "rigging the election" is what anyone else would call "fact-checking."

My pal Jim Korkis writes book after book on Disney history, always coming up with something new — or new to me, at least. I haven't received a copy yet of his newest one, which is called Walt's Words: Quotations of Walt Disney with Sources! but I'm going to recommend it sight unseen. It's Jim compiling things Walt said, and Jim is not only very accurate but he's also great at digging up obscure information. How could this book not be worth having on your shelf and even reading? Order one today at this link and you too can learn what the man who once said "The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing" said when he wasn't doing.

Tonight's the last debate. You all know that but I figured you'd enjoy reading those words. In fact, I'll type them a few more times just because it feels so good: Tonight's the last debate. Tonight's the last debate. Tonight's the last debate. Tonight's the last debate. Tonight's the last debate.

Trump lost big in the polls after the first one because, I think, Hillary looked like a leader while he looked like someone on a bad reality show, ginning up phony emotion and anger. He obviously didn't see it that way because for the second debate, he ramped up the nasty, thrilling his base but probably not attracting anyone new to it. Depending on which pollster you believe, he either lost a little more ground or merely didn't gain. And when you're running behind, not gaining is losing.

So you'd think he'd try something different. Scowling, hurling threats and practically stalking his opponent on stage didn't help him so for a brief, delusional moment, I thought he'd stop hating on the Clintons and President Obama and would instead try convincing America that he has the disposition to deal with conflict and a lot of solid ideas. Then I read this…

President Obama's Kenyan-born, half-brother Malik will be in the audience in Las Vegas Wednesday night when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton square off in their third and final debate. Malik — an American citizen who lives in Washington, DC, when he's not in Kenya — says he will be a guest of Trump, the Republican nominee he supports for president.

Looks like we're in for more stunts and personal accusations. What was that definition of "insanity" again?

By the way: Tonight's the last debate. Maybe ever with anyone.

---

I'm getting more e-mails from folks who've been to NBC who question my assumption that that clip from The Steve Allen Show (this one) started and ending on Stage 1. They may be right. The fine announcer-person Randy West thinks…

They leave 1, parallel the midway, then make a 90-degree right-turn where the cable was being pulled, and where the cable will now be fed out. They walk through what later became studio 10 (local news) and out to the hallway and into 4, where Dinah was.

Quite possible. I'm not all that familiar with that section of the building. I did shows on Stage 1 and Stage 3, and am pretty sure that the action starts in 1 and that Steve and Eydie emerge from the corridor that runs between 1 and 3. I visited the other stages — I think The Flip Wilson Show was on on Stage 4 — but I don't remember the numbers that well. Then again, it's also possible that some of the layout of that place was altered between the time Steverino did his show there in '58 and when some of us were there.

By the way: As noted, that episode of The Steve Allen Show aired on February 9, 1958, which was a Sunday. Steve's show was on from 8 PM to 9 PM and then it was followed at 9:00 by The Dinah Shore Chevy Show — so this was not only a neat bit of video magic but it was also a cross-promotion to stay tuned for Dinah. Wonder if Steve or any of his guests were part of Dinah's program that night.

---

Last night, Stephen Colbert had an odd parlay of guests: Barack Obama and Bill O'Reilly. Obama took part in a sketch recorded somewhere else at some other time so he wasn't in the studio when O'Reilly was. Jeri Kline wrote to ask me why Colbert, who clearly does not share O'Reilly's political viewpoints, keeps having that man on.

Well, I think that's part of the reason. A variety of opinions is not a bad thing. Also, though O'Reilly does not appear to be a particular fave of Conservatives, having him on does do something to counteract the claim that Colbert's show is just left-wing propaganda. It forces the folks who'd say that to instead say, "Almost all left-wing propaganda."

But I also think he has O'Reilly on because he likes the banter that results and he also seems to have a certain respect for the guy. Folks in show business often respect someone else just because they've been able to build a successful franchise. Letterman felt that way about Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly and a few others. Didn't agree with them but he couldn't pretend they hadn't done a great job of amassing a following and connecting with those followers. And I also suspect that O'Reilly's past appearances probably registered enough of a ratings uptick that someone said, "We've got to have that guy back."

There was one interesting moment near the end of the interview. It was time to plug O'Reilly's new book and of course, they were playfully insulting each other. O'Reilly said of his book, "You desperately need to read this book…or have someone read it to you!"

I don't claim to be able to read minds but I have the feeling that the retort that flashed into Colbert's mind at that moment was: "Well, maybe I can get the guy who actually wrote it for you!" Then, I'm guessing, he instantly decided that was a bit nastier than the level at which he keeps his verbal jousting with O'Reilly so he said what he did say, which was: "Will you?"

Of course, I could be wrong…

• The total number of women who claim Trump harassed them just passed the total number of non-white people voting for him.
• Trump planning to end third and final debate by bringing out watermelon, smashing it with Sledge-o-Matic. Chris Wallace bringing poncho.
• Melania Trump sez Billy Bush tricked Donald into talking dirty. If that's true, imagine what Vladimir Putin could trick Donald into doing!

John Green explains the differences between Donald Trump's plans for healthcare in the United States and Hillary Clinton's proposals. You'll never guess which one I think is better…

John McCain says, "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up." And then later, his office issues a statement — presumably at his direction — that says, "Senator McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career." A lot that is wrong with politics these days is to be found in that hurried walkback.

And this was the guy who used to claim to be a Straight Talker and who named his campaign bus The Straight-Talker Express.

But hey, it looks like Hillary is coasting to a big win. Harry Enten explains why Trump fans should not expect a replay of the famous "Dewey Beats Truman" reversal. I think we're in for a lot of "Trump really won but the media conspired against him," which of course they did by letting America hear him talk.

---

A lot of folks were very impressed by that Steve Allen Show clip I embedded here the other day. If you watch it again, try to imagine physically how the performers — especially Steve Allen and Steve Lawrence — stepped out of the shot and then back into it. The more you look at this number, the more remarkable it is.

Of course, nowadays it's no big deal for performers to leave the studio with the camera following them. A week or two ago, Stephen Colbert and his guest Mindy Kaling walked out the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York and hiked down W. 53rd Street to the Duane Reade drugstore at 8th Avenue. Yeah, but they didn't put themselves in the position of having to get it in one. In the studio, Colbert said to Ms. Kaling, "Hey, let's go to the Duane Reade right now" and we saw them get up and walk out the door to the street…and then the director cut to a recording made earlier in the day. The "outside the studio" activities were done in one continuous take but they could have stopped and started over.

Friends who work on talk shows have told me that the reason we don't see more spontaneity and risk-taking these days is that guest stars are afraid of being thrust into such situations — or that if they aren't, their publicists are. While there's probably some truth to that, I think it's also the hosts who fear moments when things collapse around them and it's necessary to ad-lib. Also, there's an emphasis on polish over reality. I still think that if the right host were to open himself up to winging it more often, that would be very popular.

---

Speaking of late night hosts, here's a current profile of David Letterman, a man who's apparently now trying to decide what he wants to be when he grows up. It's odd to see him wonder why today's late night hosts are so buddy-buddy because it's well-known that he could have had that relationship with Jay Leno and declined to go that way.

Not that he cares what I or anyone else thinks, but I'd love to see Letterman just have a weekly hour on some cable channel that would be happy with any kind of ratings at all, just so they could be associated with him. I'm imagining just Dave and one or two guests per show, sitting and talking — and they'd select guests he's interested in, as opposed to anyone who seems hot at the moment and therefore an audience draw. No bits, no band, no musical guests, no Rupert Gee, no monologue…just Dave conversing with interesting people. I can't imagine how that wouldn't be fun for him and for viewers.

By the way: I think it's a myth that when Johnny Carson left The Tonight Show, he made a conscious decision to give up appearing before the public. I think he looked and looked for the right thing to do and never found it. Eventually, he may have concluded that he'd painted himself into an ivory tower and there was nothing he could do that seemed worthy of the once and future King of Late Night. Everything also probably involved risking too much of his reputation.

I heard from people around Carson — Fred DeCordova to name one — that Johnny had a dread fear of trying to stay in front of the public long after his time. The later years of Milton Berle were often mentioned as something he did not wish to replicate and oddly enough, the other night I watched an Antenna TV rerun of a Tonight Show with Uncle Miltie from 1974. Berle lived until 2002 but even in '74, it was awkward and unfunny. He was trying topical humor which didn't connect and talking a lot about his past triumphs while still trying to let us know how he was so busy these days because there was so much demand for him.

One of Johnny's great skills was his ability to save guests who, once in his chair, turned out to not have much to say that was amusing. He was also good at gently nudging self-indulgent guests off the topic of their own greatness. (Due to extensive pre-interviewing — the kind I wish they didn't do — hosts today don't particularly need this ability.) You could see but only if you looked closely that Johnny was thinking Berle required a lot of help. And maybe something like, "I hope I have the good sense to get off stage before I start coming off like that."

Dave Letterman is nowhere near that obsolescence. I wish he'd stop giving interviews where he says he isn't sure what to do and instead just do something. That's one thing that would make his friends and fans very happy. Another would be shaving.

We love to link to interviews with the Monty Python members. Here's a good one with Michael Palin…

The film This is Spinal Tap came out in 1984. It was made for a very low budget, was a huge success, and has since lived on via home video, cable, CDs and almost every form of exploitation you can imagine. Its creators — Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, Rob Reiner and Harry Shearer — were entitled to profit participation of 40% of net receipts based on all sources of revenue including merchandise and music. Guess how much they've received in those payments in the 32 years since that film first hit theaters. Guess real low.

Harry Shearer has filed a lawsuit which may well be worth watching. Folks who feel ripped-off in such situations usually threaten, sometime file but almost always settle for five or ten cents on the dollar to go away. I know enough about Harry to know he ain't gonna do that.

We mentioned not long ago that the company that operates Souplantation and Sweet Tomatoes restaurants is in financial trouble and is closing outlets. My buddy Tony Tollin sent me this link to an article in The Wall Street Journal about that firm's problems and the woes of others. As is typical for that newspaper, the article talks about demand and growth and discretionary income and population trends…but there's not a word in there about the quality of the product.

I stopped being an avid patron of Souplantations because the food wasn't as good as it used to be. Is it even remotely possible that their business has declined because I am not alone in that viewpoint? The article mentions several other chains but only two with which I have personal experience — the Olive Garden and the company that operates Hometown Buffet. I used to be a customer for each occasionally if I happened to be near one…but now when I am, I go to better places that have opened in those areas.

I know businesses come and go for a lot of reasons having to do with overhead and investment and market conditions and demographics and other factors that accountants can track. But doesn't the concept of good food figure somewhere into that discussion?