The Daily Beast: ‘Gore Vidal’s- Fighting Words’

Source:The Daily Beast– Author Gore Vidal, on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971.

Source:The Daily Journal 

“Watch our video mashup of the notoriously strident author’s most explosive comments.”

From The Daily Beast

What I respect probably most about both Gore Vidal when it came to debating and their senses of humor was the way he was able to make points without stating the obvious. He could say things similar to Margaret Thatcher on the right. Where she said that the problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, when a lot of other anti-Socialists would say things like, the problems with socialism is that it spends, taxes and controls too much, that sort of thing.

Whereas someone like a Margaret Thatcher would use humor and get right to the point of it. Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley had similar styles when it came to debating, even though they came from the opposite side of the political spectrum. They could put someone down or crack a joke at their expense, not to destroy them or hurt their feelings but even make them laugh as they were doing it. They could punch their opponents without calling them names. Ron Reagan same thing. He didn’t call his political opponents as he called them, not political enemies which is different. He didn’t call them idiots, he just said that they know so much that isn’t actually true. They believe their own hype and rhetoric and actually take it seriously, which can be a problem in politics.

That’s the style of humor and debate that I prefer and practice even though I’m not perfect at it. I try to stay as close to facts as possible, especially when I’m critiquing the opposition, which for me would be right-wingers, whether they are Republican or not. And lately when I’m critiquing the Right, it’s been Neoconservatives for the most part unfortunately. Classical Conservatives the Bill Buckely’s of the World, seem to be MIA in the Republican Party, which is unfortunate.

But it’s not just the right that I critique but I write satires about the, lets say farther left, ( to not offend any of my oversensitive Socialist friends ) while right-wingers have a tendency to call Progressives Communists or Islamic Fascists or any of these labels that aren’t true. When it comes to so-called Progressives, ( locked in the closet Socialists, in actuality ) Socialist is accurate except for the Barack Obama’s of the world who actually is a Progressive and not a Socialist. ( Newsflash for the Tea Party ) More of a RFK or FDR classical Progressive than anything. I say things like Socialists want to take care of people by spending their money for them.

I try not to make it personal, especially when I’m critiquing the opposition and you can do that by staying as close to the facts as possible. By not name calling, not making it personal, instead of calling someone and idiot or ignorant, try saying something like they would make a great fiction writer. Which is a great way to describe most of the speeches of Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, rather than trying to insult them by name calling.

 

Read Full Post »

Deadline Hollywood: ‘Best of Enemies’ – Pete Hammond Review’

Source:Deadline Hollywood– William H. Buckley vs Gore Vidal in 1968.

Source:The New Democrat

“‘Best of Enemies’ – Pete Hammond Review”

From Deadline Hollywood

Source:POLITICO Magazine– William H. Buckley vs Gore Vidal in 1968.

What this is about is the debate between Conservative Libertarian writer and publisher of the Center-Right publication The National Review, William Buckley and Socialist, or Social Democratic writer and author Gore Vidal. They were brought on as part of ABC New’s coverage of the 1968 Republican National Convention and also went on to debate each other the Democratic National Convention that year as well.

They were brought in by ABC News to offer contrarian views of what was going on at those conventions. Bill Buckley, was supposed to represent the Right, or the Republican point of view. And Gore Vidal, was there to represent the Left, I guess the entire Left and the Democratic point of view.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should if you’re familiar with American politics today. Because that is now how its done, whether the coverage comes from the broadcast networks, or the cable news networks. You have a moderator which back then for ABC News would’ve been Howard Smith and today depending on which network you’ll have that network, or news division’s lead anchor lead their coverage of the conventions. And they would have several reporters there from their team to report what is actually happening. And then have an analyst from each side to tell people what they believe this all means. But that was not how it was done back in the late 1960s. Where you would have two people who are ideologically completely different debating what is going on.

But what happened at ABC News at the 1968 RNC was not CNN Crossfire of today. Howard Smith, was there to moderate and lead the discussion between Buckley and Vidal. But the problem is Buckley and Vidal were in separate rooms as Smith and you could barely hear, or see Smith during this debate.

If you’re familiar with Howard K. Smith, you know he wasn’t some who was short on words and opinions. He had an opinion on practically everything. From things that he was very informed about like politics, to things where he wasn’t that informed on like sports. But when you have a debate between two of the sharpest and quick-witted people at least in politics, but the media as well and perhaps in general and they don’t even respect yet like each other, it is very hard to get any word in edgewise.

So what happens in 1968 at the RNC between Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal is what we saw with Crossfire in the 1980s and 90s. Essentially a free for all without a moderator. Where the two debaters would make their points, but also listen to the other side. They would debate and moderate the same discussion at the same time. With poor Howard Smith acting not much more as a presiding officer at a U.S. Senate session, or something. Perhaps signing autographs, or catching up on paperwork. And really just serving a ceremonial role. But that debate because of the two men who were involved and what they were talking about and the year that it happened in 1968, made for great TV. And changed how politics would be covered on TV in the future.

Read Full Post »

CBS News: Mike Wallace- ‘The Homosexuals (1967)’

Source:CBS News– 1967 documentary about homosexuality.

Source:The Daily Journal  

“”It’s been nearly 50 years since CBS News first took on the subject of gay rights. It was in a documentary. You’ll recognize the host, Mike Wallace, but you won’t recognize your country.

“Most Americans are repelled by the mere notion of homosexuality,” reported Wallace in the documentary. “A CBS poll shows two out of three Americans look on homosexuality with disgust, discomfort, or fear.”

The year was 1967 and whoever named the program cut straight to the chase: “CBS Reports: The Homesexuals.”

From CBS News

“The Homosexuals” is a 1967 episode of the documentary television series CBS Reports. The hour-long broadcast featured a discussion of a number of topics related to homosexuality and homosexuals. Mike Wallace anchored the episode, which aired on March 7, 1967. Although this was the first network documentary dealing with the topic of homosexuality, it was not the first televised in the United States. That was The Rejected, produced and aired in 1961 on KQED, a public television station out of San Francisco.Three years in the making, “The Homosexuals” went through two producers and multiple revisions. The episode included interviews with several gay men, psychiatrists, legal experts and cultural critics, interspersed with footage of a gay bar and a police sex sting. “The Homosexuals” garnered mixed critical response.”

Source:Kim Smythe– 1967 documentary about CBS News.

From Kim Smythe 

“Veteran journalist Mike Wallace, who died Saturday at age 93, had many claims to fame and one credit that might be considered a claim to infamy — his participation in the sensationalistic 1960s documentary The Homosexuals.

Wallace would later express regret about the tone of the documentary, which aired only once, March 7, 1967, on CBS. Hosted and narrated by Wallace, it characterized gay men as promiscuous and lonely, given to fleeting, anonymous sexual encounters. It acknowledged the discrimination they faced, but with “no sense of righteous indignation” about that, the journal Film Threat once noted. The program largely ignored lesbians. Still, it marked a breakthrough in gay visibility on television.

“Years after the broadcast, Mike Wallace would admit regret that The Homosexuals was not more balanced and sympathetic in its focus,” according to the Film Threat article. “In 1995, Wallace made a surprise appearance at New York’s Lighthouse Cinema, which was showing The Homosexuals as part of a Gay Pride line-up. The audience treated Wallace with deep respect and the veteran newsman hosted an impromptu Q&A session after the film was screened.”

Source:The Advocate– from Mike Wallace’s 1967 CBS News documentary about homosexuality.

From The Advocate

If you look at this documentary especially by the standards and culture of today, Mike Wallace’s 1967 documentary about homosexuality looks very homophobic. It wouldn’t be made today at least the way it was written and the people that were interviewed, especially Christian-Right folks who think that homosexuality should be a crime and we should go back to Beaver Cleaver’s and Ozzie and Harriet’s 1950s America. And the Far-Left political correctness movement would be the hell out it talking about how bigoted the documentary is.

But to state the obvious: 1967 is not 2012. The view that homosexuality was a crime and a sin was actually mainstream even in the late 1960s. And if you had no issues with gays and homosexuality back then and believed gays should be treated equally as straights, you would be considered a radical back then.

In my personal opinion and I believe I’m part of a solid majority today in 2012, gays are entitled to the same legal and constitutional rights and responsibilities as straights, just as I believe that ethnic and racial minorities have the same rights and responsibilities as European-Americans and even Anglo-Saxons. But if I was around in 1967 with those same views, I would be the radical. And people who are considered Far-Rightists today, would be part of the mainstream when it comes to American public opinion and culture.

Read Full Post »