Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Garrison may have burned a few bridges with folks in Lake Wobegon
St Paul Pioneer (de)Press ^ | 11/20/02 | CHUCK CHALBERG

Posted on 11/20/2002 7:23:37 AM PST by Valin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last
To: MurryMom
If Norm had stayed a Democrat, would the Repukes have accused Norm of being a "little light in the loafers"?

No. For a number of reasons. The main one being he would not have gotten the nomination for mayor of St Paul and so would have disappeared from the political scene.
21 posted on 11/20/2002 7:50:10 AM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Didn't you post:

"Wayne, you're so dumb you deserve to be a Democrat.", a couple of days ago?

Heh-heh!

22 posted on 11/20/2002 7:50:35 AM PST by oyez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Oh well, time to again remind NPR that although I listen to their classical music programs, I won't send them a red cent until they cease being a taxpayer funded shill for the left wing of the Democratic party.

I have a bone to pick with NPR on their classical music programming (I listen over the web occasionally) - they tend to be more than a bit snide about my favourite soprano Renée Fleming (I made and run a fan site about her), merely because she's popular and successful.

It's like you're not valid as an artist unless you're sleeping in a puddle. No.

Regards, Ivan

23 posted on 11/20/2002 7:52:17 AM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Yes he has always had a mean streak.

I remember years ago, shortly after he became notable, my Mom saw him on TV. The first thing she said was "He's a very angry man." Since it has been conclusively proven to me that my Mom knows everything, I have watched him with that in mind. She's still batting 1000.

24 posted on 11/20/2002 7:52:47 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: oyez
"Wayne, you're so dumb you deserve to be a Democrat.", a couple of days ago?

Yes that's the best line from "Lake Woebegon Days". Of course the aforementioned Wayne tells the fellow who said it he's "personally repulsive and believes in Reagan", but it's Wayne that gets thrown out of the Sidetrack Tap.

Why I remember this, I haven't a clue. ;)

Regards, Ivan

25 posted on 11/20/2002 7:53:28 AM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Garrison Keillor is a very talented writer. It's too bad that he has such a bad case of the liberal disease, because it has gradually eaten away at his talent until there is hardly any left.

Looking back, Keillor reminds me of Sherwood Anderson as the author of "Winesberg, Ohio." Keillor uses comedy, Anderson uses bitter, twisted tragedy, but the two of them come from the same place. They are both small-town boys from nowhere, who leave town, become rich and famous writers, and have a sharply ambivalent attitude toward what they left behind.

On the one hand, the small backwater town of Winesberg or Lake Woebegone is something they have escaped from and left forever. They shook the dust off their sandals. On the other hand, it's the only real material they will ever have to write about.

So, yes, Garrison Keillor is a bitter and angry man underneath all that warm comedy. He couldn't escape Lake Woebegone fast enough, first to St. Paul's, and then to New York. But he never can escape Lake Woebegone, because he has nothing else to write about.
26 posted on 11/20/2002 8:12:37 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I have a feeling Norm Coleman is more in touch with the real spirit of Minnesota than someone who spends all their days with the NPR Crowd.

Good observation Ivan. That is precisely what galls Keillor. A man he considers an evil phony is clearly more in touch with Minnesotans than the Bard of Lake Wobegon himself.

Keillors apoplexy is partially explained by the fact that he didn't see Coleman's victory coming. The Minnesotans he claims to know so well just proved him to be out of touch.

27 posted on 11/20/2002 8:16:13 AM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Garrison and Michael Moore both present the same personality type. A humorous or disarming exterior which hides a very nasty mean streak.
28 posted on 11/20/2002 8:19:05 AM PST by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Keillor wrote: The guy is a Brooklyn boy who became a left-wing student radical at Hofstra University with hair down to his shoulders, organized antiwar marches, said vile things about Richard Nixon, etc. Then he came west, went to law school, changed his look, went to work in the attorney general's office in Minnesota. Was elected mayor of St. Paul as a moderate Democrat, then swung comfortably over to the Republican side. There was no dazzling light on the road to Damascus, no soul-searching: Norm switched parties as you'd change sport coats.

It's called growing up. Keillor should try it some day.

29 posted on 11/20/2002 8:22:25 AM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
Then Keillor is a fool - farmers, small-town folk, church-goers - these people tend to be conservative, and have little sympathy with the leftist agenda of legalising goat buggering and sucking the brains out of babies with a vacuum cleaner.

He wants a "sanitised" view of small town life, in which decent behaviour goes hand in hand with left wing politics. It won't work. The left hasn't had anyone decent on its side since Hubert Humphrey died.

Regards, Ivan

30 posted on 11/20/2002 8:24:23 AM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I sent MPR an email pretty much to that effect the other day after reading Keillor's second Jeremiad on Coleman.

My wife's a Norwegian Lutheran and I always enjoyed listening to the tales from Lake Wobegon, but in quiet moments of reflective listening, I have always thought that there was more than a little bit of condescension and smugness in Keillor's schtick: that his mocking was not that of a knowing insider joking with others sharing the same background and values, but of an outsider making fun of rural people and values for an audience of urban professionals who would no more identify with the values of Lake Wobegon than they would with the Ku Klux Klan.

31 posted on 11/20/2002 8:24:24 AM PST by CatoRenasci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
If Norm had stayed a Democrat, would the Repukes have accused Norm of being a "little light in the loafers"?

No. Actually the last time I heard that particular slur used in connection with a politician running for the Senate, it was said of Lindsey Graham, by Dick Harpootlian, the Chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. You really need to keep up with your reading, MM.

32 posted on 11/20/2002 8:31:18 AM PST by Mark de New Brighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Williams
>Whew, thanks! And as for the prediction that Coleman will be a non-heroic bore of a senator, has Garrison ever seen a senator?

No but he eats like one. Anyway if Garrison would step outside of the St. Paul Grill, he would find that the entire West 7th/ downtown area has been revitalized due to Norms plan. Norm wasn't exactly a boring, empty suit mayor.

33 posted on 11/20/2002 8:31:29 AM PST by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"Oh well, time to again remind NPR that although I listen to their classical music programs, I won't send them a red cent until they cease being a taxpayer funded shill for the left wing of the Democratic party."

This is a good point, RW, of course, but I wouldn't feel a whole lot better about them if they were taxpayer funded shills for the Republican or Libertarian Party. They shouldn't be getting any funds from taxes at all, and I'm sure you agree.

34 posted on 11/20/2002 8:35:27 AM PST by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Below is a book review on Scandal: a scurrilous history of gossipby Roger Wilkes Atlantic Books, 363pp, £17.99 Reviewed by Sebastian Shakespeare.

"W H Auden, speaking on the BBC in 1937, offered this defence of gossip: "Who would rather learn the facts of Augustus's imperial policy than discover he had spots on his stomach?" He answered his own question thus: "No one." Another ardent apologist was Malcolm Muggeridge (ex-Evening Standard Londoner's Diarist). "I love gossip," he wrote. "I confess I am far more interested in who sleeps with whom than in who voted for whom."

We all love to gossip, even if we feel slightly guilty about it. Whether gossip deserves its own history is another matter. In his long narrative, Roger Wilkes dutifully takes us from the Elizabethan pamphleteers to 17th-century Grub Street and on to Regency London, where scurrilous scandal sheets were hawked in the streets, via the "new journalism" of W T Stead to modern-day tabloid Britain. All the usual suspects are here: Daniel Defoe, Joseph Addison, Richard Steele, Tom Driberg, Walter Winchell and Matt Drudge. The author seems to equate scandal with sex. So there is overmuch on Cecil Parkinson, Princess Diana and Jeremy Thorpe, but no mention, strangely, of Robert Maxwell.

Sex, naturally, is what sold the original scandal sheets. The Morning Post of the 1770s teemed with salacious paragraphs and heralded the advent of "puffs", whereby readers could place damaging items for a small fee. It was a risky business. Henry Bate, editor of the Post, known as "the fighting parson", was jailed for 12 months for a libel on the Duke of Richmond. After emerging from prison, he rejoined the Church.

Scandal is interesting as far as it goes, but it contains many- too many - lacunae from the modern era. There is no mention of Page Six of the New York Post, for example. Nor is there much space devoted to the Daily Telegraph's Peterborough column, where the indefatigable Bill Deedes worked for 30 years as a columnist and continued to file paragraphs while he was still an MP. Elsewhere, a chapter on Londoner's Diary neglects to mention the occasion in 1938 when Winston Churchill stood in for his son Randolph, then editing the column, for a week. No doubt this was the first and last time a future prime minister ever became a gossip writer, though there is always a job open here on the desk at the Evening Standard for Tony Blair, as and when he is ready. Nevertheless, the author provides some entertaining anecdotes. I enjoyed the no doubt apocryphal tale about the 19th-century New York magazine Town Topics. Whenever outraged readers appeared at the office threatening to horsewhip the author of a disobliging story, employees were instructed to burst into tears and explain: "You can't - he died yesterday. Those were the last words he ever wrote."

Scandal is a chronological compendium and therein perhaps lies the problem. The author develops no overriding thesis other than to make the observation that gossip is now everywhere when once it was relegated to the inside pages. And not just everywhere: in the author's characteristically hyperbolic phrase, gossip "has gone nuclear". But the author never strays far beyond Fleet Street. Nor is the role of PRs in gossip examined in sufficient detail. Fifty years ago, the desperate press agent was in thrall to the all-powerful gossip columnist, as portrayed in the film Sweet Smell of Success, in which Sidney Falco (Tony Curtis) played second fiddle to J J Hunsecker (Burt Lancaster). These days, the roles have been reversed and the likes of Max Clifford are in the ascendant. Readers would prefer to deal with an honest broker rather than a dishonest trade. Clifford likes to think he brought down the last Conservative government, and there may be some truth in his boast. At least, new Labour thought so at the time. In the dying days of the sleaze-ridden Major government, Clifford told me that he would be rung by "men in the dark" who thanked him for his work. When these same men became Labour cabinet ministers, they were less eager to communicate with him.

In my experience, politicians often make the best gossips because they are ever determined to thwart their rivals and burnish their own reputations. For many anonymous backbenchers, a diary story is their first taste of fame. I have lost count of the times one MP (now a minister) has asked me to plant stories about him, and Lord Archer would always agitate for me to write about his charity work. (Our friendship never recovered from a lunch at the Pont de la Tour at which I asked him about the prostitute Monica Coughlin. "Monica said I had no body hair," he shrieked, rising to unbutton his shirt.)

Gossip mocks our trivial lives and pricks our overinflated egos. It is a necessary evil, and can be a force for good. The best defence of gossip I read in recent years did not come from a journalist but from Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, who, alas, passes unmentioned here. Gossip, he wrote, reinforces a sense of reality: people say what they really think and feel, revealing something important about other people and themselves.

The word "gossip", remarkably, has spiritual origins, which may have appealed to the good bishop. A gossip was originally the sponsor for a child at its baptism, the word being a corruption of Old English "godsibb" ("godparent"). From this sense, it came to denote a woman's female friend at the birth of a child and the casual chit-chat they indulged in. Hence, Dr Johnson's definition of a gossip as "one who runs about tattling like women at a lying-in". Today's 3am girls on the Daily Mirror continue a long-established tradition of female gossip columnists, from Della Manley, who launched the Female Tatler in 1709, to the Hollywood siren Hedda Hopper, who played herself in Sunset Boulevard.

Gossip, at its worst, is prurient and malicious, and there is nothing more risible than a self-important gossip columnist. They remind me of the fly in Aesop's Fables. "Look, what a lot of dust I raise," says the fly on the axle of the chariot. Voltaire, I think, got it about right: "Scandal and scurrilities are the bad fruits of a very good tree called liberty." As to the success of a gossip column, the best advice was perhaps given by Tom Driberg, Labour MP and the former editor of the William Hickey column in the Daily Express. "The real secret is not to appeal to the majority but to appeal to as large a number of minorities as possible."

In the end, it is hard to know to whom this book will appeal. If you care about Hedda Hopper's worst professional moment, this is the book for you. If, like Harold Nicolson (another ex-Londoner's Diarist), you think "gossip is a constant, hurried triviality which is bad for the mind", then stay away. The author has not stinted on his research, but it seems he has spent rather too long in the cuttings library. His febrile narrative seldom rises above a certain type of breathless tabloid prose.

Gossip and history are not natural bedfellows. Gossip should bring something new to the party. History is about tidying up after the party is over. Recycling anecdotes from the past three centuries does not make instructive, let alone scurrilous, reading. This book, as the late Lord Rothermere allegedly remarked of Nigel Dempster's column, tastes like "an old, cold fried potato".

Sebastian Shakespeare is editor of the London Evening Standard's Londoner's Diary"

35 posted on 11/20/2002 8:35:53 AM PST by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
I have always thought that there was more than a little bit of condescension and smugness in Keillor's schtick: that his mocking was not that of a knowing insider joking with others sharing the same background and values, but of an outsider making fun of rural people and values

Yes, there is that difference.

The next step after the rural people understand they're looked down on, is the same as the reaction to the Wellstone 'memorial':

'You really do think I'm a sucker, don't you.'
36 posted on 11/20/2002 8:37:23 AM PST by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
It's like you're not valid as an artist unless you're sleeping in a puddle

I see this attitude in so much oof the "arts community". Personally I think it's jealousy.
37 posted on 11/20/2002 8:38:17 AM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
>I have always thought that there was more than a little bit of condescension and smugness in Keillor's schtick: that his mocking was not that of a knowing insider joking with others sharing the same background and values, but of an outsider making fun of rural people and values for an audience of urban professionals who would no more identify with the values of Lake Wobegon than they would with the Ku Klux Klan.

BINGO! You nailed it right on the head.

38 posted on 11/20/2002 8:39:38 AM PST by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Valin
I see this attitude in so much oof the "arts community". Personally I think it's jealousy.

Try mentioning Renée Fleming to some classical musicians - watch how they sniff and say "She's popular" as if they said she was vulgar.

I've made a few of them eat their words, but it is symbolic of their attitude towards success.

Regards, Ivan

39 posted on 11/20/2002 8:43:48 AM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
They've had decent pols ( McGovern, Carter, Dukakis) they just haven't had ones with any brains. The shrewdest Dem of the last forty years was of course Slick Willie. And he had to junk the usual liberal loser programs and co-opt a slew of conservative ones to get elected. Underneath it all was the most dishonest, opportunistic, oiliest American pol ever (of course you might know a few British ones in Clinton's category).
40 posted on 11/20/2002 8:46:02 AM PST by driftless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson