Movie Clips: Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939) Jean Arthur: ‘What Are You Going To Believe in?’

Source:Movie Clips– Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur, in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.

“CLIP DESCRIPTION:
Saunders (Jean Arthur) offers advice to a depressed Jefferson (James Stewart).”

From Movie Clips

I’m not sure a lot of members of Congress today know how bills are supposed to be written in Congress. But Jean Arthur or Jean Arthur’s character (to be more accurate) gave a pretty good explanation of it.

But today that is not how it is generally done and unless legislation has bi-partisan support, what generally happens for legislation to be written in either the Senate or House, the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction that covers the bill, tends to write the bill on their own, or have input from the majority party members of their committee.

Or a bill is written in the Senate or House majority party leaderships office among the members of the majority leadership. And perhaps with the input of the committee chairman who has jurisdiction over the proposed legislation.

As far as the video in this post: this is probably the wrong time to ask the Senator that you work for: “what do you believe in?” She sort of sounds like a voter who doesn’t know who they’re voting for before they actually cast their vote for that person. And instead votes for that person because they like the same movies, use the same phone, same pop culture references, etc, but not knowing what kind of public official they’ll be before they actually get the job.

Read Full Post »

Movie Clips: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) ‘A Fine Young Patriot’

Source:Movie Clips– Jimmy Stewart, becomes U.S. Senator Jefferson Smith.

“CLIP DESCRIPTION:
Governor Hubert Hopper (Guy Kibbee) describes the genius of appointing simpleton Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) as a the state’s next Senator.”

From Movie Clips

Jefferson Smith an average joe so to speak as far as someone who wasn’t famous or at least seen as powerful. But not someone who could be messed with or pushed around.

The complete, naive, outside, amatuer, who goes to Congress actually being dumb enough to believe that you go there to serve your constituents and try to make their lives better and instead learns about about how the real world ( at least inside of Washington ) works. That you are not there to serve your people, but instead the people that finance your campaigns and who can keep you in office indefinitely.

Read Full Post »

Timothy Noah: ‘History of The Filibuster

Source:CBS News– I don’t think this woman is filibustering in the U.S. Senate. Perhaps she’s singing about the Senate filibuster?

“Slate Magazine’s Timothy Noah explains the two biggest and most talked about issues when it comes to health care. Reconciliation to avoid and “procedural filibuster”.

From CBS News

“After the Massachusetts election, the reason smart people assume President Obama won’t be signing major legislation for quite a while can be summed up in one word: filibuster.

Source:Minnespolis Post– U.S. Senator Jefferson Smith (played by Jimmy Stewart) in Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. This is the famous filibuster scene.

From the Minnespolis Post 

Just to respond to Timothy Noah’s point about the Senate filibuster being racist, at least according to him: where was the call for ending the Senate filibuster the last time there was a Republican President and Congress? Wait, Republicans were calling for ending the filibuster back then, not Democrats, especially leftist Democrats who are always talking about how bad racism is in America. If the Senate filibuster is racist now, how come it wasn’t racist 8-10 years ago?

I can’t help but think about how differently todays so-called Progressives (partisan leftists, in actuality) would think of the Senate filibuster if a different party were in charge in the U.S. Senate. And how differently this same political faction thought back in 2005 when we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress including a Republican Senate in that Congress.

In the last Republican Senate we’ve had (2005-06)  then Senate Leader Bill Frist was considering amending the filibuster by majority-rule to end filibusters of executive appointments including judicial nominees. And of course Senate Democrats like then Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Chuck Schumer were claiming about abuse of power in that debate, ending minority-rights and so-forth.

What people who follow American politics tend to forget or not be aware of is that before Harry Reid became Senate Leader he was the Minority Leader and one of the most effective Minority Leaders we’ve seen at least in the Senate because he knew how to keep his caucus inline to block Republican legislation.

One of the things I do not like about American politics and why Congress has such a low approval rating is the short sightedness on both sides. The debates and political battles have become so childish. Partisans on both sides always look for the short-term advantage to advance their partisan political agendas, apparently not aware of or not caring that short-term advantages comes with long-term prices.

When you have an advantage while in power, you can see that advantage become a disadvantage the next time you are out-of-power. Which is what this ending the filibuster debate on the Left is for leftist partisans looking for a short-term advantage to advance their partisan political agenda. Not aware of or not caring about the consequences that could come from that short-term advantage. Which is why I do not take this ending the filibuster debate from partisans on either side seriously.

Do I doubt that Senate Republicans if they were take control of the Senate in the next Congress (which is very realistic at this point) will call for ending or amending the filibuster? Of course not, especially since they will also be eying a Republican President and complete control of Congress by 2017. But that doesn’t mean what some Democrats want to do today with the filibuster is right either. It just means there’s a lot of short-sightedness and a lack of leadership on both sides.

Read Full Post »

Movie Clips Classic Trailer Vault: Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939) Starring Jimmy Stewart

 

 

Source:Movie Clips Classic Trailer Vault– Jimmy Stewart, as U.S. Senator Jefferson Smith. 

“Starring: James Stewart, Jean Arthur, Claude Rains
Directed By: Frank Capra
Synopsis: A naive man is appointed to fill a vacancy in the United States Senate. His plans promptly collide with political corruption, but he doesn’t back down.”

From Movie Clips Classic Trailers

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of the best political movies of all time, because it’s a timeless movie, it was very relevant back in the late 1930s when it came out and if anything more relevant today more than seventy years later, because it opened up the world to a look inside of Congress, especially in the Senate. And how it operated, well gave people an idea in how it operated.

There was also a lot of fiction in it, like rarely are there fifty Senators in the Senate chamber, let alone a hundred which is what we saw in a lot of this movie. But it had an idealistic young independent minded Senator who was appointed to the Senate by the Governor of Illinois, after one of their Senators died, to fill that seat. And this young Senator had almost no idea what was ahead for him, he thought he was going to Congress to legislate to serve his State and get things done and had an idea of his own what should be done. But what he found out in the Senate, was that there was a block of Senators including his own Senior Senator there, to prevent any progressive reform from happening.

This movie is relevant today because Congress is seen as an institution where its members are there to protect the people who sent them there. Not the people as a whole but the special interest groups with the bucks. To stop things from happening that they don’t want. Like in areas that have to do with regulation and expanding competition. So they give their pet Members of Congress in both chambers the contributions that they need to stay in office. So they can continue to vote the way that these groups want them to vote.

Not saying all members of Congress are bought, but there are still a lot of good people up there representing their constituents as well as they can but enough bad ones to prevent meaningful reform, which is one of the reasons why we see so much gridlock in Congress. Because both sides are worried about offending their base and making a deal with the other side. So they hold to their ideological positions as long as they can get away with it.

Mr. Smith is a great movie for lots of reasons, the cast the humor but most of all. Because of how relevant it was to the times back then and now. It’s a timeless movie that deserves to be watched over and over. And I believe Jimmy Stewart’s best role.

Read Full Post »

Carole Robinson: State of The Union (1948) Starring Spencer Tracy & Katharine Hepburn

Source:Carole Robinson– From 1948, with an all-star, Hollywood Hall of Fame cast.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Entertainment Purposes Only. Frank Capra and Van Johnson – Need I say more? Oh, yes – Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, and Angela Landsbury…enjoy the scene with tow plane in midair playing bumper cars. Claudette Colbert was originally cast in the Hepburn role.”

From Carole Robinson

The State of the Union from 1948 is a very entertaining and very funny movie with an excellent cast. Spencer Tracy as the presidential candidate, Katharine Hepburn as his wife, who’s somewhat reluctant to get into politics. But who’s more than capable of taking care of herself. Van Johnson as the political strategist, Angela Lansbury as Washington political insider. A leader in I’m guessing the Republican Party. And some other great people as well and the Spencer Tracy character a private businessman from New York.

The Tracy character who basically up till this point never considered running for any public office gets recruited by these party insiders. To be their presidential candidate, because he’s a very successful and wealthy outsider. Who does seem to have an interest in current affairs and has an independent streak, but never gets around to running for public office. The Tracy character reminds me a little of Ross Perot and Tom Dewey. But charming and likable and someone who these insiders believe can beat the incumbent President.

Harry Truman gets mentioned as the President in the move, that the Republicans want to beat. This movie came out in 1948 the year of that famous election between President Truman and Governor Tom Dewey of New York. And the Tracy character reminds me of Tom Dewey, even though Governor Dewey had some experience in public service at this point as a prosecutor as well as Governor of New York, but politically the Tracy character reminds me of Dewey: Progressive on social issues and foreign policy and a believer in fiscal responsibility as well.

Spencer Tracy plays the outsider of outsiders running for President of the United States. Not just because of the fact he lived outside of Washington, never served in public office or public service. Never even active in politics or current affairs, but also someone who was an outsider with his politics as well. He was farther to the left than Woodrow Wilson on foreign policy, calling for a world government. That would go past the United Nations. But someone who was also an anti-Communist and believed America should be tough with Russia.

In that sense this character reminds me a little of Tom Dewey. This character was a strong Progressive on economic policy. In favor of very high tax rates. Even as a very wealthy businessman, to be used to pay for social insurance programs and public services: like health care, health insurance, education and other things. But also a strong believer in fiscal responsibility as well. That tax revenue shouldn’t be wasted and spent very wisely as well. Again reminding me of Tom Dewey and Ross Perot. And a presidential candidate like this today I believe could be very successful in appealing to Independent voters as an Independent. Because of their broad reach.

State of the Union was a great political movie back in 1948. And is still a great movie today over sixty years later. Because it’s very relevant to the politics back then. Third-party candidates like Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party and Strom Thurmond of the Dixiecrat Party. Candidates who could actually have an affect on the presidential election. And that the Democratic Party and Republican Party actually had to take seriously. And try to appeal to some of their supporters in order to get elected or reelected. And it would be nice if these third-parties were more of a force today. And give American voters more choices in who they can vote for.

Read Full Post »