1-Year Anniversary of Vice-Precedence Blog

Hey Vice-Precedence Blog Readers!

Last night Jason informed me that its the one-year anniversary of the start of the blog for Vice-Precedence. I knew it must be around the time we had started it since I had been laid off on June 4 2009, and we started it a week later. So what have we done this year?

Well, in looking over our posts I'd have to say, we have done a hell of a job informing the public about the Vice-Presidency, whats going on with Dick Cheney and our current VP Joe Biden, and the men who have held this office in our nations history. Not to mention the fact that we were one of the first websites to break the stories of Sarah Palins resignation and the Gores divorce.

I hope that this doesn't come off as arrogant, but I am truly proud of the writing both Jason and myself have done here on the blog. People tell me that when they read it they always learn something and are entertained by it. I just wish more people would read it and that that stupid Japanese psuedo-porn site would stop trying to post their messages as responses to our posts. It drives me crazy.


At the same time, while I am proud of the blog and am truly grateful to you readers when you tell me how much you liked it, I can't help but feel frustrated about some things. Not here on the blog, but with Vice-Precedence as a production altogether. Something I haven't talked about here on the blog is that we wanted to shoot at the Vice-Presidential Museum in Indiana run by the Dan Quayle Foundation. I joined the Museum simply because I wanted to be a member. I had visited the website and admired what the museum did to preserve the memory and history of the Vice-Presidents and to educate children. After I joined I contacted the Museum director and talked with him about shooting at the museum. We discussed the film and our goals with Vice-Precedence. He had watched our trailer and other videos and understood what we were doing and found them entertaining and historically accurate. He told me to make a formal request to the Museums board of directors and he felt sure we would get permission to shoot at the museum. So I wrote a formal letter:

To President Darlene Stanley, The Quayle Commemorative Foundation, and
Whom It May Concern at the United States Vice Presidential Museum:

My name is Matt Saxe and I am a Sustaining Member of the Museum and a
professional filmmaker. Currently my company, Banded Artists
Productions, is working on a film entitled "Vice-Precedence," a comedic
documentary on the history of the Vice-Presidents who never served as
President, and the unique history of the office. We would very much
like to shoot in and use the resources of the Museum for our film.
After speaking with Director Johns, he told me that we needed to write
you for permission and explain what we want to do. That is the purpose
of this letter.

Our goal with this film is to both educate and entertain people with
the amazing history of the vice-presidency and tell the sometimes
funny, sometimes tragic, and sometimes bizarre stories of the forgotten
men who have held our nation's second highest office. We want to be
both completely historically accurate, and at the same time, give the
audience an incredibly entertaining experience. Studies have shown that
people retain information better when it is presented to them in a
comedic and entertaining way. We have accomplished this goal with other
films and we know we can accomplish it with this one.

Specifically in the museum, we are interested in highlighting unique
artifacts and displays that are there and on the Vice-Presidents from
Indiana. The museum shows that there are people in this country that
truly respect the office of the vice-presidency and believe it is
important that Americans learn about the office. We hope that by
filming at the museum and featuring it in our film, we can attract more
people to visit the museum and learn of all the great work it is doing.
While our film will emphasize the humorous stories and quotes about the
Vice-Presidency, we do not intend to mock the office or people who are
interested in it in any way. As I have said to Director Johns, we do
not want to have people laugh at the Museum or the people who work
there, we want them to laugh with us and be interested in the Museum
and the history of the office of the Vice-Presidency.

We are happy to schedule our shoot at the Museum to fit whatever is
best for the museum. The shoot would probably be 2 to 4 days at the
most. Our film does not have a large crew, probably 3 to 4 people or
so. So there would not be a big crew in the museum. We're also
interested in doing on-camera interviews with Director Johns and other
experts who work at the museum for possible inclusion in the film.
Perhaps even interviewing guests of the Museum as well.

We have already interviewed Professor Steven Tally of Purdue
University, the author of "Bland Ambition," and the legendary Gore
Vidal for our film. Mr. Vidal said we were "better interviewers than
Ken Burns". We interviewed Mr. Vidal in his home and it went perfectly,
so I can assure you, President Stanley and the Museum that we would
show the same respect towards the Museum. As a member of the Museum I
promise you the highest level of professionalism in regards to our film
and our crew. We believe shooting in the museum is one of the keys to
making this a truly great documentary. This is the first ever
documentary made about the Vice-Presidency, and we very much want the
museum to be a part of it.

Thank you and Best to you,

Matt Saxe
Sustaining Member United States Vice-Presidential Museum
Member-Minnesota Historical Society
Screen Actors Guild.

So we sent the letter in mid October of 2009, and waited. And waited. Months went by. I was assured by the director that our letter had been received and had been discussed at the Boards meeting. But we were told no decision either way.

Finally on April 5th 2010 I received the following letter.

Dear Mr. Saxe:

I want to apologize for the delay in response to your request. This has been a difficult and busy year. I should have been more prompt to reply.

Your request was presented to and discussed by the board of directors for the Center. In the end the decision was made that, although they appreciate that your project is intended to educate adults about the vice-presidency and appreciate your focus on historical accuracy, they do not believe it matches our mission of educational programming for young school children. Therefore, the board has declined your request to utilize the Center and staff for your production.

I wish your good luck on your project. As an apology for your troubles, I will be issuing a refund for your membership of $100.00. The check will be issued during the month of April.

Sincerely,
Daniel Johns
Executive Director.
The Quayle Vice-Presidential Learning Center.


Can you believe that? Not only did they deny our request to shoot at the Museum, but they don't even want my tax-deductible donation for my membership! Wow! Sure enough within a week I had another envelope from the Museum with a check for $100 in it.

This sort of thing is what is making this production a story in and of itself. Does any other documentary ever have issues like this? Michael Moore and Sacha Baron Cohen have made it almost impossible to get interviews for a documentary. Everyone is afraid they are going be made to look like fools. I bet that in the case of the Vice-Presidential Museum this is especially a worry. Still, this has to be one of the weirdest things we've experienced in our trek to make this film.

In the end, we can only make another request and hope they will let us shoot at the museum. We have always planned on making the film appropriate for a wide audience. So that families can watch it together and learn from it. Like my father and I did when we watched Ken Burns CIVIL WAR. We also plan on making a childrens book to go with the film. Maybe these things will help to change the boards mind.

Still, the museum isn't the only one to deny us an interview. Walter Mondale, Al Gore, Sarah Vowell, all have (thru their agents or staff) denied our requests for interviews. We still haven't heard from Sarah Palins people who I contacted the day after meeting her at her book signing back in November of 2009. Even with all these refusals and obstacles, Jason and I stand firm in making Vice-Precedence the film and completing our other projects that are associated with it. Your can help us accomplish our dream.

Tell your friends and family about our production. Join our Facebook page and post comments on it about blogs, links, and pictures we put up. Anything you can do that you think will be helpful to us, we would be grateful for. You can see on the blog that people love and are interested in this production. Whenever I feel a little depressed about how things are going, I read the endorsement given to us by Paul Zaloom (Beakman of the legendary kids science show BEAKMANS WORLD, and nationally recognized political theatre performer) that Jason received and posted here on the blog:

"The trailer for "Vice-Precedence" knocked my socks off. The film deftly mixes the genuine history of the VPs, much of it astounding and weird as hell, with witty commentary, the best combination for a film on a serious and absurd and seriously absurd subject. I laughed out loud a bunch of times; that doesn't happen often enough in documentaries. I cannot wait to see the finished project."


That always makes me feel good.

I just want to finish this blog by saying "Thank You".

Thank You to Mr. Zaloom for this amazing endorsement and to the legendary Gore Vidal for actually letting us come to his home and interview him for our film and for his incredible endorsement and continued support.

Thank you to YOU-all our Family and Friends and Fans (Likers?) on Facebook and who have and continue to support our production.

Thank you to my production partner and friend Jason Klamm for all his hard work on the blog, Facebook page, and website.

Some great stuff is coming folks, and I think you'll be just as excited as we are about it. Thank You Vice-Precedence Supporters!

Matt Saxe

Biden Takes Money from Criminal

The power of the misleading headline is amazing. Luckily, its just my headline this time.

Harper's broke the story (online, at least) that what they call a "major democratic donor" was arrested for attempting to defraud CitiBank out of about $74 million by saying they had about that much in collateral. Hassan Nemazee, who chairs the appropriately-named Nemazee Capital and did the defrauding, one can assume, is also a frequent donator to the Democratic Party, to the tune of $150,000 since 2006.

Some of that money went to Joe Biden. Nemazee (and a woman I asssume to be his wife, it should be noted) donated a total of $9,200 to Biden's campaign during that time, as well as some cash to Hillary, according to the Huffington Post's donation tracking software. The likelihood that Biden actually knew who he was taking money from, of course, is ridiculously low. It makes a good argument for campaign finance reform, but other than that, it's fairly innocuous, as much as you can see any Republican or Independent with an axe to grind taking it and twisting it to their needs.

Mr. Namazee's office had no comment on his arrest when I called up and spoke to their remarkably relaxed receptionist, so I decided to do a little hunting about him for my own education. What Harper's failed to mention (it was a brief piece) was that Hassan Nemazee isn't just a guy who "raises" capital. He's also the former finance chair of both John Kerry's and Hillary Clinton's campaigns. In late 2008, The New York Observer ran a piece abut Nemazee being accused of funneling campaign contributions through his adult children (The Huffington Post's campaign contributions database confirms each of his children donating $4,600 a piece, the same as he and his wife), one of whom summarily wound up working for Rudy Giuliani's law firm.

Luckily for Joe, his hands are clean. He clearly ran the smaller campaign. The question remains to be asked, though, as to where the line should be drawn, and just how politicians vet the people who bring in their money. After all, this latest presidential campaign shattered records, partially due to Obama backing down on a pact made with John McCain to stick to capped contributions. One hopes this report doesn't fall too far into the back pages.

Until tomorrow, dear readers, I wish you Biden dreams and Cheney wishes.

Jason C. Klamm

P.S. - Nemazee Capital also has a blog.

Words...

Politics are language. Language is politics. I'm learning this more and more in an attempt to analyze the Administration of Change and the way they use language in the same way the last administration did, only to slightly more liberal ends.

I've been acting and writing in character of a wanna-be politician for five years now, since the summer of 2004. It took me until very recently to realize that my character (who shares my name), who was raised on politics in that he watched politicians on TV, and believed that being a politician was about giving lip-service to things rather than understanding the fundamentals of governmental processes, isn't far off. He was based off my own naive hopes to be a politician as a kid (I still have them but realize that my knack for words would be better off putting words into the mouths of fake politicians), which, I think, actually makes him more legit, because, I would imagine, a lot of politicians start out wanting to change but not knowing how. The way journalism students start out thinking they won't be hacks. Oh, journalists.

Language is a huge part of my character - he expresses himself through words, just not well-thought-0ut ones. This is a trait evident even in speeches - not just by Biden, but certainly not excluding his - and not just the improvised rambling of notoriously uncomfortable-sans-cue-cards politicians. Joe Biden spoke at a middle school today on the Recovery Act. There was nothing glaring about what I've had the chance to read of his speech, but the longest line in an excerpt stood out. Just a little.

"We're committed to giving you every chance possible to come up with the best ideas to deal with that dropout rate...how to get more kids to college." [From NECN.com]

There's a lot that can be done with that sentence, and a lot can be taken from it. Though its innocent-seeming enough, let me break it down, as if I were giving the speech. Which I could, and well.

"WE'RE COMMITTED..."
This means I care. No matter what I say or promise in the rest of this sentence, whether it happens or not, I tried. And you'll give me another shot.

"...TO GIVING YOU EVERY CHANCE POSSIBLE..."
This is a statement that is actually more limited than it sounds, but at this point in the sentence, it means that I and the Administration want to enable you to do something. Perhaps with cash. That's positive.

"...TO COME UP WITH THE BEST IDEAS.."
Ahh, well, there you go. What I've just done is promised you that I will enable you to come up with ideas. However, if you're in education, and you can't do this on your own, I should probably be doing my speech in flash cards.

"...TO DEAL WITH THAT DROPOUT RATE..."
So what's just happened here is that I have told you that I am committed to enabling your idea-coming-up-with skills toward the end of "dealing with" the dropout rate. Forget that you already have your own ideas, and that you're already dealing with it on a regular basis. The money I mentioned, which I haven't technically promised yet, will help you figure out how to deal with the problem. After all, I'm not an educator. Not my job. How can I help the people and systems and kids and deficits who won't help themselves? And let's not forget my subtly folksy tone. Maybe it doesn't translate as well when transcribed, but "that dropout rate" sounds considerably not unlike how Sarah Palin might consider saying that line. "The" dropout rate would be more appropriate, but now I'm just south of personifying it. I've made you feel comfortable, haven't I?

So now that I am determined to allow you to come up with your own ideas on dealing with that pesky ol' dropout rate, I'm delighted to give myself the chance to be comfortable with the opportunity to deliver to me the privilege of leaving the stage before you take it upon yourself to have the initiative to decide for yourselves whether or not to whip yourselves into one of those frenzies.

- Jason C. Klamm

Bye-Bye Biden?

No. But in a quick Google News search this morning I stumbled upon another blog commenting on this piece in Politico. The other blog, Daily Kos, made its assessment of an article that suggests Obama will likely search for a new Veep in 2012 thus:

"You would be hard pressed to find a more ham-handed example of concern trolling. Anywhere... And kudos to Politico for offering Hugh Hewitt the platform to spread this nonsense. It's very fair and balanced of them."

So I gave the article a shot. After all, this is my first real examination of any office in real-time, so someone suggesting the sitting VP might be replaced - and suggesting so only six months into a new administration - is quite interesting.

What's even more interesting, here - and believe me, I'm not defending Biden, neither am I against the man - is Hugh Hewitt's (the author of the Politico article) lack of understanding of how the VP works. Maybe he decided to go back to the good old days of FDR, where he changed Veeps twice. Or perhaps to Lincoln, who decided Hannibal Hamlin, who, as historian Steve Tally put it in our interview with him, "went home" instead of fighting, wasn't the best face forward for the Lincoln Administration. Or maybe - and this is more likely - he didn't research at all. Just assumed.

The problem with going back to a Lincoln or an FDR is that in their camps - and in FDR's case, among the majority of Americans - these guys were indestructible. FDR was elected four times, and Lincoln was reelected during a war. They were their day's equivalent of the teflon politician, and Obama, as slick and popular as he might be, isn't there, just yet.

Additionally, the Vice President, at least since Mondale, and definitely since Cheney, has become a man of power, at least in the right hands. Biden has experience and his own strengths, and, though he might not have much power at the moment, the office has that potential much more than in the days of FDR's three VPs.

Then there's consideration number three - Obama's image. He knows that much of the reason why he was elected was his passion, enthusiasm and intelligence. Who in their right minds, who is elected on the basis of their ability to judge the state of things, would put those integral qualities into question? He would essentially be saying "I made a mistake in choosing the man who could potentially replace me as the most powerful man in the country. As the country's first black president who anyone could predict would echo the Camelot years, I didn't at all think about the likelihood that someone might want to hurt me, so I chose some names out of a hat. Please excuse me while I wipe the drool off of my chin."

This is one case where Obama would be best suited - and it hurts me to say this - to take a cue from George W. Bush, should Biden prove the mistake this one radio host believes him to be. He shouldn't admit he was wrong. And the likelihood that he would - in this case, anyway - is low. What would we hear? We'd hear a lot of what we heard in the debates, just slightly reworded. Here's a little test - whenever you listen to Obama or Biden talk about one another right now, replace "The President" or "Joe" with "The Senator."

"Sure, Joe and I differed on some things, but our message was the same."
"The President and I have not always seen eye to eye, but that's the magic of the system. We can disagree and work together in perfect harmony."

However the administration actually feels about Biden and his role (likely very good, as he's thus far been a strategic first or second strike in PR, saying rather overtly what Obama only suggests might be true), they're keeping him. They need him, and, as W proved, they need consistency. They can admit all the mistakes they want, but you never admit your running mate was one of them - it shows you don't get people, and that you're short-sighted. Short of a sex scandal, they won't replace Biden. In this day and age, as they used to say "it just isn't done."

- Jason C. Klamm

Hopemoir: Veeps (Part 2)

And now, for part 2 of the Veep-related excerpt of my book, "Looking Forward: A Hopemoir."

A Future President's Vice (Part 2)

I will need to find a person who not only shares my values, but has values just slightly askew of mine. If they read my positions on a certain issue like the environment, the reaction I want to see is one of curiosity. I want to know they are taking in everything I believe and then to feel free to disagree with me. The ideal candidate would, of course, disagree just enough to have a mind of his own, but not so much as to cause me to doubt myself. The Vice President, after all, is not a member of the Cabinet.

He can serve in a capacity similar to that of a Cabinet member, however, doling out advice and providing me with strategy that comes not from a sycophantic point of view, but from a bright, educated person who was more than qualified enough to be personally chosen by me to help represent my positions, character and capacity to lead to the entire nation. Ideally, my Vice President would also champion those issues I will not have the time to take on in my daily presidential duties. He or she should have the capability to take on foreign policy issues, diplomacy, national crises, massive financial disasters or keynote speeches at college graduations at a moment’s notice. When the Vice President is as capable to run as I am, then he has proven himself as a Qualified Potential Successor.

I cannot discount the possibility that my Vice President might be a woman or a minority. With that in mind, I don’t. As the political landscape changes, a new variety of politicians will show up to graze on that landscape’s fertile and abundant grasses. I am more than open to balancing my ticket with any person willing to take my ideas and run with them, especially if they represent a portion of the population I can’t possibly understand. Though I, myself, have lived not only in Los Angeles but in New York, Chicago, Oklahoma and England, I could easily find room in the executive branch for someone from a state neighboring any one of those I could at one point have claimed residency in.

As a partial minority with one-sixteenth Native American blood, I would be honored to run with a candidate who is at least fifteen-sixteenths of any minority, including Native American. Should my Vice President be a woman, I will make any and all accommodations needed to provide her with the comfort necessitated by her sex. She may also help assay the office with a refreshing perspective that any of her male peers might not be privy to.

Regardless of whom I choose to take over when I pass on, one thing remains consistent about that choice – I must consider many things when making it. Most important of those things is you, the reader. There is a likelihood that you are just the person I need at my side in 2020 and 2016. I mean this quite literally. Should you be in agreement with at least 94 percent of what you read in this book, and currently qualified to eventually be of age to run alongside me, I ask that you consider how you can best make the changes you want to see. Do you want to make these changes on your own, with no one to assist you in realizing your dreams? Or do you want the assistance of someone with the potential to make 94 percent of those dreams a reality?

Whether or not you are the specific potential candidate to be my Vice Presidential candidate, one thing is certain – you will be there when I choose my VP. I will make my choice known, on jasonklamm.com and to all the other readily available and interested media. Before that happens, however, you can have a say in who or whom I choose. You can send suggestions of qualified candidates my way, as they become so qualified. Your recommendations mean more to me than those of people who have spent their entire lives insulated from the world by Washington, DC. You, the people, who remain insulated from the realities of Washington and the political process by having lives to live, have the power to take precious time out of those same lives to participate in a decision normally reserved strictly to a candidate and his paid advisors.

- Jason C. Klamm
Visit JasonKlamm.com for more fake campaign info.

Hopemoir: Veeps

A man who is second-in-command is always first in line with regards to those beneath the commander.
- Jason Klamm

Okay, so that's not an ACTUAL quote of mine. Well, not of the real me. It's a quote of the me to the right. With the Biden beat ever slower, I thought I'd do my best to give our loyal readers a taste of previously-published material. Namely, my book. Namely, "Looking Forward: A Hopemoir," my alter-ego's campaign "mani-festive," based off of our award-winning pilot presentation that got us national exposure through Comedy Central & FX.

As I finished the book up last October, just in time for the elections, I realized that, with my new knowledge on the country's least-appreciated office, I would be remiss not to have my character examine the office in his... way. What I later realized is that his "way" is not unlike that of an historian. He goes against the grain for impact, rather than being able to back everything he says up. Unlike historians, however, he has no idea why he's doing that. As far as he understands it (from watching a lot of TV news as a kid), politics is saying things with conviction. He is passionate about having passion.

Following is the first of a two-part blog series of excerpts from the chapter on his choice of VP, entitled "A Future President's Vice." If you like it, please purchase the book on "Amazon.com and tell your friends.

A Candidate’s Potentia Pro Tempore (Part 1)

It is no exaggeration to say the average candidate overlooks the Vice President. Prior to any major election, the choice of VP is left until the last second as a surprise to increase interest in a candidate’s campaign, at least temporarily boosting their numbers in the polls. The choice of Vice President is always a cold one. If you are from the North, pick a Southerner. If you’re white, choose an older white candidate. The basic and contrived opposition that comes with the Vice Presidential choice grows tiring to the average American, who inevitably votes for the primary candidate, without much thought, if any, put towards the qualifications of their VP as a potential president.

What presidential candidates fail to realize is that the Vice President is not simply the most unappreciated officer in the executive branch. He might also be the most important.

Though I haven’t made a choice – I have a rather lengthy list to cull from, and a list of those whom I feel might grow to be good potential VPs – I am always pondering on how to best make my choice. I have to choose a man or woman with such extreme duality in their personality that both sides almost cancel one another out. I have to find not a blank slate, but a slate so completely covered in chalk as to be illegible. This person must not simply be prepared to take over all of the duties of Commander-in-Chief at a moment’s notice, and have the skill and capability to serve the office as well as his predecessor, but he must function exceptionally in the constitutionally-mandated duties of the Vice President.

The law of the land lays out a very specific path for the VP to take. He must preside over tied votes in the Senate. This single duty allows the VP to be perhaps the most useful person in Washington simply because he isn’t weighed down by a constitutionally-required function, other than the rare tie-breaking Senatorial vote. With a substantial expense account and the free time to serve at his own pleasure, unlike the inundated Cabinet, the Vice President can bring about social and political change unlike any other office-holder in the entire government.

With this in mind, I must find a person who can capably hold down such an office while still finding time for themselves, as they may be called, any time, to serve in my stead. At the same time, I would like my future Vice President to leave the office in a professional state should I, in the case of Vice Presidential illness or incapacitation, need to take on the duties of both President and Veep.

-Jason C. Klamm