Bush on the Offensive; The Underdog Has Woken Up

Bush on the Offensive; The Underdog Has Woken Up

I wrestled with a question of balance last Saturday. It was a breezy, sunny morning downtown, and the sight of MUGGER III and a bunch of other six-year-olds booting the soccer ball around the field, garbed in their electric-yellow Newcastle jerseys, took the breath away from Mrs. M and me. Later in the afternoon, however, Junior and I watched the Red Sox's season end at Fenway Park in the top of the seventh inning, as the incomparable Pedro Martinez surrendered a three-run homer to Scott Brosius, one of the Yanks' clutch clubbers. I immediately turned off the tube, picked up my copy of Evan Thomas' new bio of Robert F. Kennedy and wondered what was the more momentous event of the day. Sorry, m'boy, but there are soccer games from now until Thanksgiving; another Bosox run at a Series championship?hell, even the wild card slot?inevitably gone awry left me in a crummy, if hardly unfamiliar, mood.

And if Tip's smooch with her husband at the Democratic convention was the symbol of the Democrat's dazzling turnaround, to a lesser degree Bush's mild slur on New York Times propagandist Adam Clymer turned the same trick. The Beltway elite feigned shock that Bush, speaking to runningmate Dick Cheney at an Illinois rally before a live microphone, would call Clymer a "major-league asshole."

Allow me to stray from my customary just-the-facts Times-like objectivity to present the following opinions. One, Clymer, no stranger to foul language himself, is an asshole. According to the May 21, 1997, Washington Times, Clymer was cited by the U.S. Capitol Police for acting in a "loud, profane, and abusive manner" with four officers. And more damning, what other conclusion could one come to after reading in his whitewash of Teddy Kennedy (Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography) that the Massachusetts senior citizen's "achievements as a Senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne."

Charming.

Mark Steyn wrote in Canada's Sept. 7 National Post: "Oh, well, that's OK then. I don't know how many lives the Senator's changed?he certainly changed Mary Jo's?but I'm struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the curious equation: How many changed lives justify leaving Miss Kopechne struggling for breath for hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking airpocket in Teddy's car? If the Senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been OK to leave a couple more broads down there? Such a comparison doesn't automatically make its writer an a???, but it certainly gives one a commanding lead in the preliminary qualifying round."

"Asshole" is pretty tame by political and journalistic standards. It might be different, say, if Bush had called The Washington Post's Richard Cohen a "fucking Jew bastard." Additionally, any presidential candidate who disparages a member of the press, especially one identified with New York (and a Times troll at that), is going to win votes in almost every region of the country.

Clymer defended himself weakly in a Sept. 10 Times "Week in Review" piece. After listing his journalistic bona fides (expelled from Moscow during the Vietnam War, "slugged" by a redneck Alabama deputy sheriff, "attacks" from The Weekly Standard, a magazine he dismisses as "from the ideological fringes"), Clymer refused to acknowledge his obvious partisanship in articles he's written about the Governor. Referring to a front-page piece of his in April that slammed Bush's healthcare record in Texas (for which the Times had to issue a correction), Clymer wrote: "But if Mr. Bush did not like it, hey, it's a free country. After all, if newspaper reporters wanted to be loved by their customers, we could drive Good Humor trucks."

There, in a nutshell, is the essence of Times arrogance. I wonder if Al Gore, the second coming of Joe Hill, will now stick up for men and women who "drive Good Humor trucks" or perform other jobs that aren't as lofty as reporting for The New York Times. Gore's spokesman, Chris Lehane, gives an indication of his boss' views. After the dust-up, Lehane said, "Al Gore and the Gore campaign hold the members of the fourth estate in very high regard, including those who write for the paper of record, the New York Times."

Lehane didn't elaborate as to whether he or Gore makes regular stops in New York City to lick the wing tips of Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, in a Sept. 6 roundup of the silly controversy, elicited a curious reaction from Jake Tapper, a political correspondent for Salon. "This is very telling," Tapper said. "What does [Bush] think it's going to be like if he actually gets elected president? He's been spoiled by a press corps that has generally been intimidated or lazy or fawning." Considering that Tapper, a liberal reporter, played footsie with Sen. John McCain, one of America's most profane (and, to his credit, unapologetic) politicians, for several months last winter, the reporter's credibility is nil.

The Weekly Standard's Tucker Carlson was, typically, more honest in his assessment of Clymer's reaction to Bush's remark (the Timesman simply said, "I'm disappointed in the governor's language.") Carlson told Inside.com's David Carr: "I think it does a great disservice to all journalists when someone like Adam Clymer pretends to be offended by the use of the word 'asshole.' I mean, aren't journalists supposed to be the kind of people who say 'fuck' a lot?'"

Even Slate's Timothy Noah, presumably that online journal's charity hire, thought Clymer was disingenuous, writing on Sept. 5, "[I'm] disappointed in Clymer's language, which is as pompous and insincere as anything [I] can ever recall hearing from a politician. It just isn't possible that Clymer is 'disappointed in' Dubya's outburst. 'Thrilled by' seems much more likely... In [my] book, anyone who'd launch such a schoolmarmish riposte is at best a minor-league asshole."

Finally, it was sickening to hear Christopher Hitchens, an 80-proof royal asshole who also happens to be a wickedly witty journalist, defend Clymer on the Sept. 5 Hardball. He told host Chris Matthews that if he were Clymer, "I would be thrilled. It's like being on Nixon's enemies list." Hitchens, who writes from a socialist perspective but collects checks like a greed-is-good capitalist, is the epitome of a Beltway gnome. You see, Clymer is a friend of Hitchens and lives in his Washington, DC, apartment building. The social circuit trumps all. Were they not buddies, it's difficult to imagine Hitchens sticking up for the stodgy Clymer, who, don't forget, voted for Bob Dole in '96. I do believe that Hitchens has contributed enormously to Bill Clinton's deserved vilification?although his second-rate Sydney Carton-posturing last year in betraying White House snake Sid Blumenthal was a little rich?but one good deed doesn't absolve the hypocrisy that defines both his professional and personal lives.

(By the way, one of Hitchens' fellow expats, the far more graceful Alexander Cockburn, has just published?with co-author Jeffrey St. Clair?an indispensable Verso volume called Al Gore: A User's Manual, a steal at 23 bucks. Cockburn, a diehard Nader supporter, lets it rip for 284 pages, covering everything from Gore's exploitation of his family's tragedies to his brokered vote in favor of the Gulf War.)

Not everyone agrees with me that Bush's unplanned dig at Clymer was a plus for his campaign. In fact, New York's "National Interest" columnist Lawrence O'Donnell Jr., writing in the Sept. 18 issue, actually believes the incident has sealed the Texan's fate. Repeating the canard that the leader in the polls on Labor Day automatically wins the election?maybe, maybe not?O'Donnell writes: "But on the most important day of the campaign, that two-line exchange was all Al Gore and Joe Lieberman needed to solidify their post-convention surge in the polls and lock up the election. It's over."

Lay some odds on me, Larry, and we've got a bet.

In any case, I believe that the Bush campaign is now fully cognizant that victory in November won't come easy; the race is going to be close, nasty and negative. And there's nothing wrong with that. Remember, Gore has consistently shown the capacity to lie, distort and deceive in order to achieve his goal. All this baloney from reporters criticizing Bush's advertising as contradictory to his slogan of "compassionate conservatism" is ephemeral punditry from an insulated cabal that has a stake in Gore's election. Now that Bush has dropped the Rose Garden strategy, he can rustle up votes as an underdog, hold town meetings every other day and conduct the retail politics he excels at. You must remember that Bush, like Ronald Reagan, actually enjoys talking to people, a trait that will compensate for possible shortcomings in the debates with Gore.

Naturally, Bush's Austin operatives have had to retool their own slogans?"Real Plans for Real People" is the latest?but their tinkering doesn't compare with the almost schizophrenic mixed messages from the Gore campaign. At the Democratic convention, the Vice President was a born-again populist raising the banner for the unemployed, the addicted and every member of the Rainbow Coalition. Standard left-wing demagoguery. Lately, he's moved on to champion the middle-class "swing" voters, presumably even Good Humor truck drivers, who deserve a tax break, as opposed to more affluent Americans. He never does explain why that middle-class tax cut, promised by the Clinton-Gore ticket in 1992, never did materialize, but what the heck, that was eight years ago.

And Sen. Lieberman, who was instantly transformed from a New Democrat into a clone of Paul Wellstone after being tapped as Gore's runningmate?school vouchers, never heard of them!?has lately muted both his obnoxious religious sermons and his antibusiness rhetoric. He told The Washington Post's David Broder last week that he's trying to assure the industries Gore has blasted?the pharmaceutical and insurance companies, for example?"that a Gore administration would be pro-growth and pro-business."

There was also a fairly devastating piece on Good Time Joe in the Sept. 11 Wall Street Journal, in which reporter Jim VandeHei details how the Senator's political views contradict those of the current incarnation of Al Gore. For example, just a few months ago, VandeHei writes, Lieberman joined forces with Majority Leader Dick Armey to push a bill that "would help insurance companies limit lawsuits stemming from auto accidents by permitting lower rates for drivers who forfeit their right to sue for pain and suffering."

With Lieberman almost as zealous (at least until he was chosen as Gore's runningmate) an advocate for tort reform, an anathema to the Vice President, I'd expect to see the GOP running Bush-Cheney-Lieberman ads in the upcoming eight weeks.

At campaign appearances in the Midwest last week, Bush very simply pointed out the differences between his and Gore's visions for the country's future. He repeatedly said: "We trust you with your money. We trust you to make decisions with your lives. We don't trust bureaucrats in Washington, DC. We don't believe in planners and deciders making decisions on behalf of America." It might not be poetry, but the message is simple: Gore's quest for the presidency is highly personal and his ideas?such as his insistence that Big Government solve all problems?are secondary to his goal of simply occupying the Oval Office. Bush, on the other hand, is promoting real reform in the tax code, education system, Medicare, Social Security and the military.

The National Review, which tends to be skittish about Bush (there's little doubt the publication favored Steve Forbes in the primaries), nonetheless presented the GOP nominee with a fail-safe argument against the ethically challenged Gore in a Sept. 6 editorial. "Bush has to make the case for his tax cut and for opening Social Security to private investment not just in moral terms, but also in macroeconomic terms, explaining that they would prolong the expansion. And explaining that Gore's program, with its massive spending and its departures from Clinton's centrism, would threaten that expansion... Bush himself ought to come out for Microsoft and against Internet taxes. He has offered many detailed plans in this campaign, but his pitch to the electorate remains too vague."

If the Texas Governor were capable of Pat Buchanan's spellbinding, if loony, oratory, he'd be 10 points ahead in the polls right now.

The New York Times, willfully ignoring the polls, published a typically myopic editorial last Sunday, headlined "Bumpy Days for Mr. Bush," that would've been more accurate 10 days ago. Much like Al Gore, Times' editorialists talk down to their readers, as if they're contemporary substitutes for Jefferson or Lincoln, dispensing wisdom to the great unwashed. In this specific piece of Democratic cheerleading, we learn?surprise!?that the election will be won in a handful of states, and that the national polls are not as meaningful. Speaking only for myself, I'd like to thank the Times editorial board for that stunning insight.

But, again, in its rabid partisanship, the Times' analysis is all wet. For example, in reference to the contested "battleground" states, the writer says: "One result last week was that Mr. Bush wound up sounding more conservative than compassionate, as when he unveiled his bifurcated Medicare drug program. Social issues like gun control, the environment and abortion rights are also strong for Democrats in the critical Midwest."

This view is contradicted by the Times' own R.W. Apple, in a front-page article the very same day. He writes about Pennsylvania: "This is a somewhat unconventional state, politically speaking. It has relatively few registered independents. It has almost half a million more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, but the Democrats are an unorthodox breed, more conservative than most in their party and much less supportive of ideas like abortion rights and gun control." Apple does point out that Pennsylvania's governor is a Republican, as are its two U.S. senators, but ignores the disgraceful treatment of the late Gov. Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat who was treated like dirt at Bill Clinton's '92 convention.

The Times showcases many out-of-touch op-ed columnists, six of whom?Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman, Gail Collins, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich?slug it out for top buffoonery honors on a rotating basis. Collins, Friedman and Herbert are lost causes; cutie-pie Dowd is capable of making sense about once a month; Krugman's a lapdog for the class-warfare crowd; and Rich, well, he's just a bitter sad-sack. If it weren't for his sanctimony, one would almost feel sympathy for this obviously deranged man.

Last Saturday Rich was in rare form. The good news is that he didn't feel compelled to tie his essay together with references to the latest tv show or musical that's captured his limited imagination. That might be a first. Alas, the rudiments of factual writing have once again eluded the cuddly columnist. Now, I have no knowledge of Rich's military record, or lack of it, in Vietnam; it's possible, though not likely, that he was in a foxhole with Sens. John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. However, when he writes that George W. Bush "want[ed] to dodge Vietnam, as he did by joining the Texas Air National Guard," it's a little strange. As I recall, dodging Vietnam?a smart move, by my reckoning?meant burning your draft card, fleeing to Canada, going underground or, as Bill Clinton did, talking your way out of it. Another option, which Rich neglects to mention, was the route both Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney took: receiving deferments because they were fathers.

Joining the National Guard, regardless of whether your unit was called overseas, was hardly a "dodge." You were still stuck in a military environment?latrine duty, taking orders from hup-two-three-four career officers, simulated warfare?which is a far cry from taking in an afternoon protest at Harvard Yard before a night out catching a Fellini film or Hendrix concert while stoned on Mexican weed.

This nonsense about Bush's Vietnam record is a setup for Rich's latest beef with the man who doesn't believe in hate-crimes legislation. He writes: "The character he has confirmed in the debate about debates is twofold: that of an entitled, spoiled brat who wants to play by his own rules or else take his feather pillow and go home, and that of a man who wants to avoid confrontation at almost any cost."

This is so daft that you'd think the author were Salon's editor David Talbot (who, let's not forget, endorsed Warren Beatty for president) or his lackey Jake Tapper. Rich wants to get his rocks off by calling Bush a "spoiled brat"? Fine by me, but isn't that retro view better confined to watercooler chat with the girls?

Besides, Bush's debate gamble wasn't an attempt to avoid confrontation; rather, it was a refusal to play by the rules that have resulted in stilted joint press conferences instead of give-and-take exchanges. Bush felt the format sanctioned by the Commission on Presidential Debates favored Gore; unlike Bob Dole, who gave in to every Clinton demand in '96, the Governor wanted to negotiate. In retrospect, he should've accepted the three scheduled meetings, and then challenged Gore to a September session with Meet the Press' Tim Russert. The more debates the better: If Bush doesn't come across as a doofus in the first showdown, which is what every reporter expects, voter interest in the subsequent debates will recede somewhat; Gore will still have the chance to show the country what an uptight, lie-at-any-cost chameleon he really is.

Frank Rich is so horrendous that even a Times colleague's reporting can be a tonic to his drivel. Writing for Sept. 9, Katharine Q. Seelye, who's been marked as anti-Gore by the Veep's staff, had a delightful take on the populist's hypocritical stand on money in politics. Gore was asked by a radio listener in Baton Rouge if he'd learned anything from his involvement in the '96 Buddhist temple scandal. "Oh sure," Gore said. "I support campaign finance reform, and I think it's obvious to one and all that it's needed now more than ever."

Seelye follows with this zinger: "Mr. Gore then headed to two fund-raisers for the Democratic National Committee in Atlanta, where he hoped to raise $1 million."

And, on the subject of that Buddhist temple, the current New Yorker features an article by Jeffrey Toobin in which Maria Hsia, who's awaiting sentencing on five felony counts relating to that fundraiser, has a mouthful to say. "[Gore] shouldn't feel embarrassed or ashamed of relating to the temple. He should feel very proud of himself... He should say, 'Look, this is no different from people visiting the black churches or any churches or a Jewish temple. There's nothing wrong.'" She later adds: "All politicians are cowards. But they could be better cowards."

Ironically, on the same day (Sept. 11) that The New York Times once again bashed Bush on its front page (for parlaying the family name into connections), while boosting Gore for his First Amendment-busting plans to clean up the entertainment industry, The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz ran a piece about The Wall Street Journal's anti-Gore editorials and op-ed columns.

As I've pointed out before, there's a vast difference between the two papers: while both the Journal and Times are blatantly partisan, only the former admits it. Kurtz, who doesn't even mention the Times' virtual advertisements for Gore, presents a gem of a quote from Journal editor Robert Bartley: "I don't think Al Gore is going to run off and have sexual escapades with an intern. But this has never been about sex. It's been about lies, and Gore seems to have a lot of the same tendencies. Maybe he learned from Clinton."

Contrary to the frothy "restoring dignity to the White House" theme Bush successfully milked before the Democratic convention, he's well-advised to attack Gore again and again and again about his inability to tell the truth. Along with Bush's bold proposals to repair outdated entitlement programs, that's a winning message.

SEPTEMBER 11

Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:mug1988@aol.com) or fax to 244-9864. Please include your full name, town and state for publication.