It's 11:59 for Al Gore; Blame It on His "Friends"

It's 11:59 for Al Gore; Blame It on His "Friends"

I fully understand that as these words are written?noon on July 31?Gov. George W. Bush is near the peak of his polling dominance against Vice President Al Gore. The Texas Governor's preconvention "bounce," a new twist, catapulted him to a 14-point lead in the Time/CNN poll by last weekend, which is in addition to an 11-point advantage in the USA Today/CNN/Gallup results. Just seven days ago, Newsweek was crowing that the presidential election was "tight as a tick," and The New York Times, the Redcoat Army of this year's contest, editorialized that the two candidates were running neck and neck.

The fractious group that comprises Gore's cheerleading squad?millionaire consultants like the devious and disgusting Bob Shrum; ostrich-head-in-the-sand Democrat strategists such as Mark Mellman, who's grown lazy from two successive Clinton victories; and of course the DC-Boston elite media?continues to insist that it's Gore's election to lose. They cite professorial studies showing that an incumbent administration is rarely booted out of office when the economy is strong; the foolhardy decision of Bush to tap Dick Cheney as his number two; and, the constant, Gore's sheer intellectual superiority over the Governor.

Laughably, some partisans still argue that flawed candidate Michael Dukakis was ahead of Vice President Bush in the summer of '88 and that the tide will inevitably turn once Americans get to know the real Gore. At their peril, these early Alzheimer's cases forget that Dukakis campaigned from his modest Massachusetts home with a campaign apparatus that looked like a Little League team compared to Bush's loyal and aggressive commandos in Austin. Also, if Americans don't know the "real" Gore after seven and a half scandalous years enabling President Clinton, he's got a problem that won't be overcome in four months. As Sheila Redman, director of the Saginaw Art Museum in the crucial state of Michigan, put it two weeks ago at a Gore town meeting: "I wasn't sure I would vote for you. I didn't know if you were strong enough to compete."

In fact, Gore is well-known, and voters don't like what they see. From all accounts, to be charitable, the Washington/Tennessee favorite son was once a man who could tell right from wrong. That perception has been erased in the past decade. Gore is a Machiavellian hack (and a not especially adept one) who, despite his costume changes in the last year, hasn't gained the trust of Americans. Consider: his reincarnation as John McCain's 'Nam buddy; his focus-group-inspired morphing into a rabid populist who despises big business?despite the fact that his family's personal wealth is tied up in Occidental Petroleum?and the embarrassing race-baiting tactics that he slips into whenever he's before a black audience. Why Julian Bond or Kweisi Mfume, both admirable public servants, haven't chastised Gore for his condescending preacher cadences before church groups, when he was the one who gave wishy-washy Clinton the final go-ahead to sign the welfare reform bill in '96 that both Bond and Mfume opposed, is just a sign that political hypocrisy is color-blind. As for Jesse Jackson and his understudy Al Sharpton...well, there's no hope for redemption there.

Gore, when before black audiences, castigates Bush for not insisting last spring that South Carolina remove the Confederate flag from its statehouse. The implication is clear: Bush is a racist. But as Karl Rove, Bush's campaign chief, said last weekend on CNN's Evans & Novak: "Al Gore went to South Carolina nine times as vice president of the United States while that flag was flying atop that Capitol and never said word one about it. Now if it was so important for him, that he?don't you think he should've said something as vice president and not just as a candidate?"

Looking back at Gore's performance this year, I believe that two seminal events illustrate completely what a shallow, craven man the Vice President is. During the primary campaign, Gore repeatedly, and intentionally, distorted Bill Bradley's record on race relations and healthcare. Bradley, an elitist fifth-rate Adlai Stevenson, wasn't up to the challenge of forcefully refuting Gore's charges, but he did memorably say the following at one of their debates: "If you can't trust people to tell them the truth in a campaign, how are they going to trust you as president?"

Bingo! Instant GOP commercial this fall.

Even more indicative of Gore's lack of morality, and lack of the political wizardry that's the single strength of his boss, were his answers to two questions posed by Tim Russert on the July 16 edition of Meet the Press. Gore was obviously ill-prepared for Russert's tenacious questions, answering slowly, as if he'd had too many iced teas the night before, and the hour-long session was a bomb. In addition to his absurd insistence that the White House "coffees" in '96 were not "fundraisers," and dodging Russert on Social Security handouts that were inspired by Bush's proposal to partially privatize the system that was inaugurated in the 1930s, Gore gave astonishing answers such as the following:

Russert: "Right now there's legislation which says that a woman on death row?if she's pregnant, she should not be executed. Do you support that?"

Gore: "I don't know what you're talking about."

Russert: "It's a federal statute on the books that if a woman is pregnant and she's on death row, she should not be executed."

Gore: "Well, I don't know what the circumstances would be in that situation. I would?you know, it's an interesting fact situation. I'd want to think about it."

Bush, whose liberal critics dub him "the high priest of execution," when asked his opinion on the subject, immediately said that a woman carrying an innocent child shouldn't be put to death. It's what's called a "layup" question and Gore botched it, much as Dukakis did when asked what his reaction would be if his wife Kitty were raped and murdered back in an '88 debate. Instead of saying, "I'd choke the man with my own hands!" the Duke philosophized about crime. He never recovered.

Even worse in the Meet the Press interview was Gore's outright mocking of Russert when the host asked the Vice President to explain the outlandish mewlings of his press secretary, Chris Lehane. Lehane accused Sen. Arlen Specter of "McCarthylike tactics" for mentioning a potential probe of his boss' '96 moneygrubbing operation.

Russert: "Senator Specter, who's Jewish and very sensitive to that charge?will you apologize to Senator Specter this morning for accusing him of McCarthylike tactics?"

Gore: "Has he no shame?"

This was an astounding and tasteless rejoinder. Gore, who was smiling as he answered the question, was obviously referring to Army chief attorney Joseph N. Welch's legendary and devastating humiliation of Sen. Joseph McCarthy 46 years ago. Gore refused to repudiate the callow Lehane's stupid and hyperbolic comments about Specter and said, in fact, that he stood by them. Subsequently, Lehane has scarcely been seen on tv, replaced by the smoother Mark Fabiani, who's press-friendly and thus given a wider berth than the creepy Lehane. Still, even Fabiani doesn't have much to work with.

Anyway, the upshot of Gore's smart-aleck behavior on Russert's show is that he really doesn't care about his staff's indiscreet behavior, is willing to alienate and insult members of the Republican Party on the flimsiest of excuses and doesn't believe he has to explain to anyone all of the unethical, and possibly criminal, acts during his tenure as vice president.

It boggles the mind, especially when the press makes great sport of saying that Bush is neither smart nor politically savvy enough to hold the office that Bill Clinton has desecrated. It's clear that Gore is now a skeleton devoid of principles. If I'd been Russert in that interview, I'd have asked a follow-up question: "Mr. Vice President, is there anything you believe in other than it's your rightful turn to occupy the White House? Is there no campaign slur or tactic you won't use to reach that goal? Is there any family member you won't exploit to further your ambition?"

Even Gore's daughter, Karenna Gore Schiff, the adviser who introduced Naomi Wolf to her father's campaign, seems to know the jig is up. In a July 24 Newsweek story, Schiff told reporters Bill Turque and Debra Rosenberg: "It's more important to us that he be true to himself than that he wins."

Cheney: The Smart Pick

I've been on the record since last December saying that Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge would be Gov. Bush's choice as a runningmate, and until late June it appeared that would come to fruition. Despite the bluster from the religious right?not to mention a full-out assault on Ridge by National Review's John J. Miller?Ridge, given Bush's new face of Republicanism, seemed a natural choice: he's a decorated Vietnam vet who grew up with few advantages yet still made it to Harvard; he's compatible with Bush and it's a near-certainty that he'd deliver PA's key 23 electoral votes; plus, most importantly, I believed, the inclusion of a moderate pro-choice partner, while it might've alienated hard-right Republicans, would have had immense appeal to women and independent voters.

Alas, Ridge's short-list status was leaked too early in the process, which gave Catholic bishops, Luddites like James Dobson and Paul Weyrich and everyone's favorite 16th-century orator, Pat Buchanan, plenty of time to squawk. As a result, Ridge withdrew his name from consideration four weeks ago, citing "family considerations," putting his own ambition second to Bush's chances for victory in the fall.

In the interim, Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating was a leading contender (a true nightmare, given his lack of experience and penchant for verbal gaffes). Liddy Dole was then floated but mercifully batted down, as if her empty Oprah sloganeering had any place in a 2000 election battle. And finally, John McCain's boosters tried as hard as they could to place the not-so-reluctant gadfly on the Bush team. McCain, who still hasn't come down to Earth after his ego-gratifying bus trips of last winter, had his champions in Weekly Standard publisher Bill Kristol and New York Post columnist John Podhoretz, on the theory that the man whom the media proclaimed the most popular politician in America would give Bush a slam-dunk win in November. It's fortunate that Bush's Austin brain trust prevailed against this awful scenario: it's easy to see how McCain (who, typically, addressed lunatic Arianna Huffington's "Shadow Convention" last weekend) could create a problem a week for Bush during the campaign.

The antipathy between the two men is no secret, and one can envision McCain calling an impromptu press conference to disagree with part of Bush's agenda. It's even easier to tally up the damaging jokes he'd make to a willing squad of reporters/ groupies eager to record his every word. Since McCain prides himself as always speaking "on the record," you can imagine bad jokes about "coons," "gooks" and "queers." All in good fun, of course, with no intention to harm the campaign.

After Dan Rather's July 24 "scoop" that Colin Powell was back in play (a completely fabricated story that might've been planted by the aging CBS anchor) the announcement of Dick Cheney as Bush's runningmate seemed anticlimactic. Immediately, the Democratic hatchet men came out?even though Cheney was widely lauded as President Bush's defense secretary, winning the praise of Al Gore, among others?citing votes cast by the Wyoming Congressman more than a decade ago when America was a different country. The fact that Gore's views often coincided with Cheney's?pro-life, anti-gun control?made no difference to the likes of Sen. Tom Daschle, Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sen. Barbara Boxer; the Veep's flip-flops were just evidence that he'd "matured."

Cheney was pilloried for a nonbinding '86 vote on the fate of Nelson Mandela that Democrats claimed showed his right-of-Gingrich conservatism. In fact, as Los Angeles Times Washington bureau chief Doyle McManus explained on CNN's Reliable Sources, the measure wasn't solely about freeing Mandela. Rather, it was also a call to begin negotiations with the Communist-controlled African National Congress. Cheney, along with half the House, voted against the bill. McManus said: "[I]t was kind of a trick vote, too, frankly. It was one of those procedural motions... So that one wasn't wacky right wing."

Nonetheless, pro-Gore pundits like Time's Margaret Carlson willfully ignored the nitty-gritty of that vote and simply condemned Cheney for voting to keep Mandela behind bars. Parrying with Carlson on the July 26 edition of CNN's Inside Politics, The Weekly Standard's Tucker Carlson said: "Well, I guess it is significant that Dick Cheney single-handedly kept Nelson Mandela in prison all those years. But I do think, even something as heinous as that, as Margaret points out, doesn't mean much... [Cheney's] the vice presidential nominee. And all the time they spend attacking him, you know, is time they could spend attacking Bush. And attacking Bush is what moves numbers, not attacking Cheney. So, ultimately, I just am not convinced that anything Cheney does, short of murder, is going to affect the election."

In fact, as the week wore on and Cheney was all over the tube, presenting a firm but restrained conservative point of view, his selection seemed more and more adept. Unlike Gore, Cheney was unflappable and not giving an inch to the Democratic patriots. ("To arms, to arms, Dick Cheney's coming to imprison all women, gays and trial attorneys!") True, Cheney's not telegenic (he appears a decade older than his 59 years), but outside of New York, DC and Los Angeles, that's probably a plus. On last Wednesday's Hardball, Mike Barnicle, the affluent former Boston Globe columnist who now writes a tourist column for Mort Zuckerman's Daily News, was enthusiastic about Bush's pick. He also belittled those in his profession who made fun of President Bush's obvious loyalty to his oldest son. Barnicle: "I think that the country is a lot less partisan than these shows and certainly the members of Congress that you have on. And all of this talk about the father...I think it's a huge plus for George Bush Jr. I think people like people who love their fathers."

Barnicle then spun off what I thought was the funniest line of the week: "The only thing that concerns me about Dick Cheney is he looks like he's spent the last five years at McDonald's. I mean, he looks as if [if] he cut himself in the morning, gravy would come out."

Part of the Democratic rhetoric of last week is that Cheney's elevation signals a return to the 80s, that Bush is relying on "Daddy's men" to tutor him and launch us back to the horrendous Reagan years. Personally, I'm far more worried about a return to the 90s, when Bill Clinton, who stood for nothing but Me, Myself and I, made a joke of the White House. Besides, it's absurd to claim that Bush is looking backward when he's the first politician to offer a coherent plan to save Social Security and save it from certain bankruptcy.

Clinton Warms Up for Hollywood

Bill Clinton, who abhors "the politics of personal destruction," even though half his payroll is dedicated to practitioners of that craft, is a real card. That much you have to give the country's worst president in a century. Al Gore, should he be elected this November, won't be nearly as hilarious.

After all, who but Clinton, with a straight face, could make the following remarks at a fundraiser, and not incur the immediate scorn of our Ivy League-educated media? Last Friday, at a Boston clambake, Clinton poked bad-natured fun at Gov. George W. Bush. He told a well-heeled crowd of 450: "'How bad could I be? I've been governor of Texas, my daddy was president, I own a baseball team, they like me down there, everything is rocking along hunky-dory... Their fraternity had it for eight years, give it to ours for eight years because we're compassionate and humane. We're not like what you think about us from watching the Congress for the past five years.'"

Who was behind Clinton at the lectern as he delivered these silly comments? Why, none other than Rep. Patrick Kennedy and his father, Sen. Teddy Kennedy, two legislators who scrapped their way to leadership positions by years of hard work, not the nepotism that Clinton ascribes to Bush.

Itsy-bitsy Patrick, by the way, while still learning the ropes of bald hypocrisy, got off a doozy the other day when he criticized a scheduled Democratic money-grab at the mansion of Playboy founder Hugh Hefner. Kennedy, who used the Chicago home of Hefner's daughter Christie for a recent fundraiser, told National Public Radio: "This totally contradicts what our party stands for in terms of equal rights, civil rights for all people, and respecting the human dignity of every individual." As New York Post columnist Rod Dreher noted on July 27, the Hefners are generous donors to the Democratic Party, but now, apparently, "they're the scum of the earth" to virtuous Patrick.

My guess is that Hef didn't promise Dick Gephardt's puppet a prime piece of tail, if he's so inclined, and that's what got his dander up.

Clinton, a champion of campaign finance reform?a blood brother of John McCain?was a busy beaver this past weekend. Not only did he shine up New England Democrats to fork over dough for Kennedy and other feminist Democrats, but he also made time to visit his beloved Waldorf-Astoria in New York to make a pitch for his witchy wife Hillary.

Listen to this whopper, delivered to a group of Korean-Americans in a pitch that grossed $250,000: "Of all the hundreds of people I've known, including many presidents and candidates for president, I have never known anyone who had the same combination of intelligence and passion and knowledge and ability to get things done for children, for families, for education, for healthcare as my wife does. She can do things and she knows things that no one else now in our public life can do and know, just because of the life she's lived."

I had no idea that Hillary Clinton, who grew up in middle-class Illinois, brought such a varied background to public life. Heck, her heroics as a suburban Cubs fan and later as a mixed-up radical at Wellesley are far more impressive than the mere war records of Sen. McCain, Gov. Tom Ridge, President George Bush or Sen. Bob Dole. The hardscrabble backgrounds of Presidents Nixon and Reagan don't compare with Mrs. Clinton's, certainly, and helping her daughter Chelsea complete homework by fax is a magnificent example of how she "gets things done for children."

Alas, after the zingy bash at the Waldorf came the morning hangover. Last Sunday, John Zogby released a poll that showed rickety Enrico Lazio with a seven-point lead over Hillary?49.6-42 percent?that even an eye-opener Bloody Mary couldn't cure.

One Cheer for New York

When New York's he-said/ he-said between Ed Koch and Al D'Amato debuted several months ago, I thought it was a lame one-page filler for the city magazine that hasn't had an original cover feature in years. (In the Aug. 7 edition, New York tells readers "What It Really Costs to Live in New York." Can another story about the angst of competing for a suitable private school be far off?)

Still, deputy editor Maer Roshan has moderated the weekly dialogue between these two fatheads with remarkable skill and humor. Roshan's no student of politics?he writes, erroneously: "When you look at the electoral map, Bush and Gore are running about even," a falsity that even Tipper would currently dispute?but he generally puts on a good show.

For example, he asks Koch, "Given Cheney's controversial record, why do you think Bush chose him?" Koch, a reluctant Gore supporter, shoots back: "Because he doesn't give a shit. Bush is getting arrogant now. He believes he has this election locked up. The fact is, he doesn't."

Koch is completely wrong: The Bush team is running, despite the current favorable polls, as if their candidate is the underdog. Forget the nonsense about Gore's debating skills?given his high level of expectation, that'll probably end in a wash?with the economy humming and Clinton's store of September, October and November surprises, not to mention Sidney Blumenthal's dirty tricks operation, this election is far from decided.

Still, Koch's candor is a welcome tonic in a magazine that reminds any astute reader of the film Groundhog Day.

Less amusing are Michael Tomasky's biweekly reports on the Hillary Clinton campaign. Granted, Tomasky is a liberal, but he's in the tank for the First Lady so deeply you'd think he was auditioning for Joe Conason's column slot at Salon. In his latest take on the U.S. Senate race, Tomasky writes: "Yet apparently more central to the Jewish vote than any of the above [Rick Lazio's sleazy cozying up to the city's Jews] is an incredible charge against Hillary Clinton made by three hustlers that dates back 26 years, which no one gave any play to until a former National Enquirer reporter peddled the story to Rupert Murdoch's publishing house. Makes you proud to live in America's intellectual capital."

C'mon, Mike, has the likely prospect of Hillary's defeat turned your mind to mush? As any fair-minded media observer will admit, National Enquirer reporters are subjected to more legal vetting than their colleagues at the allegedly prestigious daily newspapers. In addition, many of the Enquirer's stories wind up, without attribution of course, in the mainstream press months after they're originally printed. And to invoke Rupert Murdoch as journalism's equivalent of Bill Clinton is just lazy thinking. Is New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. any less blatantly ideological than Murdoch?

Extra Pay! I'm on Times Duty!

On the subject of Al Gore's Newsletter of Record, the Times' presidential coverage is getting very ugly and very fast. Since the paper's proclamation on July 24 that the election is extremely close, a notion quickly dashed by a spate of polls just days later that showed Bush with a double-digit lead, the muskets have been loaded and prepared to shoot. Among Arthur Sulzberger's minions who hand out puke-packets of propaganda from their white stretch limos on the Upper West Side, surely "star" reporter Richard Berke is the Times' leading court jester.

On July 21, Berke, writing with Adam Clymer, concedes, "At a first glance of the electoral map, opinion polls show Mr. Bush is leading in enough states to assure him an electoral college victory." Still, he assures nervous Times readers that the matchup stands "as a very competitive contest." I believe the race will tighten considerably, but today's snapshot is nothing like Berke would have you believe. In fact, Bush is creaming Gore in the Electoral College, as any state-by-state analysis will prove.

Moreover, Berke and Clymer write, citing Harvard Prof. Thomas Patterson: "Yet experts say today's electoral snapshot should hardly be considered definitive, since the public really is not paying much attention to the campaign in midsummer."

Yet, just four days later, this time with Janet Elder as his accomplice in deceit, Berke completely contradicts the previous article. The pair, relying on the Democratic-skewed Times/CBS poll, writes: "As Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush prepare to frame their messages at the national conventions, most Americans say they already perceive pronounced differences on how they would handle health care, taxes, the environment and the selection of Supreme Court justices..."

But Berke isn't content to let his idiotic reporting stop there. In a piece last Sunday, he wrote: "If the Republicans seem timid about bashing President Clinton this year, it's only fitting. That's because they've stolen his political game plan. In fact the Grand Old Party is attempting to refashion itself entirely, clearly using Mr. Clinton as its model."

Last Saturday, in Owensboro, KY, Bush told a rally of 1800 people, "If you want somebody to unite this nation...if you want something better coming out of Washington, DC, there's a home for you in this campaign. And if you want a president who wants to lift the spirit of this country, give me a chance to be your president."

The "timid" Dick Cheney was more direct on Sunday's Fox News: "I am generally one of those people who thinks Bill Clinton has been an enormous embarrassment to the country. He is a tragic figure, in a way... I watched Ronald Reagan for eight years and Jimmy Carter before that and George Bush. And there was a standard there...that frankly hasn't been met by this administration."

GOP Rep. Steve Chabot, one of the House managers for Clinton's impeachment?and regardless of Bush's desire for a happy-shiny-people convention, those brave men deserve at least a salute from the delegates?was even more direct at a Blue Ash, OH, pit stop by the candidate. He said: "We want prosperity without perjury. Who would have thought that you'd see Microsoft split up and the Clintons still together? People are so tired of the disgrace that this administration has brought on the White House, they want to clean house. And George W. Bush is the person to do it."

No segment of the Times' makeup is immune to its dangerous infatuation with Al Gore. On July 25, the headline of Bush's pick of Cheney read: "Looking for Just the Right Fit, Bush Finds It in Dad's Cabinet." Damned old Dad, GWB must be saying, making me pick one of his retreads.

Likewise, on July 29, after a proposed makeover of the presidential primary system was killed by the Republican platform committee, the Times' page-one headline was: "A G.O.P. Overhaul of Primary Season Is Killed by Bush." Not to be a conspiracist, but notice the last three words, Killed by Bush. Think the Times will run even more stories about the rate of executions in Texas? Think they'll mention Bill Clinton's '92 notch on his belt, Ricky Ray Rector? The same day, in The Washington Post, no friend of the Texas Governor, a similar story was headlined "GOP Scraps Plan to Alter Primary Schedule."

The Times and the Post, both of which will endorse Gore in late October, also differed in their July 26 editorials about Cheney's selection as Bush's runningmate. The Times concludes: "In the days ahead, Mr. Cheney will be marketed as someone who brings sound judgment and safe hands to the executive branch. That is a reasonable depiction. By virtue of experience and temperament, he does represent a responsible choice. But the voters will also be asked to factor ideology into their selection this fall. And Mr. Gore, waving a long list of House votes, will not allow Mr. Bush's picture of Dick Cheney to go unchallenged."

The Post: "Mr. Bush has managed his campaign well, and his vice presidential pick reflects that competence. No senior figure in the campaign has quit or been forced to go; the headquarters has not moved; it leaks rather little. Whether this makes up for the candidate's shortcomings of experience and policy outlook is a question for the campaign season. But Mr. Cheney provides the ticket with heft."

Op-ed columnist Frank Rich, apparently not prepared to put up his dukes, is distressed; he's given up on Gore, blaming the country for its complacency. Writing last Saturday, Rich hopes that Bush will emulate Thomas Dewey in 1948 and just coast along until November. In fact, that's what much of the naive media sees as happening, given their portrayal of Bush as a candidate who makes few appearances and prefers jogging to pressing the flesh. But getting back to '48, Rich writes: "But Mr. Gore is no Harry Truman. Plain speaking is not, shall we say, his forte, and attack rhetoric merely plays into the Republicans' hands by paradoxically making him, not Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney, seem more like a slashing politician of the despised Gingrich era in Washington."

As Bill Clinton might say, I honor Mr. Rich's early and wise surrender. But surely he's confused on one point: while Newt Gingrich was not shy about his beliefs, it's the Democratic Party that's monopolized the demagoguery and art of "the politics of personal destruction" these past eight years. Not convinced? Ask Maryland's '98 GOP gubernatorial candidate Ellen Sauerbrey, victim of a race-baiting campaign so blatant that even Democrat Kurt Schmoke, Baltimore's first elected black mayor, condemned it. Ask Kathleen Willey, Charles LaBella, Juanita Broaddrick or Linda Tripp.

Finally, there's the lazy and schizo Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd. Poor Hollywood gal just doesn't know what to think. On July 9, in a biting column about how Gore seems intent on blowing an election that, given the country's peace and prosperity, he should win, she writes: "Mr. Gore's biggest problem is that people don't like to like him, even when they like him. He comes across as a man who calculates every gesture." She concludes: "The clenched vice president should heed the classy ex-president: Americans enjoy change from time to time. Not moment to moment."

Yet 21 days later, President Bush's "classy" demeanor has turned sour, and who knows why. Maybe the polls, maybe a late-night call from Mr. Sulzberger. In any case, Dowd's latest opinion is this: "The two George Bushes are engaging and unpretentious. But deep down in their genes is that elitist sense that the important decisions should be made by those who are bred to make them."

I could go on...maybe about how Al Gore's "elitist sense" compels him to speak to mere mortals such as you or me (but not the Times editorial board) as if we were mentally challenged grade-schoolers.

Pedro: You've Got a Friend

How's this for a Contax moment? Two Saturdays ago, the MUGGER family was in Boston for a long weekend, and we're watching the Red Sox mow down the mighty Chicago White Sox at Fenway Park. It's the seventh-inning stretch, and Junior and I are sitting comfortably in our fourth-row box seats behind the Bosox dugout, gabbing about baseball with an amiable couple behind us. Suddenly, Pedro Martinez (who would pitch a six-hit, 15-strikeout shutout the next afternoon) popped his head out of the dugout. I nudged Junior, who was in full Sox uniform, and he immediately ran down to the railing, just 10 feet away from his hero. Martinez, who's a sucker for kids, smiled broadly, and tossed my seven-year-old a piece of Bazooka bubblegum, instantly providing the tyke with a story to tell his grandchildren. Needless to say, the boy didn't get to sleep that night till well after midnight, and the unwrapped gum is now in his room as part of his Red Sox shrine. That the Sox won 8-6, with a three-run homer by Scott Hatteberg, triples by head-butter Carl Everett and Jose Offerman, and another sterling performance by the league's best shortstop, Nomar Garciaparra, cheered Junior immensely, but paled in comparison to his exchange with Pedro.

I felt like a kid myself the day before when my son and I took a tour of Fenway, which is now scheduled to be replaced by an instant-nostalgia park in three or four years. I have no problem with that: Fenway was built in 1912 (in less than a year!) and despite renovations over the decades, its quaint reputation obscures the fact that it's pretty much a dump. The best ballpark in the world, don't get me wrong, but most of the seats are crummy, the bathrooms are a disgrace and its capacity seating of some 34,000 (when you include standing-room only) doesn't make sense in this new century. Especially when the Curse of the Bambino is about to evaporate.

Anyway, the guide, a teacher who's a loyal Democrat (he made a few digs at GOP Gov. Paul Cellucci, but I let them slide; this was Massachusetts, remember), was a swell fellow who gave a half-hour history of the park to a group of maybe 50 people and then led us down for a walk around the field. He took a picture of Junior and me in the Boston dugout where Garciaparra sits; we got to touch the Green Monster, seeing all the dents in the wall from just this season alone. We peered into the hand-operated scoreboard, walked on the warning track where outfielders Yaz, Williams, Lynn and Evans have thrilled fans in past seasons, got a closeup look at the foul pole that the stiff Carlton Fisk hit for a homer in the '75 Series, and took melancholy notice of the 1918 commemoration of the last championship the Bosox captured.

Boston's a queer little city?currently fouled up by the Big Dig construction project?that's long on history and precious architecture, but parochial beyond belief. Mrs. M, a Los Angeles native, had never visited there before and was immediately seduced by the winding Greenwich Village-like streets, parks and an extraordinary juggler we saw perform one afternoon at Faneuil Hall, developer James Rouse's first urban mall. I admit that The Boston Globe's unconscionable suspension of conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby colored my view this time around?like many Northeasterners, I've been to Boston close to 100 times?but the older I get, the more my heart turns black when I find myself in the city. Except for the Bosox. For example, the chip on the shoulder of Bostonians when it comes to New York rivals that of Chicago natives with their odd accents. During the Saturday game, when I waited on line for Cokes and pretzels, I tried to strike up conversations with other fans and was met with unbridled scorn. My comments were innocent enough: I said to one guy, "It sure is nice to be in Fenway instead of Yankee Stadium, where so many people wear 'Boston Sucks' t-shirts." He just grunted and replied, "Why would anyone live in New York?"

Nonetheless, our short trip was a lot of fun. Each day, the four of us played ball in the Boston Common, which was right across from The Four Seasons, a pleasant hotel in the Back Bay. We ignored the recommendations of friends familiar with local restaurants and simply went to tourist attractions like the Union Oyster House (the oldest restaurant in the United States) and Legal Sea Foods. Blasphemy to those who actually believe Boston can even compare to New York's culinary culture, but we were looking for fried Ipswich clams, chowder and lobster rolls: simple enough fare that was prepared precisely to our satisfaction. The boys marveled at the U.S.S. Constitution, and if they grumbled a bit during the walk uphill to the Bunker Hill Monument, once we were there and saw the model of the British overwhelming the colonists they were entranced.

We stopped briefly at MIT, my father-in-law's alma mater, making a few purchases at the school's excellent bookstore. I did notice, with a smile, that the huge selection of magazines had about 100 copies of Talk still untouched?the funniest part (although not to Hearst, co-owner of the failing monthly, which handles distribution) was that it was the May issue that still hadn't sold out. There was a lot more to see, obviously, but with the cheap flights taking only 40 minutes from Newark to Logan, we'll be back again, for another look at Fenway before it's torn down, and a more extensive walk along the Freedom Trail.

Next week: a dispatch from St. Lucia and more on the Republican Week of Love.

JULY 31

Send comments to[ MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:mug1988@aol.com) or fax to 244-9864.