The "Accidental" President Prospers; Big Labor Reels

The "Accidental" President Prospers; Big Labor Reels

A quick question: Who won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election? If you correctly guessed Democrat Al Gore, go have that extra slice of pineapple upside-down cake. When the same teaser is posed six months from now, I'm betting that a lot fewer Americans will receive a passing grade. That's how decisively George W. Bush, especially in the past 10 days, has asserted his political strength. It's been a remarkable blitz. The House passed the bulk of his tax cut; the ergonomics regulations issued by Bush's predecessor were repealed; and it's no longer possible to declare bankruptcy if you're having a lousy day. Even Sen. Joe Biden sided with the GOP on the latter initiative, saying, "Unnecessary and abusive bankruptcy costs everyone. This costs every single American consumer."

The President intervened in the labor impasse at Northwest Airlines, mandating a 60-day "cooling off" period, with the implied threat that he'll fire striking workers if an agreement isn't reached. And when similar walkouts are considered by employees at United, Delta and American Airlines in coming months, they can expect the same action. Explaining his decision last week, Bush said, "It's important for our economy; but more important, it's important for the hardworking people of America to make sure air service is not disrupted." The prose might be sloppy, but the message isn't.

Commerce Secretary Don Evans has barred the use of "adjusted" census figures, a huge blow to liberals hoping to gain control of the House next year. Democrats are whining that Bush isn't playing fair, that he's not governing in the spirit of bipartisanship.

What a bully.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton has all but vanished from the front pages, having served his purpose as a media distraction while Bush got settled in the White House. You'd think that Clinton was a double agent. With his laundry list of auctioned-off pardons, revelations about the Ozark Playboy Mansion (masked as his presidential library) dribbling out day by day and his rapid retreat to the $100,000-a-pop lecture circuit, he's done Bush a favor: the President couldn't have asked for a better decoy.

The Republican Congress has wised up and let history, and local prosecutors, be the judge of Clinton's last hours in office. Just imagine the raw material John Waters has if he chooses to write and direct a film dubbed Bubba's Final Days: characters like the Rodham brothers, Marc and Denise Rich, Beth Dozoretz, Paul Begala, Roger Clinton, James Carville, Hillary, John Podesta, corrupt Hasidim and David Kendall come around just once in a lifetime. Half of the unsavory lot, given 10 grand or so, would even play themselves. Waters would finally have the box-office bonanza he deserves. Best of all, it might forever douse the insulting literary conceit that the Clinton saga was a tragedy reminiscent of Shakespeare or Tolstoy. It's bad enough that the Kennedy family's triumphs and turmoils have been accorded that status. A Dominick Dunne novel?a long one, I'll admit?could wrap up Papa Joe's clan in one fell swoop.

But Clinton? The story of his sleazy "public service" has no relation to Macbeth or even a Shirley Lord novel; Joe Klein could make another mil or two with a sequel to Primary Colors. Set in Harlem, of course.

Let's get back to current events. Bush's controversial $1.6 trillion tax cut is really much ado about nothing, a tepid tonic for an ailing economy that's valuable mostly for its symbolism. Which shouldn't be minimized. Bush has sent an unmistakable signal to Congress?and the country at large by staging rallies in states burdened by Democratic senators?that if money is left in Washington it'll be spent on further government entitlements, pork handouts and meaningless research studies. The President's determination on this issue has successfully changed the agenda in DC, and that alone is a major achievement. That's why it was significant that the House acted so quickly in passing part of his bill; had it languished for six weeks, with everyone from Patrick Kennedy to Jesse Jackson Jr. getting his scripted licks in, there wouldn't be the impetus for the Senate to get off their butts and take action before the Fourth of July.

However, let's not be deluded that this 10-year, $1.6 trillion tax cut is at all substantial. Bush couldn't get away with it politically so early in his term, but a real jump start to the economy would be to front-load the cuts, retroactive to Jan. 1, with a slash in capital gains taxes. It's possible, as the recession kicks in, that the Senate will accelerate the process. As for the Democrats' drumbeat that Bush's proposal is a reward for the wealthy?Dick Gephardt seems to think that any family making more than $75,000 is "rich," an absurdity in an era when college tuition alone wipes out a bank account?there's not much you can do but recognize it for the poll-tested class warfare that it is.

With the departure of Clinton and Gore, however, this is a strategy that's about as relevant as the latest dotcom that's gone belly-up. Most people, unless they're wealthy liberals who don't carry cash in their pockets, really don't care if millionaires get a tax break: they'd be plenty happy to receive a refund of the money they earned.

I don't believe self-interested politicians like Gephardt and Tom Daschle when they talk of lower- and middle-class resentment against the top 1 percent of America's economic bracket. Donald Trump is an abhorrent public figure, but people buy his books and some even wish he'd run for president; Hillary Clinton made a shrewd $8 million book deal (and more power to her), a boondoggle that will eventually lose several people their jobs; movie stars and athletes rack up unimaginable salaries, yet ballparks and movie theaters are filled. The country's citizens are a lot more broad-minded than Beltway bubbleheads like Gephardt think: all they want is a fair deal.

It's hilarious listening to Democrats suddenly talk about how Bush's tax plan isn't equitable because it doesn't address FICA taxes, which everyone pays. Funny, I thought Social Security was in a "lockbox," never to be touched, lest it go broke in 2049. This is political hypocrisy in its most repellent form, and simply demonstrates the chaotic state of the Terry McAuliffe-led Democratic Party. They're adrift, floundering around in several different directions. Some are still fixated on the Florida recount, and perhaps they're the most pitiful of all?taking the latest Palm Beach Post article about dimpled chads and shouting to anyone who'll listen that Bush stole the election.

Like, that was so last November.

Another tactic, recently trotted out, is to state that Bush deceived the electorate when he campaigned for a more civil tone in Washington. No one can dispute that the hysteria of the Clinton years is rapidly fading, and that Bush is reaching out to constituencies of disparate political agendas. For example, as The New York Times reported on Sunday, environmentalists were taken aback when the administration came out in favor of regulating carbon-dioxide emissions to fight global warming, a stance that irritated conservatives.

The makeup of Bush's Cabinet was also an unwelcome surprise to those who underestimated his political acumen. Unlike Clinton, who surrounded himself with yes-men and -women, and with multicultural tokens, Bush has assembled a team of qualified people from various branches of government and the private sector who will actually offer ideas rather than simply ratify their boss' (or in Clinton's case, his spouse's) proposals. Bush has been derided for choosing people who'd worked in past GOP administrations, men and women like Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Andy Card, Dick Cheney, Paul O'Neill and Elaine Chao. Why, it's a bunch of Coolidge retreads! chortled Democrats and their media buddies.

Colin Powell, the "third rail" of political personalities, is exempt from any criticism.

As for "bipartisanship," that was always a bunch of hooey. Bipartisanship to Democrats mean that they get their way, and after rolling the GOP-controlled Congress for six years, they're in a state of shock that Bush is having none of it. Dick Armey and Tom DeLay never needed a crash course in hardball politics, but it's refreshing to see that Trent Lott, on the Senate side, with the reinforcement of a Republican president, is finally starting to act like a conservative again.

The Beltway media is equally flummoxed, upended by Bush's startling (to them) initial success. What to do? Take advantage of Vice President Cheney's health problems and make that an issue that will divert the public's attention and diminish Bush's stature at the same time. It's time for Cheney to resign, say Arianna Huffington (the DC hostess who changes political views every season) and USA Today's Walter Shapiro.

Huffington wrote in her syndicated column last week: "The time has come for the nation to stage an intervention. We need to convince Vice President Cheney that he needs to step down. And not just to save his life, but potentially to save the lives of millions of Americans... [W]hile the whole world is watching, the message the vice president is sending to his fellow sufferers is that power and position are more important than life itself. But in fact, in so many cases, such pursuits become just another addiction. Like any addiction, it's one rife with denial and self-delusion."

I don't think Dick the Addict and his family need the advice of a kook like Huffington. Lynne Cheney, a tough tomato, will know when it's no longer safe for her husband to work. And Bush will obviously accept that decision.

Shapiro asked, in his March 8 column: "What then is the point of such a vice-presidential resignation? Public reassurance. Every time Cheney enters the hospital, black clouds gather over the White House. Every time Cheney bounds out of his sickbed to declare, 'I'm having the time of my life,' there are concerns that the workaholic vice president is deluding himself."

Shapiro praises Cheney for being a loyal number two and not harboring any presidential ambitions of his own. He then betrays his political leanings by citing a former vice president who obviously did want the top job: the "laughable" Dan Quayle. That Shapiro still repeats this Democratic smear simply proves he wants Cheney out of the White House because he's a valuable member of Bush's team.

The Wall Street Journal's house cardiologist, Albert Hunt, insists that Cheney's medical records be available to the press?never mind that Clinton, for quite obvious reasons, never released portions of his file?and upbraids Bush and the administration for not being more forthcoming about every twinge Cheney might feel during the day. Last Saturday, on CNN's Capital Gang, Hunt said: "I think the White House ought to release Dick Cheney's full health records. If they are as encouraging as he says, it will put all of this to rest and nobody can take those kind of cheap shots. We don't know how much weight he's lost. We don't know what his LDL cholesterol level is. We don't know what kind of medications he's taking or what side effects they may have and until they put all that out, I think there will be a suspicion that they're trying to hide something."

This is sickening. Cheney has explicitly said he serves at Bush's pleasure and if the President wants to keep him on, despite a medical condition that today isn't all that uncommon, he's eager to perform the job he's so far handled so ably. What business is it of the press to intrude upon Cheney's personal decisions? And while no one ever accused the media of having any manners (even though so many went to the "right" schools), all the speculation about who'll replace Cheney when he dies is indecent. Mind you, this is all an attempt to harm Bush. Cheney is just the vehicle.

Lloyd Grove, the uptight Washington Post "Reliable Source" gossip columnist, included a dig of Cheney's (culled from an interview in American Enterprise) on March 8. Reacting to Maureen Dowd's nasty New York Times op-ed on Clarence Thomas, Cheney said: "I thought Maureen was out to lunch, as she frequently is."

It's gratifying to see that Atlantic Monthly editor Michael Kelly, who repeatedly belittled Bush during the campaign, has the grace to admit he was wrong in his total assessment of the Texan. In a March 7 Washington Post column, Kelly ascribes Bush's early success to a number of factors, including "surpassing exceedingly low expectations," "surpassing an exceedingly low predecessor" and possessing "an easy and shallow charm, which is useful in winning over an easy and shallow press corps."

He continues: "All of this is true, but there is more to Bush's good times. There is, of all things, intelligence. Bush is, on one level, no toy rocket scientist. 'Is our children learning?' he asked during the campaign. Oh, they is, but not, we hope, grammar from you, sir. As it happens, the level on which Bush is not intellectually impressive is the only one that most journalists respect: verbal intelligence, the ability to understand and manipulate logic and language. This is precisely the sort of intelligence Bush does not possess, and so, many journalists stupidly thought of Bush as, well, stupid. I include myself in this and hereby renounce and regret my repeated past use, in connection with Bush, of the word 'pinhead.'

"What Bush does possess is political intelligence?the ability to understand and manipulate people and situations. Verbal intelligence and political intelligence are not necessarily connected: Think of the Mayor Daleys, father and son. It appears this is so with Bush... This is politics played on a high and nuanced plane of intelligence, the sort of level that signifies a natural ability?natural political smarts. George W. Bush: smart guy. Who knew?"

And so while liberal reporters still sneer at Bush's malapropisms, he continues to confound them with legislative acumen and his popularity among the populace (67 percent approval, according to the latest Gallup Poll). I have no problem with Slate's wormboy Jacob Weisberg collecting a few bucks on the side with his book of "Bushisms"?that's healthy capitalism at work?but if you look at his body of reporting over the past two years it's Weisberg, not Bush, who looks stupid.

The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg, one of the Florida recount warriors, still disputes Bush's election. Writing about the President's congressional speech in the March 12 issue, Hertzberg is churlish: "The question is not one of Bush's legitimacy. The new President?so the highest authorities assure us?holds office by virtue of a process that was legal and constitutional. But not even the Supreme Court could decree that the electorate endorsed his policies, the most conspicuous of which was the tax program he presented the other night."

Hertzberg then rambles on about how Gore, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Harry Browne and Howard Phillips combined to poll more than two and a half million more votes than Bush. He neglects to mention that in 1992, Bill Clinton received only 43 percent of the popular vote, with the remainder going to former President Bush and Ross Perot. So, by Hertzberg's logic, Clinton had no right to propose legislation that 57 percent of the populace didn't endorse. But why quibble?

More importantly, Hertzberg distorts facts to make Bush look like an ogre. For example, on the subject of prescription drugs, he writes: "[U]nder the benefit he has proposed, a widow living on as little as fifteen thousand dollars a year would get no help until she had already spent six thousand dollars on prescription drugs. That is, she would have to have already left more than a third of her meagre income at the pharmacy."

Winifred Skinner strikes again!

As Andrew Sullivan pointed out in an Oct. 9 New Republic column, citing University of Southern California economist Joel Hay, only 10 percent of senior citizens pay more than $1000 on "out-of-pocket" prescription drugs; just 4 percent pay more than $2000. In addition, Hertzberg's mythical widow, under Gore's proposed plan, wouldn't receive benefits until she'd left $4000 of her "meagre income at the pharmacy."

Finally, it appears that Newsweek's myopic Jonathan Alter is the last journalist alive to realize that John McCain's campaign finance reform boondoggle (for the media), which will be debated starting next week, is DOA. Now that Big Labor and the ACLU have joined the NRA and a majority of Republicans in opposition to the First Amendment-busting legislation, there's no way anything but a counterfeit bill will be passed.

Alter, whose journalistic legacy might be his incoherent tv ravings on Election Night that Gore should be president regardless of the Electoral College, writes in the March 19 issue: "McCain's aim is to trade on his rock-star status (and wartime heroics) to prevent [an 'empty compromise']. To do so, he needs his old allies in the press. If the media could devote a fraction of the passion and time to the causes of the disease that it lavished on the John Huang-Marc Rich-Lincoln Bedroom symptoms, real change might even be possible."

Alter's grasp of medicine is even shakier than Al Hunt's. The disease he refers to isn't called "soft money"; its proper name is "Bill Clinton." And doesn't the Newsweek/ MSNBC layabout even read the newspapers he excoriates for not devoting full attention to McCain's folly? Never has so much ink been spilled on an issue that most Americans couldn't care less about. The New York Times alone, witnessing the waning of its political influence, has been relentless in boosting this nutty "reform."

I did enjoy Alter's poetic conclusion, if only to give Junior an example of really bad writing. McCain's apostle, now and forever, lectures his readers: "Yes, money can never, ever be removed from politics. Even full public financing would sprout loopholes. But just because the basement will always be damp doesn't mean the house has to flood. The water is rising, and the hour is short."

March 12

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.