Hillary is the New Wallace

May 28, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

Because of her racial and class charged politics, arch-nemesis Dick Morris has anointed Hillary the new George Wallace:

In its final days, Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign has come to echo George Wallace’s 1968 run.

Like Clinton, Wallace as a candidate stalked the Northeast exploiting white anger. Like her, he bypassed the nation’s more educated and liberal parts to focus squarely on those who felt left behind, rallying animosity against elites.

But behind the mask of populism, it was race that fueled Wallace’s campaign from the start. And it is race that has brought new life to Clinton’s campaign in its final days.

Like Wallace, Clinton doesn’t address racial prejudice squarely, but cloaks the appeal to our darker fears in seemingly neutral issues. He used opposition to school busing; she has played off Obama’s alleged elitism and ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Read More

Obamic Youth

May 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party | Leave a Comment 

At “Salon” Paul Maslin wonders whether the youth vote Sen. Obama is counting on will show up and make a difference:

A few bumps appear in this generational road. There are two major caveats. To begin with, even a large increase in under-30 turnout this year will produce a surprisingly small impact on the actual makeup of the electorate. That small impact, however, could still be decisive if it occurs in concert with better overall numbers from this cycle’s Democratic candidate. Most important is that much, if not most, of the uptick in youth turnout already occurred four years ago. Howard Dean, John Kerry and, to be honest, George W. Bush, have already done most of the necessary work to motivate young voters.

Some Recent Columns

May 28, 2008 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Supreme Court | Leave a Comment 

In the last few days there have been several columns that caught my eye.  One of these, by Bruce Fein in this morning’s Washington Times, revived speculation about what once was a prime contender for the ultimate nightmare of anti-Clintonistas in the late 1990s, before Sen. Hillary Clinton pursued elective office: the idea that she could somehow be appointed to a seat on the Supreme Court. 

Fein refers to a May 21 Washington Post op-ed in which James Andrew Miller, formerly on ex-Sen. Howard Baker’s staff, pointed out that one way Sen. Barack Obama could assuage Clinton’s hurt feelings and assure her readiness to campaign for him in the fall would be to assure her a seat on the Court (most likely as the replacement of Justice John Paul Stevens, now 88) should he take office.

Well, as Miller put it, such an appointment could “make a potentially ineradicable impact on the course of the republic.”  Fein expresses doubt that Clinton could put together enough of a liberal bloc to counterbalance Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Scalia.  I’d have to disagree. Picture Justice Clinton – along with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter – working out consensuses with Justice Kennedy (or, should he retire, with an Obama-appointed replacement).  Would it be a safe bet that strict constructionism or any other traditionalist judicial philosophy would be on the retreat?  Would we see judicial activism on an unprecedented scale? And would it have a strong chance of continuing until Clinton retired in the 2020s or 2030s?  (Keep in mind, too, that there would be no guarantee that Sen. Clinton, were she to become a justice, would not re-enter politics.  In 1916, Charles Evans Hughes left the high court to become the Republican nominee for President, and came very close to defeating Woodrow Wilson. As recently as the 1960s, Arthur Goldberg left the Supremes to become U.N. Ambassador, and, later, unsuccessfully ran for the New York governorship.)

That should give any genuine conservative nightmares – and do the same for any dedicated libertarian.  Indeed, were I a member of the party that just nominated former Rep. Bob Barr, and carefully thought about the sort of judicial appointments Obama could be counted on to make, I would feel obliged to take a deep breath and pull the lever or tap the screen for Sen. John McCain come the first Tuesday in November.

Moving on, we find Michael Barone making the solid point that Sen. Barack Obama, as the campaign moves on to the convention and the general election, will continue to be haunted by some of the characters he’s kept company with, such as William Ayers.  (Although Tom Frank, in the Wall Street Journal column Jonathan Movroydis discusses below, bemoans the idea that “we will be forced to debate Barack Obama’s not-even-tenuous connection to the Weathermen,” and further complains that Americans “will probably not be asked to judge the poisonous legacy of the Young Americans for Freedom.”  The Journal’s man on the Left seems to have forgotten about the origins of the Libertarian Party, that bringer of hope to worried Democrats this month, in YAF in the late 1960s.)

Finally, Cal Thomas delivers a forceful examination of Obama’s promise to break bread with any willing despot or dictator.  Unfortunately (but not unsurprisingly), Thomas, in arguing that a leader of America needs to recognize the existence of evil in the modern world, wanders into some asides regarding the decline of our mores as shown by Sex And The City.   A better way of showing Obama’s weakness in the foreign-policy arena would be to contrast his approach to Ronald Reagan’s.  Reagan made no bones from the outset that America was dealing with (in the phrase Tony Dolan coined) an evil empire, and made no move to meet with the top leadership of the Soviet Union until that country had taken affirmative steps to show its willingness to back down from unchecked aggression and met preconditions laid down by the United States.  Obama, by contrast, speaks of going into meetings with a “clear agenda.”  JFK had an agenda as well in Vienna, but it did him little good.

The Barr Factor

May 28, 2008 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

Over the weekend, former Rep. Bob Barr managed to wrangle the Libertarian  presidential nomination at that party’s convention in Denver.  In an earlier post I referred to the traditional contentiousness of the Libertarians, and in their usual tradition it took no less than six ballots for the delegates to decide that they preferred a highly visible, well-experienced lawmaker to a research scientist, sports handicapper Wayne Root (who gained the vice-presidential nod), and various lesser eminences.  To gain the prize, Barr had to kowtow to various shibboleths of the Libs, disavowing his earlier support of the Defense Of Marriage Act and the war against drugs (at least in the version that he supported as a Republican).  The party will certainly be on the ballot in all but a handful of states, but so far Democratic-oriented bloggers are rather muted about hopes it can steal votes from Sen. John McCain.

Young Hillary Clinton

May 28, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Entertainment | Leave a Comment 

Comedian-actor-writer Jerry O’Connell has produced an amusing video that would have been even more amusing with the aid of a stern editor. But it still has its moments. And here it is (with a tip o’ the cap to The Big Lead).

A Young Senator’s Senior Moments

May 28, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

Because its author is Brent Bozell and the venue is Townhall.com, some will dismiss this column as conservative boilerplate.But that would be a mistake. Mr. Bozell’s quotes from mainstream sources (Jake Tapper of ABC and Marc Ambinder of Atlantic Monthly) show that this is not some quibble confined to the right wing feverswamps.And at some point the numbers add up sufficiently (or sufficiently unavoidably) and the problem suddenly reaches critical mass.Incidentally, Michael Isikoff’s consideration of Mr. Obama’s Svengali —David Axelrod— could be just an isolated piece of Mr. Isikoff’s kind of gumshoe reporting. But then again it could be an indication that the long and blissful Obama/media honeymoon is nearing its end.

Frank’s Fighting Words: Welcome to Nixonland

May 28, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Thomas Frank of The Wall Street Journal reviews Richard Perlstein’s Nixonland and offers his own view of the political and cultural legacy of the 37th President. To Frank, it’s a worldwide backlash against the silent majority, riddled with hipsters and fake-shattered windows:

Backlash is a chronic condition now, and one of the reasons is that hipness is chronic, too. The ’60s culture that infuriated Nixon and his followers is everywhere today, because hipness and “revolution” have become a default mode of corporate speech. Youth had nothing to do with it: It happened thanks to the need for ever-accelerating novelty, reverence for a supposedly enlightened cyber-vanguard, and the great god “creativity.”

Typical example: Six years ago, when Business Week wanted to report that the South Korean economy was doing well, it ran a cover story proclaiming not that Korea was “Prosperous,” or “Recovering,” but that the country was “Cool,” a concept it illustrated with a pair of young hipsters hanging out on the main drag of their university neighborhood.

Yes, this culture is elitist. Just walk down the aisles of your local, union-free organic grocery, unutterably cool but way beyond your price range. Or stroll through the most upscale shopping district of your city, where you might notice the fake-shattered windows favored by one national retailer, evidently trying for that ’60s look while not losing any stock to actual looters.

Yes, it’s offensive, too. It’s meant to be that way, to remind you always that you are not hot; that you’ve bought the wrong brand; that the vanguard is way ahead of you; that, with your organization-man craving for health benefits or job security, you probably need to be fired.

Affordable Kindle Love

May 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Culture, Kindle, News media | Leave a Comment 

Amazon has taken $40 off the price of its revolutionary digital reader. Act now and save journalism.

High Prices, Hot Tempers

May 28, 2008 by Paul Saunders | Filed Under Economic issues, Election 2008, International Affairs, Nixon Center | Leave a Comment 

Testifying last week in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the foreign policy consequences of high oil prices, I was most struck by the visible anger from Committee members–on a bipartisan basis–toward Saudi Arabia. One after another, they condemned Saudi Arabia for “humiliating” the United States by forcing President Bush to “beg” King Abdullah to increase oil production, which the King refused to do, arguing that Saudi experts do not see sufficient sustained demand to justify it. One member of Congress wanted to find a way to “throw [their oil] back in their faces” and another suggested cutting off arms sales (perhaps emotionally satisfying, but ultimately a big gift to Russian arms manufacturers).

The scary thing is that we are still five months away from the this fall’s elections and that neither prices nor the anger and political grandstanding they generate have yet to peak. What happens when they do could have a major impact on America and the international system that some of our politicians seem almost inherently unable to think about in a rational way.

Are the Saudis behaving in a friendly way toward the United States by refusing the President’s request to increase production? No, not really. Are they obliged to be friendly? No, not really. Do we have a right to buy oil at low prices? No, not really. Is there anything we can do about it? Yes — but bashing the Saudis is not the answer, especially when the U.S. is trying to engage Saudi Arabia both in helping us out of Iraq and in the Middle East peace process.

Oil prices basically have three components: high demand for a scarce resource, global uncertainty and even fear about future supply and demand, and a weak dollar that makes the prices we pay here even higher than those paid by the Europeans, for example. We can and should be addressing all three of these factors in ways that contribute to lower prices. How? By reducing our consumption of oil, acting internationally in ways that cool rather than increasing uncertainty (such as limiting rhetoric about possible military action against Iran), and working to strengthen the U.S. economy and a dollar that is at historic lows.

Some will argue that increasing U.S. domestic production could also reduce prices. I am skeptical of this as many have argued that Saudi Arabia could well reduce its own production to blunt the impact. But there is no reason not to try this too in a responsible way and with modest expectations.

The text of my testimony is available on The Nixon Center’s web site.

Professors and Protest

May 28, 2008 by Joshua Treviño | Filed Under American Politics, Culture | Leave a Comment 

When the news came that President George W. Bush will speak at Furman University’s Commencement on May 31st, I was immensely pleased. I am an alumnus of the Class of 1997, and though I’m not as active as some of my peers — as Furman’s alumni giving department might attest — I do retain enduring ties of friendship and affection for my alma mater. Coming from a peripatetic military life, Furman and Greenville were the closest things I’ve ever had to a hometown. In that light, news of the President’s planned visit inspired pride: my University was always a place of excellence, and it is at last getting its due.

A full disclosure is in order: I worked for George W. Bush from 2001 through 2004. This is not as remarkable as it may sound: thousands of others can claim the same. I was a Schedule C political appointee — selected ostensibly by the President, but really by the White House personnel office, to perform tasks in the Executive Branch. For just under four years, I wrote speeches for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, first on domestic issues, and finally on international affairs.

Depending upon your perspective, then, I am either a public servant or a right-wing operative. What I am not is an unalloyed fan of the President. Having served in the Administration and seen the policy process firsthand, I am well aware of its shortcomings, its errors, and its flaws. Having had classmates from the Furman Army ROTC battalion killed and grievously wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am also well aware of the terrible human cost of this Administration’s policies. The injured and the dead were better men than me, and so their loss is an especial blow to our society and country.

All of this is preface: though I believe history will judge this Presidency more kindly than popular opinion does now, I understand and appreciate those who disagree. They are our friends, our family, and yes, our former teachers.

Those who disagree include the members of the Furman University faculty who are dismayed at the President’s imminent visit. They number approximately 220, to judge from the signatures on their cloyingly named “(W)e Object” petition at the University’s website. Furman alumni will note the names and understand most of them — there is always a cadre of professors in any school that cannot resist a good, public display of self-promoting righteousness, especially when there’s media involved.

Other, more surprising names on the petition present themselves as probable cases of departmental peer pressure, which reveal much about academia’s state. The departments that produce few graduates who work in their field per se — English, Philosophy, Religion — are overrepresented. The department that actually deals directly with politics, Political Science, is wholly unrepresented. This is not to say that the Political Science faculty at Furman supports the President. It assuredly does not. It is nonetheless noteworthy that the professors with the strongest grasp of the issues at hand in the President’s visit choose to steer clear of their peers’ politicized emoting.

What we see at Furman University now, in this fracas, is not a case of left versus right, but of the adult versus the juvenile. It is painful to arrive at this conclusion, loving my alma mater as I do, and having had no small part of my own juvenilia corrected there. Yet it is inescapable: the declared rationale of the Furman faculty of “(W)e Object,” set against the facts, reveals a professorial group motivated not so much by politics as by love of self — and tragically unable to distinguish between the two.

Like dramatic heroines in a Victorian penny dreadful, the Furman faculty of “(W)e Object” declare that they must protest the President’s visit because — well, because they have policy disagreements with him. In their minds, these policy disagreements elide into moral differences, and the result is an inability to display the most basic value necessary to the modern university: tolerance.

These professors present themselves as latter-day Cincinnati of Greenville, reluctantly abandoning their plows to serve the greater good. “[W]e accept our civic responsibility to speak out against [the President’s] actions,” intones their petition. The litany of those actions is drearily familiar: Iraq, domestic surveillance, global warming, and — rather incredibly — “reckless over-spending” and “expanding the reach of national government into local affairs.” (Suffice it to say that I recall a silence on those last two during the Clinton years.)

One might assume, then, that the student leadership of the Furman class of 2008, which unanimously approved the invitation to the President, is completely unaware of these things. Or, one might assume that these students are aware, but do not especially care about issues on which 220 of their professors suffer the most grave impetus toward “civic responsibility.” It is now up to the Furman faculty of “(W)e Object” to step in and rectify the moral and factual gaps left by four years under their own tutelage.

Whether this is irony or tragedy is irrelevant: it is damning.

The truth is that Furman’s students are quite aware of their nation, their President, and the critiques of both. They are also aware that they must live in a pluralistic society, simultaneously undergirded by common values and enriched by different ideas. They understand that in our Constitutional order, the American Presidency is an august office regardless of its occupant, and deserves respect as such. Finally, they know that a thought does not demand to be uttered merely because it exists — they know that there is a time and a place for someone else’s protest, and that their day is not it.

Dan Hoover of the Greenville News proposed that the students of Furman are more “conservative” than their faculty. This strikes me as doubtful, but even if true, it does not explain the discrepancy between Furman’s students and their teachers now. There are plenty of leftist, anti-Bush students in the Furman class of 2008. The reality — at once hopeful for our country, and unfortunate for Furman — is that when the President speaks on May 31st, the wisest, and indeed most adult members of the audience will be the young men and women about to leave the University forever.

This piece originally appeared in a severely edited form in the Greenville News here, on 24 May 2008.

Featured Articles — May 28, 2008

May 28, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes from Home and Abroad:

An Unwanted League By Thomas Carothers
A proposed League of Democracies looks a lot like a league of our own.

The Problem With Talking to Iran By Amir Taheri
In a report released this week, the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed “serious concern” that the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to conceal details of its nuclear weapons program, even as it defies U.N. demands to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

Iran’s Failed ‘Litmus Test’ By Washington Post Editors
Will there be consequences for Tehran’s stonewalling of U.N. nuclear inspectors?

Truth or Consequences By Thomas Friedman
Imagine for a minute, just a minute, that someone running for president was able to actually tell the truth, the real truth, to the American people about what would be the best — I mean really the best — energy policy for the long-term economic health and security of our country. I realize this is a fantasy, but play along with me for a minute.

Income Inequality in the NFL By Steven Malanga
Owners in the National Football League made news last week when they decided to opt out of the final years of their collective bargaining agreement with the players’ union. Complaining that they are being squeezed by rising costs, league owners want, among other things, to institute a cap on salaries paid to rookies and to extend the period of time a player must remain with one team in order to end what they say is a growing disparity of salaries among players.

Hillary Agonistes: Don’t Count Every Vote? By Rich Lowry
During the 2000 election controversy, Democrats brayed “count every vote” in Florida and discounted George Bush’s eventual victory in the Electoral College because he lost the national popular vote to Al Gore. Hillary Clinton has to yearn for the return of that Democratic Party of yore.

Fiorina Buttresses McCain on Economy, Touting Tax Cuts, Trade By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan
John McCain’s own admission, the economy isn’t his strong suit. The ace up his sleeve may be a polished corporate executive ranked six times as the U.S.’s most powerful businesswoman, who’s also among the most controversial.

Week Trade Week By Philip I. Levy
The number of U.S. politicians willing to speak clearly and forthrightly about free trade is depressingly small.

Punxsutawney Condi By Wall Street Journal Editors
On Monday, the International Atomic Energy Agency released yet another report expressing alarm over Iran’s lack of cooperation and candor on its nuclear programs. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice immediately warned that Iran could face more sanctions, while the European Union’s Javier Solana announced another trip to Tehran to see if another dozen or so carrots might induce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to stop enriching uranium.

South Africa’s Immigration Shame By James Kirchick
Zimbabweans deserve better from their ANC brothers.

The Rich Get Hungrier By Amartya Sen
The global food problem is not being caused by a falling trend in world production, it is the result of accelerating demand.

Real Intelligence Men Don’t Cry By Eric Rosenbach
Intelligence officers and analysts have tough jobs. But they shouldn’t complain.

McGovernland

May 27, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Bush Administration, Iraq War, Vietnam | Leave a Comment 

Sen. McCain is making progress hammering Sen. Obama on foreign policy and Iraq. Inviting his junior colleague on a teaching tour was a masterstroke. As he bested hecklers who tried to interrupt his speech in Denver today — vowing calmly but firmly, “I will never surrender in Iraq” — his resolve may have resonated with a higher percentage of Americans than many commentators would have us think.

While there haven’t been many polls on Iraq lately, a post-surge Pew Research Center survey released in mid-March showed that 53% of those asked believed that the U.S. will achieve its goals in Iraq, up from 42% last September. Since the situation on the ground has improved since the Pew poll was taken in late February, presumably the approval numbers have as well. So while Obama’s promise of an early U.S. withdrawal has played well to his massive primary-season audiences, it won’t necessarily help him in the general election if support for the war holds firm or increases. As “Politico” reported on March 12,

Democrats’ resolute support for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces may soon position them at odds with independent voters, in particular, a constituency they need to retake the White House. Half of self-identified independents polled now believe the United States should “keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized,” according to polling data assembled by Pew at Politico’s request.

A November 1972 Gallup poll showed that 59% of respondents supported landslide reelection winner President Nixon’s conduct of the Vietnam War — not unlike that 52% on Iraq. What complicates the picture for both 2008 candidates is that the war and its author have taken leave of one another in the public’s mind. According to a university poll, 67% of Americans disapprove of President Bush’s handling of Iraq. So a slim majority think we’ll win while a larger majority think President Bush is a loser. Theirs is an ungenerous assessment, but politics is politics. Hence Obama’s endlessly repeated talking point — “McCain is running for Bush’s third term” — and McCain’s ritualistic denunciation of Bush’s first SecDef, Donald Rumsfeld, for his tactics during the war’s early years.

By continuing to drive home his message on the war, McCain could drive Obama permanently from the high ground, especially if enemy attacks and U.S. casualties continue on their current downward trends. Indeed Obama’s deepest vulnerability is appearing to be naively (or, worse, opportunistically) resistant to the possibility that the U.S. will win. If by the fall our position appears stronger than it did in Vietnam in 1972, and McCain successfully makes the case that he would be a vigorous, winning commander-in-chief, Obama may end up in McGovernland.

Ovation Deleted

May 27, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, International Affairs, News media | Leave a Comment 

Interested in the story of Sen. McCain being heckled today during his University of Denver speech? If you want to hear just the hecklers while the candidate stands there sheepishly, saying nothing, check out the “Huffington Post” version. If you want to see who won the day, namely the candidate, watch the full version here. At 7:20, McCain says, “I’ll never surrender in Iraq, my friends, I’ll never surrender,” receiving a thunderous ovation.

Breaking News….Or Not

May 27, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under News media | Leave a Comment 

Here’s some news just posted (6.49 pm EST) on a European blog —the London Spectator— that is, depending on your point of view and politics, at the very least semi-respectable:

The Dubai-based satellite TV channel Al Arabiya is reporting that Osama Bin Laden has been “located” by US intelligence in the Kararakoram – a mountain range that spans the borders of Pakistan, the Kashmir and China (K2 is one of its peaks). There was a high-level meeting last week in Doha including General Petraeus, the recently-nominated Commander of US Central Command, and it is reasonable to speculate that – if there is truth to the report – it flows from this piece of intelligence. Whether the latest rumours about the tracking down of OBL have foundation will quickly become apparent. If they do have substance, Al Arabiya will have scored a huge world scoop – and have its rival Al Jazeera spitting nails.

If anything comes of this, be sure to remember where you read it first. And if nothing comes of this, then, as Emily Litella would have put it, never mind.

And Speaking Of Roger Stone….

May 27, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Here’s a provocative review of Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland from RS’s stonezone blog:

A new book by Rick Perlstein traces the period between Lyndon Johnson’s triumphant 1964 victory in the near universal belief that there was a national Liberal consensus, through the tumult and upheaval of the ’60’s to the remarkable comeback of Richard Nixon. Perlstein’s book is not a biography, but more importantly, a correct analysis that the purposeful polarization of the American electorate in 1968 which later elected Ronald Reagan and defeated Jimmy Carter, as well as electing George H. W. Bush and the current President. Perlstein makes a persuasive argument that these cleavages exist and affect our politics today.

Nixon understood that politics was about addition in that you had to galvanize those who shared your values, resentments and anger to reach a governing majority by winning an election.

But Nixon also understood the human psychology that makes it easier to get people to vote against something than for something, which means politics is also about division. It’s us again them, the Elites, the Government, the privileged, the Ivy Leaguers, Liberals on the US Supreme Court, those to the manor born who inherit. Nixon rallied the strivers, the small business men who was getting screwed by the big corporations, the little people who paid their taxes, served in the military, belonged to the Rotary and didn’t burn their draft card.

It is the politics of resentment. Sadly lost in the ashes of Watergate is the incredible cunning and political skill with which Nixon understood these currents of upheaval and successfully navigated them. The urban race riots, dissatisfaction with the Vietnam War and suburban resentment of the excesses of liberal government social programs and a sense that the courts were more concerned about the rights of criminals than victims coupled with the murders of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. created a unique atmosphere which opened the door to Nixon’s comeback.

From Nixon’s defeat in the 1962 race for Governor of California and his valedictory outburst at the press that you “won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore” to his inauguration as President in1969 is a period of only six years. It is Nixon’s savvy reading and manipulation of events that make this account all the more interesting.

Perlstein has a historian’s eye for colorful detail and little known facts. The characters of the era, Angela Davis, Ronald Reagan, Eldridge Cleaver, Sam Yorty, Hubert Humphrey and H. Rap Brown do literally come alive in Perlstein’s telling.

As someone who has read every existing biography of Nixon in the English language, I can assure you that this book is not biography, yet no one can truly understand Nixon without reading it.

Stone Cold Roger Stone

May 27, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Roger Stone has cut a colorful and controversial swath through certain wide segments of the American political scene since he started out as a teenager working for RN in 1972. He has been the man some loved, the man some loved to hate, and the man some just hated outright (and not unlike his mentor in that regard). His major magazine profiles —from Jacob Weisberg’s “The State of the Art Sleazeball” and Wayne Barrett’s “Sleeping With the GOP ” through Matt Labash’s “Roger Stone, Political Animal”— have shared a most common denominator of fascinated repulsion.

Now we have the latest in that line, Jeffrey Toobin’s “The Dirty Trickster” in this week’s New Yorker. You can count on two things. Because it’s by Toobin it will be interesting and insightful; and, because it involves Roger Stone, it will never be boring. Several thousand words later both expectations have been generously fulfilled. (And yes — the accompanying photograph moves the question “what was he thinking?” to entirely new levels.)

The piece opens at Miami Velvet, a member’s only swinger’s club. It was here, amidst the stripper poles, that began what RS claims is his small but not unimportant part in the downfall of his longtime nemesis, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.

RS, having introduced himself as a dentist, was chatting with a possibly off-duty prostitute (these are exactly the kinds of details with which so many Stone stories begin) who told him that she had almost dated the Empire State’s chief executive. Like a pit bull scenting a pork chop, RS pursued the topic and later learned an irresistible detail: Mr. Spitzer’s preferred romp mode was wearing only his calf-high black socks. Before long, RS’s lawyer had supplied this vital information to the FBI —which was independently investigating some of Mr. Spitzer’s unexplained cash transfers— and the rest is history of a sort.

For nearly forty years, Stone has hovered around Republican and national politics, both near the center and at the periphery. At times, mostly during the Reagan years, he was a political consultant and lobbyist who, in conventional terms, was highly successful, working for such politicians as Bob Dole and Tom Kean. Even then, though, Stone regularly crossed the line between respectability and ignominy, and he has become better known for leading a colorful personal life than for landing big-time clients. Still, it is no coincidence that Stone materialized in the midst of the Spitzer scandal—and that he had memorable cameos in the last two Presidential elections. While the Republican Party usually claims Ronald Reagan as its inspiration, Stone represents the less discussed but still vigorous legacy of Richard Nixon, whose politics reflected a curious admixture of anti-Communism, social moderation, and tactical thuggery. Stone believes that Nixonian hardball, more than sunny Reaganism, is John McCain’s only hope for the Presidency.

Mr. Toobin’s interpretation of the role Richard Nixon played in RS’s life and times is very much in tune with the current conventional wisdom as expressed by Rick Perlstein in Nixonland and George Packer in last week’s New Yorker (about which more anon): that RN was nerd-in-chief whose career is explained as achieving revenge for himself and all the other nerds who could be convinced or tricked into voting for him.

Like Messrs. Perlstein and Packer, Mr. Toobin, hamstrung by his determination to make everything conform to a wrong-headed template, misses the point but still manages to get a lot of things right:

It was Stone’s preoccupation with toughness that led to his enduring affection for Nixon. “The reason I’m a Nixonite is because of his indestructibility and resilience,” Stone said. “He never quit. His whole career was all built around his personal resentment of élitism. It was the poor-me syndrome. John F. Kennedy’s father bought him his House seat, his Senate seat, and the Presidency. No one bought Nixon anything. Nixon resented that. He was very class-conscious. He identified with the people who ate TV dinners, watched Lawrence Welk, and loved their country.” (Rule: “When I hear the word ‘culture,’ I reach for my revolver.”)

Although Stone shares many of Nixon’s resentments, his own tastes have always tended to more Rabelaisian pleasures than “champagne music” and Salisbury steak. Not long ago, Stone went to the Ink Monkey tattoo shop in Venice Beach and had a portrait of Nixon’s face applied to his back, right below the neck. “Women love it,” Stone said.

Nixon recognized the effectiveness of anti-élitism—a staple of American campaigns even today—as a core message. “Everybody talks about the Reagan Democrats who helped put the Republican Party over the top, but they were really the Nixon Democrats. The exodus of working-class people from the Democratic Party was started by Nixon. The realignment was delayed by Watergate, but it was really Nixon who figured out how to win,” Stone said. “We had a non-élitist message. We were the party of the workingman! We wanted lower taxes for everyone, across the board. They were the party of the Hollywood élite.” Stone went on, “The point that the Democrats missed was that the people who weren’t rich wanted to be rich. And Jimmy Carter was viewed as an appeaser.” (Rule: “The Democrats are the party of slavery; the Republicans are the party of freedom.”)

Now that’s an important home truth that needs telling these days: it was RN who conceived and executed the first phases of the national realignment of parties that completely changed the coalition that FDR had forged in the early ‘30s — and that is still being played out today in 2008.

Roger’s contradictory qualities were right upfront the first time I met him in the early 1980s. I was a friend and colleague of his wonderful wife Ann (who is no longer his wife but is still wonderful) with whom I had been working in the Viguerie vineyards. The occasion was a birthday party for Roy Cohn at Regine’s disco on Park Avenue in New York. This was, at that time, the epicenter of international highjinks and highlife.

When I was introduced to RS, I thought that here, at least, would an ally in an alien world of caberet society and what everybody was still too impressed to call eurotrash. In an earlier incarnation I had worked for Senator John Heinz, and RS’s snarled greeting was the observation that “John Heinz is just like his ketchup. Thick, rich, and red.” From that unpromising beginning an unlikely friendship of sorts has now spanned a quarter- century.

Roger is, like scotch and camembert, an acquired taste that is not for everyone. He’s a genuine eccentric, a connoisseur but not a snob, a dandy but not a fop, and, truth be told, a lovable rogue — a political type that was more prevalent, more accepted, and more affectionately embraced in earlier times before politics was homogenized by the double whammies of nonstop media coverage and political correctness.

Here’s a chance to see Roger at work — a well-edited selection from his remarks at a Reason magazine gathering last November:

Lebanon Falls

May 27, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under War on Terror | Leave a Comment 

Now Hezbollah and Syria are calling the shots. Can you say occupation?:

Amid the excitement of the latest events – including the announcement of negotiations with Syria and the developments in the latest Olmert corruption scandal – not enough attention was paid to the most significant event of last week: the fall of Lebanon in oil-rich Qatar.

In negotiations that took place under the sponsorship of the Qatari ruler, the Lebanese government surrendered to the demands of Hizbullah and Syria: the pro-Syrian military chief General Michel Suleiman was nominated for the presidency, Hizbullah would appoint a third of cabinet ministers (11 out of 30), Fuad Saniora would no longer remain prime minister, and Hizbullah’s demands for the renewed division of voting areas so as to enhance its parliament representation in the next election was also approved.

Under Lebanese law, a third of government ministers have veto power on every decision. The moment 11 ministers are Hizbullah members, every decision made in Lebanon has to first be approved by Teheran and Damascus.

What brought all parties to the negotiating table in Qatar was the latest round of violence in Beirut and northern Lebanon initiated by Hizbullah, which led to the deaths of dozens of citizens. Iranian terror in the region was victorious once again.

Waiting In The (West) Wings?

May 27, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party, Presidents | Leave a Comment 

As a counterpoint to Frank Gannon’s post about (perhaps premature) celebrations of the eclipsing of familiar names and faces from the Clinton years, a helpful AP primer on the crew that has helped bring Sen. Obama to the brink of the Democratic nomination. Only erstwhile Clinton (and Nixon) advisor Anthony Lake is immediately familiar. Campaign manager David Plouffe, described as “averse to the limelight,” was lucky recently when he didn’t get a limelight creme pie in his face for saying the racists were already for Sen. McCain. Key strategist David Axelrod is a former newspaperman. Advisor Valerie Jarrett, who “has known the Obamas since before they were married,” sounds like the Mack McLarty of the piece. Robert Gibbs, a frank-talking southerner, is communications director. These names may (or may not) go household beginning next November and then remain with us for a generation or more, as we realized on the death of Hamilton Jordan following his heroic battle against cancer and as Henry A. Kissinger’s continued near-dominance of foreign policy debates demonstrates.

Ubiquitous. Inevitable. And, Now, Over?

May 27, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

In an anticipatory valedictory —“The era of big Clintons is soon over”— AP writer Calvin Woodward reflects on the imminent departure of a dynasty from the American political scene. Of course, because Clintons are involved, the rumors of their demise may be seriously premature.

Many among us haven’t known —or at least aren’t old enough to remember— a Clintonless time: “One quarter of Americans have never known life without a Clinton trying for or having the presidency. Millions have gone from diapers to diplomas in the time of the Clintons.”

Mr. Woodward guides a quick tour through the highlights and lowlife of the Clintonite period:

Dial back to Bill Clinton’s two terms and a few big achievements and various smaller ones stand out: unsurpassed economic growth, a balanced budget, welfare reform, free trade, a Middle East peace agreement, gun control, more money for police on the street, the first Cabinet without white men in the majority.

Here was a man who could wear people out talking about the fine points of policy while owning up to his choice of underwear.

Another legacy was the transcendent His and Hers failure: universal health care. The complex, secretively drawn plan to achieve that goal was sent to and killed by a Democratic Congress, no less.

And there were the scandals, His and Hers.

They are known, in brief, as: Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Whitewater, the White House travel office firings, White House coffees and Lincoln bedroom stays for donors, FBI background files on Republicans, missing documents and the presidential pardon of a fugitive friend.

The episodes involving women were his. Most of the others were theirs or hers.

Some will find this even this brief trip down memory lane exhilarating; others will just be reminded how exhausting that dynamic duo has been.

Either way, Mr. Woodward pulls his biggest punch. As he points out, even if Senator Obama wins the nomination and has the audacity to choose another running mate, the Clintons will only be gone but not forgotten; temporarily down but not out. Hillary Clinton could return to being a powerhouse senator or resurface as the next Supreme Court nominee. And in both 2012 and 2016, she will be younger than John McCain is right now.

We Are Safer

May 27, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under War on Terror | Leave a Comment 

In countering Obama’s sentiments that Iraq “hasn’t made us safer,” John Hinderaker of Powerline chronicles the rise and decline in terrorist attacks against Americans. Watch the trend after 2003, that is on the heels of the invasion of Iraq.

A rise in the 80’s and 90’s culminating to 9/11 and its aftermath:

1988
February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.

December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.

1991
November: American University in Beirut bombed.

1993
January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.

February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.

1995
January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden’s plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.

November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.

1996
June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.

June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.

1997
February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.

November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.

1998
January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.

August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.

1999
October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled “Allahu Akbar!” as he steered the airplane into the ocean.

2000
October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001
September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

December: Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber,” tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.

The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden’s cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:

2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam’s government.

2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.

October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.

A rapid decline after the first year in Iraq:

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

« Previous Page — Next Page »