A Blast in the Northeast; The Disloyal Opposition
Don't know about you, Goober, but up here in New York City we sure could use a blast of that global warming right about now. I despise the Northeast's climate. Growing up on Long Island, it was fun. Snowball fights, igloos, sledding, leaves changing colors in the fall, Indian (pardon me, "Native American") summer, daffodils and azaleas in the spring and stretches of sweltering heat in July, August and September. But I've had my fill.
Last week was so frigid that three layers of woolens were necessary just to make a two-minute walk to the deli. And on my block, one day, making matters worse, there was a film crew hogging the sidewalk, acting like they owned the real estate. The same old ritual: "grips," important for one day, telling you to cross the street because of their vital work. That this production will star Robin Williams, Danny DeVito and Edward Norton (something about killing "Smoochy") only heightened the crew's obnoxious behavior. As always, you just give these kids the finger and move along, but when it's below freezing and ice patches dot the pavement, who needs it?
I'm 45, so if I'm lucky there's almost half a lifetime ahead. I'd gladly swap the majestic procession of the seasons for a static, almost-never-rains, warm environment where the thermometer rarely dips below 50 and mostly hovers in the 75-90-degree range. Mrs. M disagrees completely, but she grew up in Los Angeles, where the thought of a white Christmas really was just a dream. Trouble is, I can't think of another city in the United States where I'd rather live, save Miami. Boston's too cold, liberal and provincial. Chicago's flat and even more intemperate, and is populated by an intelligentsia that's saddled by New York-envy. Houston, Dallas and Phoenix are weather-friendly, but they're not really cities with a capital C?it's almost impossible to hail a cab in those places, and there are too many malls. Great grub, though.
And I'd rather reside in Washington, DC than move to L.A. or San Francisco. A bit of hyperbole, but you get the drift.
Back to the global warming scam. At the risk of sounding like a flat-earther, I don't really give two hoots about what condition this planet is in 1000 years from now. It seems to me that all the bloviating, university white papers and money could be put to better use in hiring more cops to ferret out the environmental crazies. You know, the friends of the Earth who are setting fire to new houses out on the Island and upstate. Today's Weatherman, perhaps banking on a pardon from Chelsea Clinton in 40 years.
And the affluent "progressives" on the Upper West Side are complaining about a grownup like Gale Norton?
Finally, at least some Democrats are realizing that the disgust felt by law-abiding Americans for the Clintons wasn't "just about sex." The shabbiness of the former President's transition?the pardons, the thievery, the vandalism, the graft (Hillary's housewarming registry), the relaxing of lobby restrictions, Jack Quinn, the Riady deal, just for starters?is unlike anything this country has seen since the Harding era. And that's probably unfair to Harding.
I wonder how junior historian Douglas Brinkley feels now about the op-ed he contributed to The New York Times on Dec. 21. It was an upbeat essay on the passing of power at the White House. Everyone was a hero: Al Gore, George and Laura Bush and the Clintons. Incredibly, Brinkley notes: "But it's President Clinton who has truly set the proper tone."
He continues: "Since Election Day, Mr. Clinton has reassured foreign countries about the inherent stability of our government, assiduously stayed out of the partisan fray, and brought appropriate touches of light humor to the Florida recount charade. He has behaved, well, downright presidentially. Critics may mock him for always feeling our pain and feigning atonement, but for the past six weeks he has been a steadying force. As the transition proceeds, we can be grateful that Mr. Clinton, unlike some of his predecessors, seems to be keeping both national unity and good manners in mind."
I'd say that gibberish was worthy of Geraldo or Lanny Davis, what about you?
Despite Clinton's hayseed departure from office, some holdouts in the Democratic Party and media still insist he'll be the shadow president. I don't believe this. Sure, he'll rake in $10 million or so from a starstruck publisher for a book deal, in which he'll reveal nothing truthful or germane about his presidency. And it's possible the country's Narcissist Laureate might still be a fundraising draw in the minority communities. But as time passes, so will his celebrity. As a private citizen he won't have a squad of spinners to successfully mask his criminal behavior. A number of Democrats are thinking about their own future and won't need Clinton's help: Sen. John Edwards (at this very early juncture, the smartest pick to challenge Bush in 2004), John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and the smarmy Joe Biden will distance themselves from the Oval Office reign of the 90s.
In the coming year, look for a spate of kiss 'n' tell bestsellers from Clinton aides who are no longer threatened by retribution from the former First Couple. You won't get juice from Bill and Hillary, but Sid Blumenthal?once a rat, always a rat?is bound to spill some beans in his upcoming tome. Yes, it'll be self-serving?these "inside accounts" usually are?but Blumenthal knows where a lot of bodies are buried. He's no longer employable as a journalist?unless Salon, if it's still in business, takes him on?but the creep is an actual writer who has some scores to settle and the desire to make a living. If a publisher says, "Deliver the dirt on the Clinton administration and we'll pay you X dollars," does anyone doubt that Sid will whip up a manuscript by the Fourth of July?
And what about all the other Clintonites who stood loyally by the President, incurring legal bills to save his skin? Just as George Stephanopoulos cashed out almost two years ago, becoming the First Survivor, you know that ghostwriters are currently being interviewed by victims-by-choice such as Janet Reno, Donna Shalala, Robert Bennett, Betty Currie, Maggie Williams, Joe Lockhart and probably a few White House maids and butlers. Granted, many of these books will have a patina of loyalty, and will contain many chapters on the "achievements" of the past eight years, but there are more than enough mudpiles of unsavory details about this administration to go around.
I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for Sen. John McCain. Despite the media's continued adoration, the shameless attention-hog has clearly been rolled by the Bush administration over his campaign finance reform bill. Deservedly so. Still, the Senator doesn't appear to be in the best of health, and hasn't the stamina to put up the fight he promised just last month. His bill, McCain thundered, would be the first legislation put before the new Congress, so help him God! Never mind that most Americans don't really care about how elections are financed?as long as they don't have to foot the tab?and that even those who are inclined to support McCain's efforts are now more concerned with electoral reform.
Typically, a Jan. 27 New York Times editorial proved McCain's enduring allure among journalists. (Once again, it's in the Times' interest for a First-Amendment-busting bill to pass, since it'll give the media even more clout than it already has.) The edit read: "Senator John McCain's hard-line insistence on an early debate and vote for campaign finance reform paid off yesterday when Trent Lott agreed to a quick timetable for consideration of the McCain-Feingold bill. A surprise accord between Mr. McCain and Mr. Lott, the majority leader, calls for the legislation to be considered in late March."
How naive. McCain has backed down from his threat to disrupt Bush's first weeks in office; wasn't given the one-on-one audience with the President he'd requested; and has Trent Lott giving a nebulous okay for consideration of the bill in March. Guess what? A lot will happen between now and then, and suddenly the McCain-Feingold bill will be either put on the back burner or given a quick face-saving thumbs-up. There's no way Bush is going to sign McCain's current bill, watered-down as it is, and I'm sure the Arizona senator knows that.
This feel-good harmony that Lott's trotting out to a myopic media is a bunch of baloney. He's simply placating McCain and getting him off the front pages. Smart move. Is it possible that Lott is finally, after a disastrous run as Majority Leader, starting to stiffen up and act like a true conservative?
Hey! The first week of GWB's administration was a lot of fun. I'm certain there will be plenty to whack the Texan on in the coming months?already, his chumminess with Teddy Kennedy, while politically expedient, is hard to digest?but I've got no complaints so far. What's most satisfying, however, is the angst of the affluent (and white) populist pundits who still can't believe that Bush is president.
Let's keep it short and just go to the most hilarious column I've read so far this year. Eric Alterman, a hypocrite beyond redemption, was quite distraught in his Nation contribution of Feb. 12. A mere sliver here, but it's a whopper: "As the proverbial curtain rises on the Bush era in national politics, it's hard to know just how pessimistic progressives should be about the new President's aims and intentions. On a rhetorical level, we were greeted with an inaugural address that with a few minor adjustments could have been given by an incoming president of the NAACP. Look at the substance, however, and we find nominees at the Justice and Interior Departments who could have been vetted by the John Birch Society, if not the Army of the Confederacy."
Alterman's slander is hardly jarring, but does require a brief rejoinder. The NAACP, in its current incarnation, ought to be disbanded and reassembled as an organization that is truly dedicated to helping black people instead of lashing them with the whip of demagoguery. When Kweisi Mfume sanctioned the James Byrd advertisement last fall, which effectively accused Bush of murder, he should've been sacked. And when Jesse Jackson, who I assume still maintains ties with the NAACP, endorsed champion fundraiser Terry McAuliffe over Maynard Jackson for Democratic National Committee chairman, you know something's not kosher in a group that proposes to "advance colored people."
As for the constant dwelling on the Confederacy?and Alterman's hardly alone in this?have you ever, I mean ever, witnessed such last-ditch rhetorical foaming in a political debate? John Ashcroft gave a rather innocuous interview to Southern Partisan magazine, and suddenly he's Johnny Reb. It wasn't long ago, as I recall, that Robert E. Lee was considered an American hero, despite fighting for the South. In addition, until last February, when a then-Southern Partisan editor named Richard Quinn surfaced as an adviser and contributor to John McCain, I'd wager that less than two percent of Congress and the media had even heard of the publication.
Later in the column, Alterman described a recent Republican roundtable in New York, featuring The Weekly Standard's David Brooks (of Bobo fame, a catch-phrase he's flogging as ardently as Gail Sheehy did her Passages a generation ago) and Dinesh D'Souza of the American Enterprise Institute. He throws in a wholly gratuitous dig at the "nicely Republican red-meat repast," as if all "progressives" were vegetarians. Alterman saves most of his invective for Reagan-biographer D'Souza, calling Brooks a "liberal Republican" who doesn't belong in a political party that includes?two guesses?Tom DeLay and Dick Armey. Actually, that's a dumb call, for as obnoxious as I find Brooks' writing, he was an enthusiastic supporter of McCain, who could hardly be classified as a "liberal Republican."
But still, Alterman chastises Brooks for his book Bobos in Paradise. He writes: "There are no poor people in the Bobo world [sort of like at The Nation]?even illegal Guatemalan nannies are treated as if they are taking care of your children and cleaning your bathroom as a lifestyle choice rather than out of economic necessity."
This is absurd. As Alterman ought to know, members of the first wave of immigrants coming, by their own choice, to the United States don't immediately land positions as, say, pundits for MSNBC or The Nation. Throughout the country's history, immigrants have worked tirelessly in hopes of a better life for their children; it's called the American Dream. Jews, Irish, Poles, Asians, Pakistanis, etc.?all these groups have assimilated, or are in the process of assimilating, themselves into the country's infrastructure. If Alterman gets dewy-eyed seeing a Guatemalan earn real money (sans taxes) either taking care of children or cleaning a house, that's his problem.
Now, if only Jesse Jackson, Kweisi Mfume, Maxine Waters and their ilk would let a new generation of black leaders?men and women who know that Selma was more than a generation ago?take control, the United States would benefit enormously.