Al Hunt Down in the Gutter; World Series Notes; Dizzy Mo Dowd; Times Mischief

Hunt Down in the Gutter

The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt, an affable fixture of the Permanent Media in Washington, DC, is a goo-goo liberal whose columns are usually merely irritating, sort of like those of his Capital Gang colleagues Margaret Carlson and Mark Shields. He's invariably wrong on the issues of the day, but isn't in the same league as truly pernicious pundits such as The New Yorker's Jane Mayer, the Times' Paul Krugman or Newsday's Robert Reno. In other words, it's easy to read Hunt's weekly pap on Thursday mornings and just shrug instead of chewing your liver for five minutes.

Hunt wandered off the benign cocktail-party reservation last week, however, with a venomous piece headlined "Republicans on the Defensive at Home." He first indulged in some premature gloating about the likely victories of Democrats Mark Warner and Jim McGreevey (gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively), making the somewhat preposterous claim?given the unique political dynamics of the next year?that wins in both those states will "energize the party in recruiting candidates and raising money for the congressional elections next year." Hedging his bets, Hunt didn't speculate on New York's mayoral contest, where ersatz-Republican Mike Bloomberg has a shot at knocking off perennial candidate Mark Green?largely because of Bloomberg's barrage of tv commercials featuring Rudy Giuliani's endorsement and the in-fighting that's plagued NYC Democrats all fall. At the center of that controversy?and Culprit Number One should Green lose?is self-appointed world diplomat Al Sharpton.

(I have the disadvantage of writing a day before the three elections and haven't a clue about the outcomes, although I suspect one of the three Republicans?Mark Earley (VA), Bret Schundler (NJ) or Bloomberg?will salvage the off-year elections for the GOP. The least likely victor, unfortunately, is Schundler, a political casualty of Sept. 11. A charismatic politician who's consistently defied the odds, Schundler hasn't received the necessary national Republican support?neither in funds nor in even one appearance in Jersey with President Bush?to pull off the upset that seemed possible last August. Bush, who went to Yankee Stadium last week, could've indulged in partisan politics, as FDR did during World War II, for at least one evening without sacrificing his moral high ground.)

Hunt then meanders into the current political turf battles in Washington, as the sham of bipartisanship has thankfully been put to rest. It's silly enough that the columnist portrays Bush, on the domestic front, as a captive of the "narrow right-wing ideology" of congressional Republicans, but then he gets downright nasty about the President's ability to wage the war abroad. He writes: "[T]he private view now held by more and more Democrats [John Kerry and Joe Biden, perhaps?]?and a handful of Republicans [John McCain? Duh.]?is that Mr. Bush is a figurehead leader in this effort, and largely clueless with regards to a long-term strategy."

That's quite a statement from the mild-mannered Hunt. On the contrary, I believe Bush, far from being a "figurehead," is coming on a little too strong: all this hype, gobbled up by reporters in the first month of the conflict, that the war is his "calling" is spreading the peanut butter a little too thick. In addition, let's stop with the Shakespeare analogies. The Washington Times' Suzanne Fields was the most recent, but surely not the last, to lazily fall into this trap. On Nov. 1, she wrote: "The president has an extraordinary opportunity to show himself to be like Shakespeare's Prince Hal, the young royal who became King Henry V. Prince Hal, like George W. the former frat boy, enjoyed carousing with fun fellows, his drinking and sporting companions, but when he was called on to take reins of power, he put away his childish things."

In any case, Bush may not have a "long-term strategy"?did Roosevelt in 1941??but just as the elitists who dominate the media stupidly believed last year that Bush was snoozing in Crawford while James Baker took control during the Florida recount battle, this President is calling the shots. If he were truly a bystander, Colin Powell would still be talking about halting the bombing of Afghanistan during Ramadan and trying to recruit a few "moderate" Taliban leaders to flip to the other side when whatever hash of a government is finally installed in that pitiful country.

Hunt then goes for the cheap shot when anticipating last Thursday's GOP victory in the House on the issue of airport safety. He savages Tom DeLay and Dick Armey for the crime of fighting against federalizing security forces, a stance that Bush agrees with. He writes: "Politically, the two Texans [DeLay and Armey] are doing the bidding for the private airport-security forces that have done such an atrocious job. Ideologically, they hyperventilate about adding federal unionized workers; union members somehow wouldn't be as effective or dedicated, they suggest. During today's debate, maybe someone will ask these union-bashing right-wingers if union cards impaired the effectiveness or dedication of most of the 366 fireman and policeman who died on Sept. 11 while trying to rescue people from the World Trade Center."

I'm surprised he didn't include a few stanzas of "Joe Hill" to further embellish his tiresome tirade.

Using the slain firemen and cops as cover for his pro-union bias is shameless: those men were professionals who performed their job with honor, but the last thing this country needs is another layer of massive union bureaucracy. I mean no disrespect to workers who are handling mail these days, but the U.S. Postal Service is a disaster that should've been privatized years ago. Likewise, it's a national embarrassment that so many underqualified people are teaching in public schools; we can thank union protection for that.

In reality, the Senate and House bills aren't all that different. Both give President Bush broad authority to completely overhaul a flawed system that's allowed criminals and weapons to pass through metal detectors. The former was hastily passed 100-0 on Oct. 11 in an apparent effort to prove senators were actually doing something in the war against terrorism. The only real issue is that of federalization. Democrats and their media handmaidens insist that the current deployment of minimum-wage workers at airports is unacceptable. No argument here that the lackadaisical screeners at airports have to be replaced, or more strictly trained, so that the public overcomes its fear of flying. But isn't it ironic that demagogues like Dick Gephardt, champion of the "little guy," now belittle those in the lowest income bracket?the "burger flippers"?in favor of union employees?

Even The Washington Post, in a Nov. 3 editorial, recognizes that the controversy is unseemly. The writer said: "The House and Senate must now reconcile different approaches to airport security. Our sense is that the House has offered a reasonable formula, with its dedicated agency and mix of federal and private employees. There's no magic to a federal workforce, as mandated in the Senate bill... What matters now is quick passage of legislation to produce a highly trained, well-equipped force under an agency that is dedicated only to safety. The approaching holiday travel season demands a swift congressional agreement."

Hunt then moves on to the House's stimulus bill, which he characterizes as "a tax cut directed by K Street corporate lobbyists and the big campaign contributors." Newsweek's Jonathan Alter trumped even Hunt when he wrote on Oct. 25, "Acting piggish just now might not be burning the flag, but it's sure not respecting it either." Granted, the House version is larded with gratuitous breaks for corporations, but that's just presenting a strong offense in order to compromise with spendthrift Democrats. One of Tom DeLay's great strengths is that he's a tough negotiator; Bush, who got rolled on his education bill earlier this year, could use a few pointers from his fellow Texan.

This economy, while not in freefall, badly needs some juice. Accelerating the tax cuts?at all income levels?to Jan. 1 instead of years from now as in Bush's original bill, is essential to fiscal recovery. Congressional Democrats, engaging in typical class warfare designed to help them in next year's elections, are crying foul and will no doubt put up a fuss when this bill is also reconciled between the House and Senate, but it's likely that DeLay's offensive strategy will yield positive results.

An editorial in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal noted, in praising GOP Sen. Charles Grassley's alternative: "[L]iberals don't stress the proposal's economics; they attack its politics. They claim it helps 'the rich,' also known as entrepreneurs, also known as the people who create jobs for other people. Many of these 'rich' are small, so-called Subchapter S companies that pay the top individual tax rate because they are unincorporated. Treasury data from 1998, before the income boom of 1999-2000, showed that more than 750,000 tax returns paid the 39.6% top individual rate. Cutting their rate down to 33% next year will be a big economic lift."

Continuing his wacky rationale, Hunt tries to fool his readers (and maybe himself) into believing that the House stimulus bill will become law without the inevitable alterations. He writes: "Only seven House Republicans abstained from this non-stimulus outrage. Instructively, two of these defectors were Iowa's Greg Ganske and South Dakota's conservative John Thune, both of whom are running for the Senate next year and realize what an albatross this horrific bill could be. Moderates like Connecticut's Nancy Johnson, and freshmen like West Virginia's Shelley Capito who won narrowly last year, may come to regret that indefensible vote."

This is "piggish" grandstanding. When the 2002 congressional elections occur a year from now, no constituent will remember the House's bill, which is merely a blueprint; rather, who wins or loses will be determined by the country's economic health next fall, and, to a lesser extent, the progress of the war. Hunt is deceiving himself if he thinks that an October 2001 party-line vote in the House is going to make a damn bit of difference in whether the Democrats or Republicans prevail in the midterm elections.

The United States is not in a complacent cycle right now. A year from now so many news events, so many unimagined crises, will obscure any politically motivated squabbles in Congress. Already, Sept. 11 seems distant, the marker for a new era in the country. One can't even imagine how the political and cultural landscapes will look in the autumn of 2002.

Kim's Savior

Needless to say, I was delighted to see the Diamondbacks steal some of the Yankees' "aura and mystique" and win the World Series in the bottom of the ninth on Sunday night. It was a terrific seven games, certainly the most exciting I've ever witnessed, save the Sox-Reds matchup in 1975. As a lifelong Boston fan, I despise the Yankee franchise: George Steinbrenner is the pits, and he proved it once again this postseason with constant complaining about the calls of umpires. Even more galling were his comments shortly after Luis Gonzales won the championship with a bloop single off superstar Mariano Rivera. (Although I thought it was disgraceful that after the Snakes' pounding of the Yanks on Saturday night a few bars of "New York, New York" blasted from the loudspeakers in Phoenix's Bank One Ballpark. That ill-advised taunt was a poke in the eye to every New Yorker.)

In Monday's New York Post, George King wrote: "His eyes were moist and his heart broken, but George Steinbrenner promised the baseball world that his Yankees would bounce back from last night's Game 7 crushing loss to the Diamondbacks. 'It was a tough loss, one of the toughest,' The Boss said in the Yankees clubhouse... 'But we will be back. Mark that down, we will be back.'"

Back from what? The Yanks have been baseball's finest team for more than half a decade; they just completed a remarkable, almost eerie, postseason run, after sleepwalking their way all summer to finish first in the A.L. East. Steinbrenner will open his wallet, pick up two more high-profile free agents (while treating Tino Martinez like dirt after all he's contributed since '96) and wind up in the Series again.

You can't fight it.

I couldn't care less about the National League, and once the Bosox are eliminated every autumn my attention wanders and I'll wind up watching one or two Series games. Not this year: it's hard to explain, but the Diamondbacks' win took the edge off the 1986 infamous collapse of the Red Sox against the Mets. I was glued to the action?every inning?glad for the distraction from the gloomy news of the day.

But my favorite result of Arizona's stunning win was that 22-year-old Byung-Hyun Kim's career is no longer in jeopardy. It was painful to watch his reaction on Thursday night after he blew his second save in two nights, when Scott Brosius clobbered a home run in the bottom of the ninth. He certainly didn't intend it, but Rivera's unexpected breakdown on Sunday largely erased Kim's failure in the fourth and fifth games at the Stadium. Kim, who may be brilliant in years to come, had to take solace that Rivera, the best closer in baseball history, was also human. The religious Rivera, who has nothing to prove, gave Kim a gift that the young Korean will never forget. As Kim said Sunday night, "I came from hell to happiness!"

Dizzy Dowd

Just in case you don't read The Washington Times, on Oct. 31 columnist Tony Blankley ran an hilarious sendup of Maureen Dowd, its punch not diminished one iota by his former job as Newt Gingrich's articulate press secretary. He begins: "It seems the major media has put up with this war for long enough. For more than a month, commentators barely reported a discouraging word but in all that time the president couldn't organize a decisive victory. So it is time for the networks to endlessly replay the video of every civilian casualty of war?except those that occurred in New York on September 11. Of course, no media dance macabre would be complete without a hip, snickering column by the New York Times's diva of deprecation, Maureen Dowd."

Blankley's got a few years on me, so I'll let slide his description of Dowd's work as "hip": her attempts at biting humor are about as "hip" as a moldy REO Speedwagon song.

Blankley conjures up a Dowd dispatch from London in the summer of 1940: "Last night an overwrought Winston Churchill rambled on about fighting the Germans on the beaches, landing grounds, fields and hills. One can just imagine the chubby prime minister fighting 'Jerry' with a sword in one hand and a glass of champagne in the other. At least he didn't commit us to fight on Knightsbridge Street, where I plan to go shopping at Harrods tomorrow. The Germans are coming and I don't have a thing to wear.

"Winnie's mood swings are showing. Suddenly he is filled with despair, but only last month in his first BBC speech he promised us: 'I have invincible confidence in the French Army and its leaders.' Of course the editor at The Tattler told me that Churchill had finished-off an expensive bottle of Pol Roger champagne before that speech. He knows his French wine, but not his French Army... Now, with an army that left all its big guns at Dunkirk beach and a pathetically outclassed little air force, Churchill is promising to fight the 'Huns' as he calls them, until we gain ultimate victory. We know what he has been drinking, but what does he think we have been drinking to take those barroom brags seriously? He is just like his crazy father Lord Randolph, who ended his aristocratic career with similar verbal misfires."

Right on cue, Dowd sounded like Blankley's parody in her Nov. 4 column. She wrote: "Our institutions are lumbering as they try to keep up with the simple, supple, clever paladins of Islam. We're sophisticated; they're crude. We're millennial; they're medieval. We ride B-52's; they ride horses. And yet they're outmaneuvering us. We spend $300 billion a year on planes and bombs and military marvels but still can't faze Taliban warriors who pop up out of the charred earth and mock us as ineffectual."

Dowd's op-ed piece is datelined "Washington," not "Tajikistan," so unless she's privy to the Defense Secretary's military intelligence?that of the man she likes to call "Rummy"?I suppose she gets her briefings from war correspondents like Peter Jennings and Times colleague R.W. Apple Jr. Splendid job, Miss Dowd! On the off-chance you're ever relieved of duties at the Times for sheer lunacy, the Taliban has a job waiting as minister of propaganda.

Times Mischief

Bill Keller's op-ed column in last Saturday's New York Times, a virtual endorsement of Mike Bloomberg, was fascinating on two levels. First, positive words about the Republican candidate for mayor in the Times have been as rare as praise for Colin Powell from Bill Kristol. (It's somewhat curious that Kristol has dumped on Powell so emphatically this year, considering that when his magazine The Weekly Standard began in the fall of '95 it was promoting Powell as an alternative to Bob Dole for the '96 GOP presidential nomination.)

Second, Keller, who lost the competition for Times executive editor to Howell Raines, sticks it to Raines (under the guise of "just one man's opinion") and editorial page editor Gail Collins with his pronouncement that more billionaires like Bloomberg ought to run for office. This is Benedict Arnold territory for any Times employee. Besides bashing President Bush, there's no crusade more worthy than campaign finance reform, a stance that even led the paper to endorse Republican Bob Franks over self-financed Democrat Jon Corzine in last year's New Jersey Senate race.

Keller tries to cover his ass in the first paragraph: "This is not an endorsement of the candidacy of Michael Bloomberg in next Tuesday's New York City mayoral election. For endorsements you have to go next door to the editorial page, where, if you are a candidate encumbered by great wealth, you may be subjected to the biblical eye-of-the-needle test. This is an endorsement of the idea of Michael Bloomberg, meaning the idea that it would not kill us to have a few self-made billionaires in our political life."

Three cheers for heresy at the Times!

Keller writes of his fellow journalists: "Our suspicion of politics is nearly matched by our suspicion of the rich. If getting rich were a matter of intelligence or judgment, we believe in our envious hearts, surely reporters would be in life's E-Z Pass lane. This creates an oddly contradictory stance toward candidates like Mr. Bloomberg: We don't hold the office in great esteem, but hold on a second, Mr. Moneybags, what makes you think you're qualified? If only Mr. Bloomberg had debased himself doing the kind of spotlight-chasing Mr. Green has done, he might be worthy to be mayor."

He concludes: "There may be plenty of good reasons not to vote for Michael Bloomberg as the next mayor of New York, but his money is not one of them. Let a hundred Bloombergs flower!"

I'll bet when Keller casts his vote for Bloomberg on Tuesday?assuming he's a NYC resident?he'll have a good chuckle at the commotion his column no doubt caused among the mullahs who run the Times. And maybe he'll reckon that being put out to pasture by Arthur Sulzberger Jr. isn't so bad after all.

NOV. 5

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