Dick Morris, triple agent.

Although I read the New York Post every day, and generally find it worthwhile, there's a weird current that runs throughout the paper, typified by chief draw "Page Six," but more noticeable on the editorial pages. I've made peace with the presence of John Podhoretz, a blustery op-ed writer who's still traumatized by the 60s but is correct about the war on terror and the absolute necessity of a strong United States alliance with Israel.

But it's hard to fathom why the Post continues to print Bill Clinton's onetime alter-ego Dick Morris, a repulsive man who's not only usually wrong on political predictions but who also can't be trusted. Given his history of playing double- and triple-agent, working for both Democrats and the GOP as a consultant, it's nearly impossible to discern his hidden agenda. The Times' Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd are despicable columnists, in different ways, but there's at least an upfront honesty in their disgust with George W. Bush; the former for the president's tax cuts, the latter because he's unaware of the exact date Kill Bill, Vol. 2 will debut.

Morris, on the other hand, is the joker in a deck of Beltway-obsessed pundits. His Feb. 3 piece, for example, was so nutty that a reader wonders whether he's on the payroll of not only Rupert Murdoch but the Clinton Machine as well. Morris speculates that it's "quite likely" John Kerry will offer Sen. Hillary the vice-presidential slot on his ticket in Boston this summer. His logic? "Very few vice-presidential candidates can actually win votes for the top of the ticket: Hillary can. She is the most popular Democrat in the nation. And a woman vice-presidential candidate-particularly Hillary-would electrify the Democratic base and guarantee a huge turnout. It would transform a campaign into a crusade."

Now it's possible, I suppose, that in the unlikely circumstance born-again populist Kerry finds himself facing a double-digit poll deficit to Bush come this summer he might consider such a desperate move. (Give the Times' David Halbfinger credit for getting this lead sentence past his editors in a Feb. 9 report on the primary contest. He wrote: "[Kerry] is doing his barbecued best to connect with voters in Virginia and Tennessee, Southern-frying his speeches with references to God and country music, talking tough about law and order, tempering his environmentalism with affirmations of his faith in capitalism.")

But this fall's election is destined to be another cliffhanger, with the lead changing hands several times throughout the course of the campaign. Additionally, if one believes the media-a stretch, I realize-the Democratic base is already stirred up and will do anything to defeat Bush, even if it means that Kerry, with his long paper trail as a senator, tops the ticket. And does anyone think that the second JFK from Massachusetts-detractors have long said the initials stand for "Just for Kerry"-will repress his vanity and choose a running mate who will create more headlines and bigger crowds from the Democratic faithful than him? Not a chance.

To a lesser extent, that's also why Sen. John Edwards, despite speculation to the contrary, has virtually no shot of being on the ticket. Edwards, like Kerry, was put in the same dead-as-a-doornail category as Joe Lieberman as recently as last December, owing to premature hype from fawning journalists, an undeveloped stump speech and the emergence of Howard Dean. Yet it's Edwards, not Kerry, who now arouses-too little, too late-the party's base with his bogus but appealing theme of Two Americas. (The North Carolina multimillionaire and Bush, of course, both reside in the America of privilege, but why quibble.) Kerry's more apt to tap a governor (New Mexico's Bill Richardson, Virginia's Mark Warner) who won't overshadow him.

The only rational point Morris makes in his fantasy-driven column is that Hillary might want the veep nod in the event that Kerry wins and she won't have to face Rudy Giuliani in a bruising reelection battle two years from now. But Kerry, who's lived in the shadow of Teddy Kennedy for two decades, is hardly likely to hand over his campaign to the Clintons.

Rumsfeld's a Hero

Thanks to Glenn Reynolds' invaluable blog InstaPundit, I linked to a pretty fun bit at scrappleface.com, a website whose motto reads "News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher."

Dated Feb. 5, an item (which ought to make The Onion blush at its irrelevance) took out Teddy Kennedy, who's currently bellowing at union halls for John Kerry, a man he once considered an ill-suited inheritor of his family's (mixed) legacy.

The piece read, in part: "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Sen. Edward Kennedy yesterday that he was 'all wet' when the senator alleged that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to justify going to war.

"? Sen. Kennedy began his questioning of the defense secretary by saying, 'Don't you think some members of the Bush administration should be held legally accountable for the lies they told about Iraqi weapons, and subsequent cover-up?'

"'First, with all due respect, Senator Kennedy, you're all wet,' said Mr. Rumsfeld. 'The administration has not lied or covered up. However, in general, I do believe that when a man commits a crime he should face the bar of justice. He should not be allowed to serve in positions of power in our government, and be hailed as a leader, when the question of his guilt remains unresolved, if you know what I mean.'

"'I'm sure I do not know what you mean,' Mr. Kennedy said. 'But the American people deserve to know why you can't find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.'

"'Sometimes things are hard to find, even when you know where they are,' said Mr. Rumsfeld. 'For example, I've heard of a man who missed a bridge and drove his car into the water, even though he knew where the bridge was. And then sometimes you just keep diving into a problem and despite repeated efforts, you come up empty-handed. That doesn't mean that nothing's there. As you know, eventually, the truth comes to light.'

"Having no further questions, Mr. Kennedy yielded the remainder of his time.

Off the Reservation

Heaven knows that the Times' Frank Rich will not be pulling the lever for George W. Bush this November. The president's overt religious beliefs, Iraq, opposition to abortion and gay marriage, pedestrian taste in pop culture and failure to brand Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom sealed that decision long ago. Nevertheless, in his Feb. 8 "Arts" column, Rich, perhaps unwittingly, demonstrated that he's in the vanguard of his party's "buyer's remorse" over John Kerry's all-but-certain capture of the Democratic presidential nomination.

Ostensibly, the essay was an explanation of the degradation a national candidate is forced to endure today, going back to Richard Nixon's wooden "Sock it to me!" on Laugh-In back in '68 to Bill Clinton blowing sax for the amusement of Arsenio Hall and chatting about his undies in '92. Bush and Al Gore both sacrificed their dignity by appearing on Oprah Winfrey's daytime show four years ago.

Rich writes of Kerry's Nov. 11 guest turn on Jay Leno's Tonight Show, a time when he was heading toward single digits in the polls. He says: "[I]nstead of strolling onstage in his senatorial uniform, the candidate arrived, via Harley-Davidson, attired in a brown leather jacket, black boots, a denim shirt and jeans? Mr. Kerry doing comedy is cognitive dissonance run amok. Though the senator does ride a Harley-Davidson in real life, his entire performance reeked of phoniness. A dour Boston Brahmin was trying to pass himself off as a wisecracking biker. And he was doing so after having given an interview (to Julia Reed of Vogue) criticizing President Bush's handlers for identical theatrics: 'They put him in a brown jacket and jeans and get him to move some hay or drive a truck, and all of a sudden he's the Marlboro Man.'"

Break a leg, Frank. Maybe you'll be a Nader man yet.

Leave Al III Alone

You'll get no argument from these quarters that Al Gore is not only a creep but also now a political liability. The suddenly humble Howard Dean said as much to Bob Woodward on a recent Larry King Live appearance. "I actually do think the endorsement of Al Gore began the decline," he said, then adding, "[T]he establishment in Washington really realized that I might be the nominee and they did not like it." In reality, Gore's support was, typically, a case of bad timing, given that Saddam Hussein was captured not long after, largely depriving Dean of his signature issue.

Bob Dole, on the same show, had the luxury of tossing off a zinger: "My advice to Kerry and Edwards is, if Gore calls, don't take the call. I mean, it may be an endorsement."

However, despite how shamelessly the 2000 presidential candidate has exploited his family during a long career, it's unconscionable for gossip columnists to attack Gore's kids. The Post's "Page Six," on Feb. 3, was the latest culprit, running an irresponsible item about Gore's son, Albert III, the Harvard undergraduate who's had a few scrapes with the law. Young Gore was arrested in Maryland on Dec. 19 after cops noticed his Cadillac's headlights were off and the windows open. He was pulled over, the car stunk of reefer smoke and a joint was found. The young man, as part of a plea agreement, will submit to urine testing, a substance abuse program and community service for the next 12 weeks.

Unless there's a cover-up and he was really nabbed holding a bag of smack, I think this is an example of very stupid and time-consuming drug laws, but obviously he shouldn't be given preferential treatment. Still, it's astonishing that "Page Six," whose battery of correspondents are undoubtedly familiar with the scents of marijuana, lots of junket booze and who knows what else, gets sudden religion upon reporting this minor infraction.

The blurb's headline, "The Truth Came Out Too Late," suggests that Albert III's parents were too protective of their only son when he apparently logged another unspecified infraction as a prep school student at St. Albans. "Page Six" argues that Gore might've "straightened himself out" if the media hadn't covered up that arrest. The item continues: "Gore's office argued that young Al was just a child and that publicizing his expulsion might ruin his life. Magazines and newspapers all agreed to spike the story. Maybe publishing the truth then would have prevented Gore from continuing his drug use."

Unless Gore is pulling a third-generation Kennedy trick and nodding out at shooting galleries?in which case, they're guilty of "covering up" more damning evidence?you'd think the fairly libertine "Page Six" crew could find something more worthy of print than a sermon against smoking pot.

[mug1988@aol.com](mailtomug1988@aol.com)