GOP Hubris
GOP Hubris
Last Friday I mistakenly assumed that Christmas had arrived early. There was the long overdue sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Lindsey. The Iraqi government announced it would provide a mountain of worthless paper proving it possesses no weapons of mass destruction. And it appeared that Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu would lose her Louisiana Senate seat.
So St. Nick didn't deliver all the goods. I watched Fox News' coverage of the Landrieu-Suzanne Terrell election on Saturday night, anchored by a way-out-of-his-depth Shepard Smith, but by 10 p.m. it was essentially over, leaving conservative journalist/pundit Michael Barone to mask his disappointment with some repetitive and unconvincing spin. While Fred Barnes guessed, correctly I think, that the GOP, still flush with its smashing Nov. 5 win, flooded the state with too many party luminaries-in retrospect, President Bush would've sufficed-Barone insisted the unusual December contest was similar to a casual off-year election. While the runoff wasn't a national referendum on Bush, as the midterm elections were in part, White House strategist Karl Rove wouldn't have spent millions and enlisted the President's parents, Bob Dole, Rudy Giuliani and Dick Cheney if the pick-up of another Senate seat wasn't a high priority.
Landrieu obviously learned from the defeats of colleagues like Max Cleland and Jean Carnahan a month earlier, and was also fortunate that Terrell's candidacy wasn't of the same caliber as John Sununu Jr. and Jim Talent.
Still, I was surprised by Landrieu's narrow win: Earlier that morning I couldn't even place a $2 bet on Terrell's expected upset. The Wall Street Journal missed it too, concluding in an understated editorial late last week, "We can understand why Ms. Landrieu feels she has to pose as a Republican. But we also wouldn't be surprised if Louisiana voters compare the two candidates and decide they'd rather go with the real thing."
The New York Times justifiably gloated on Dec. 8, in an article by Katharine Q. Seelye-no doubt vetted by Howell Raines, even if it had nothing to do with Tiger Woods and Augusta-although as usual the paper's analysis was slanted. Seelye's lede: "In a rebuff to President Bush's political power and personal prestige, Louisiana voters today rejected Suzanne Haik Terrell, his hand-picked candidate, and retained Senator Mary L. Landrieu, a freshman Democrat."
Later in the piece, Seelye attempted to brighten Whining Tom Daschle's morning with the following flawed speculation: "Ms. Landrieu's victory keeps the Republican majority in the Senate to 51 votes to 48-still enough for them to control the committees but not enough to immunize them against renegade Republicans who might defect." Seelye didn't name the potential Benedict Arnolds-presumably she was referring to Lincoln Chafee and John McCain-but the scenario is unlikely. Unless they act in concert, neither Senator would jump to a minority party whose members have less clout.
In addition, after Jim Jeffords' betrayal of the Republicans who reelected him in Vermont in 2000, and declared himself an independent six months later, voting with the Democrats, Bush and Rove aren't likely to take their slender majority for granted. Chafee, for example, will probably receive a powerful post in January, even if he's not up to the job. As for McCain, he thrives on needling Bush and creating self-aggrandizing headlines, but with a war about to start, which he supports, he's not going to join ranks with the likes of tort-lawyer John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine.
The Washington Post, now the nation's "paper of record," was more accurate in its report. Lee Hockstader said: "Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, staving off a concerted challenge by the ascendant Republican Party and by President Bush, won reelection to a second term tonight against state Elections Commissioner Suzanne Haik Terrell in a runoff." Let's hope that the RNC's over-the-top hubris in Louisiana was just one more for the road.
It's also a perfect time for the GOP leadership to dump Trent Lott as Majority Leader, a move that's better late than never. Lott's never demonstrated the teeth of, say, Rep. Tom DeLay, and is far too willing to accommodate his colleagues across the aisle. Fortunately, Lott's weird comments on Dec. 5 at a Washington party for retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond give Republican leaders with a modicum of political skill and balls the excuse to oust the pork-loving cheerleader from Mississippi. Lott said, incomprehensibly, that had Thurmond won his third-party segregationist bid for president in 1948, the United States would be better off today. Swell. Either Lott was nipping at the cooking sherry or was just joshing around. In any case, his demotion-in favor of Sen. Bill Frist, for example-would deprive Democrats of an issue they'll use from now until the 2004 elections.
O'Neill's Out
But far more significant than Terrell's disappointing loss was the administration's dismissal of O'Neill. The former Alcoa chairman, an honest and reputable man, was a bad choice from the start; he was hostile to Wall Street, awful on tv talks shows and prone to making embarrassing off-the-cuff remarks that undercut his boss. Typical of his temperament was a comment last May while on tour with the insufferable rock star Bono in Africa. O'Neill told reporters: "One of the great things about where I am now: If people don't like what I'm doing, I don't give a damn. I could be off sailing around on a yacht or driving around the country..."
Hours after the announcement, National Review's Larry Kudlow wrote: "Last week, O'Neill lost a critical policy debate to chief economic adviser Glenn Hubbard over a big-bang economic package that includes dividend tax cuts, faster implementations of last year's personal tax cut, business investment incentives, enlarged IRA supersaver accounts, and other measures such as tort reform to curb legal abuses. Having lost this battle, it must have been quite clear to the president that it would be impossible for O'Neill to defend and market the new tax-cut package, which will undoubtedly be the center of next year's domestic agenda."
The replacement for Bono's buddy, as of Monday morning, is John Snow, chairman of CSX Corporation, and according to my sources a confident, smart man who'll hew to Bush's economic plans. I'd have preferred Commerce Sec. Don Evans, a smooth pol who's not only known Bush for 30 years, but could charm both tv talk show hosts and financiers. But it's certain that Snow's been vetted more extensively than O'Neill, who was a mistake from the start. Newsweek's loopy "Conventional Wisdom," in this week's issue, is already nostalgic for the deposed cabinet member, saying, "The smartest guy in the cabinet was too candid and independent for Bushies-so he got the bum's rush." Oh, and the media isn't dominated by liberals.
O'Neill's lone accomplishment ought not be forgotten. Last summer, he had the guts to do battle with one of the Senate's scummiest members, West Virginia's Robert Byrd. In an exchange in which each man tried to one-up each other about their humble roots, O'Neill got the better of the former KKK member who's now lionized by the liberal press for his long-winded, stream-of-consciousness speeches that in his addled mind tie together Roman politicians and philosophers with current events. Byrd disgraces the U.S. Senate-at least Thurmond, in his later years, just kept quiet-and O'Neill was one of the few men to expose him as a fraud.
One of the media's common themes is that Bush is terrified of repeating his father's mistake in 1991-92 of concentrating on foreign policy to the detriment of domestic issues. It's true that if the U.S. economy doesn't improve by the summer of '04, the President will have an uphill election against whatever loser the Democrats nominate. However, the father-son analogy isn't quite correct. First, in the current analysis it's either forgotten or conveniently omitted that Bush's father alienated his Republican base of voters by lying on his pledge not to raise taxes. In addition, although for a short time he had 90 percent approval ratings after the Gulf War, in contrast to his son-whose popularity has remained historically robust since Sept. 11-the first President Bush saw that popularity evaporate quickly as the economy faltered and the afterglow of the war was dampened by criticism that he hadn't knocked off Saddam Hussein. Finally, in '92, there was the Ross Perot factor: It remains to be seen whether a credible third-party candidate emerges in 2004, but the Texan pipsqueak certainly robbed more votes from Bush than Bill Clinton.
Off to War
As for Iraq, I only skim the dailies to chart the progress of milquetoast Hans Blix, the inflated battles between the administration's hawks and doves-as if 100 percent unity on how to protect the nation is desired-and the inane anti-American comments of Kofi Annan. But one thing is clear: George W. Bush has staked his presidency on deposing Saddam and if he doesn't follow up his eloquent speeches on the subject with action, he's a goner two years from now. Whether the war begins later this month or very early in 2003, it's a vital initiative, even if, perish the thought, the United Nations' collective nose is out of joint.
At the start, there will be all sorts of grumbling, not only from the Democratic presidential aspirants, but also from most of the media as well (excepting the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post), but Bush will have to live with that. Besides, by now he's immune to the attacks from antagonists like Howell Raines, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Clinton-who could've, if he had the vision and fortitude, done much to prevent the current terrorist (which, of course, includes Saddam and Bill's buddy Arafat) threats-so one assumes the President will stick to his plan.
Incidentally, last Sunday it was interesting, if not earth-shattering, to contrast the headlines of an Iraq analyis in the Times' print and website editions. On the Web, the article, written by Raines yes-man Patrick Tyler, was titled "Will Bush's March to War Be Slowed?" The same piece in print bore the more moderate headline "A Signal Moment Ahead: Will It Slow March to War?"
But that was a trifle compared to Beltway establishment treasure Thomas Friedman's bellicose-pardon my lapse into Times-speak-column on the same day. Friedman, hardly a stylist, begins with this startling observation: "I'm worried. And you should be, too." Thanks for the tip, Tom. He continues: "I am not against war in Iraq, if need be [oh, brother], but I am against going to war without preparing the ground in America, in the region and in the world at large to deal with the blowback any U.S. invasion will produce.
"But I see few signs that President Bush is making those preparations. The Bush team's whole approach was best summed up by a friend of mine: 'We're at war-let's party.' We're at war-and let's not ask the American people to do anything hard."
I'm planting a "victory garden" tomorrow.
Naturally, Friedman uses this theme to blast Bush's "surplus-squandering tax cuts," right-wing agenda, energy policy, inattention to global warming, and, most transparently, suggests that Rove "take a leave of absence until September 2004." Better yet, he advises the President to threaten Ariel Sharon with cutting off economic aid to Israel if he's not less bellicose-sorry!-toward the Palestinians and, prepare yourself, to "put the Clinton [Mideast] peace plan back on the table." In fairness, Friedman also advocates that Arafat be deposed, but that sop is mostly lost in the sheer stupidity of his column.
King Bob Approximately
There's a brief moment in Live 1975 when you feel a catch in the throat, a sentimental pull that nearly justifies listening to the rest of this superfluous two-disc "bootleg" CD. Bob Dylan's calculated ragtag Rolling Thunder Revue has just finished "One More Cup of Coffee" and then segues into the yet unreleased "Sara," the treacly song dedicated to his wife, who was sitting in the Boston Music Hall audience that November night. It matters little that the couple, not long after, would wind up embroiled in a messy and costly divorce: That Dylan would expose his personal life so nakedly, without five layers of cryptic meaning, is at least curious, even if the lyrics aren't his best.
When Desire-an uneven record compromised by Dylan's songwriting partnership with Jacques Levy, but nonetheless his last attempt at coherence-was released in January '76, it was hard not to feel embarrassed for the pop legend. Revealing the history behind the wondrous "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands," especially after his kiss-off song "Idiot Wind" from the earlier Blood on the Tracks, was something I'd rather he kept to himself.
Nonetheless, "Sara" is the standout on Live 1975, a surprisingly lifeless collection of Dylan's best-known classics that are performed almost as perfunctorily as the previous year's tour with the Band. It's the only song, with the possible exception of "Knockin' on Heaven's Door"-in which Roger McGuinn sings a breathtaking, and improvised, second verse-that Dylan performs with any conviction. The other numbers-"Mr. Tambourine Man," "Just Like a Woman," "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll," "I Shall Be Released" and "Love Minus Zero/No Limit," just for starters-are rote recitations of his vast catalog that he's still mining today in concert halls.
A few weeks ago, a New York Observer critic named David Means was rhapsodic about the two-disc CD, improbably calling it Dylan's "best live recording to date." Means can't be a day over 25, if his review is any indication. His intro sets you up for some nasty reading: "The more you know about Bob Dylan, the less you know. A truly enigmatic artist, Mr. Dylan's work and life offer vaporous handholds, explanations and instructions. Attempt to grasp them, and they will only dissipate and re-form into another contexture or idea... Trying to figure Mr. Dylan out-a full-time job for some fans-is about as easy as trying to get to Kafka's Castle, or pasting together a history of Ireland from the verbal antics of Finnegans Wake; the fun is inherently linked to the labyrinthine impossibility of success."
Correction: On second thought, Means is most likely an undergraduate at Brown. And you thought the 1960s were dead.
As for Means' absurd conclusion that this release is Dylan's finest live recording, he explains: "Mr. Dylan is not running scared on this album. Yes, I believe that even Bob Dylan has lived in fear, like any other artist-and when he's spooked, he sometimes allows his bands to overpower him, and, in turn, finds himself singing in giant, bardic yelps that seems almost beyond the lyrics."
Please. Dylan's '66 Manchester concert, officially released by Columbia a few years ago, is a stunning recording, a document of an artist at the peak of his career. Yeah, he probably was "spooked" then, spooked that he'd never get off his roller coaster of amphetamines, alcohol, exhaustion, nonstop touring and fans who were either hostile or ached just to touch him. But the music he created with the Hawks (later the Band) on that tour was apocalyptic and perfectly in sync, from the M-80 opening notes of "Tell Me, Momma" to electric renditions of "I Don't Believe You" and "Baby, Let Me Follow You Down" to the chilling "Ballad of a Thin Man."
No wonder that just a few months later, Dylan disappeared from the public, ostensibly because of a motorcycle accident, and didn't tour again for eight years. Unlike many of his less astute-to put it kindly- contemporaries, Dylan knew he'd probably die keeping up that pace, and so he chucked it all, at his peak. Subsequently, of course, he entered another phase, which included the "Basement Tapes" and his stripped-down John Wesley Harding, an album with earnest and smart lyrics that rejected the era's current psychedelia and spawned country-rock.
Anyway, I attended the finale of Rolling Thunder's first incarnation-"The Night of the Hurricane" at the Garden in early December '75-and it was indeed a lot of fun, and far more satisfying than his previous year's comeback tour with the Band. The show lasted more than four hours and was in constant motion, with artists as diverse as Mick Ronson, Joni Mitchell, McGuinn and Ronee Blakley all taking star turns. Joan Baez was given far too much time, and was annoying as hell, but her one decent song-about Dylan-"Diamonds and Rust" was a highlight. You wonder why Columbia didn't include a third disc to include the works of some of Dylan's entourage.
I already have a number of "unofficial releases" from Rolling Thunder's series of concerts, all superior to Live 1975 (except for the sound), so this Dylan CD now is buried in the midst of my CD collection along with Love and Theft and Time Out of Mind. Where it belongs.