Voices of the Past

JIMMY BRESLIN, IN exile for many years at the scandal-plagued Newsday, is a terminally angry blowhard who, to his credit, knows his influence on young and middle-aged journalists today is nil. He's a relic, every bit as extinct as the "new journalist" and "street columnist" genres that once guaranteed him a table at his Manhattan restaurant or saloon of choice, often in the company of Tom Wolfe, Norman Mailer, Pete Hamill and visiting dignitaries like the late Mike Royko.

It was a wonderful life.

But at least Breslin, when he's not snarling at toddlers or dogs, still has a sense of humor. Reflecting on the circulation fraud that's crippling the Long Island daily (among other large newspapers), Breslin wrote on Sept. 14 that he'd have to read his columns on subways in order to get his latest lunatic theories heard. He explains: "Back in April, some of [the paper's business staff] got into a Little League indoor batting practice shed in Lindenhurst and put together a conspiracy to give newspapers to your aunt and say they were bought. Beautiful. [A word that appears in nearly every Breslin column.] If they would read their own newspaper they would learn that conspiracies never work? [A]ccording to my Newsday newspaper, I'm out 100,000 papers-and that could be 300,000-when I write this column. I should go out the window rather than sit and type. That is a real attack on me. Yes, I do this work for money and the more the more marvelous? If you want to be heard and read, then advertise yourself. Unless you play your own horn, there is no music."

One might at first advise Breslin to jump ship and con another daily into printing his articles.

But there are no buyers.

Not that the former toppermost of Elaine's has thrown in the towel. Earlier this month Breslin despaired that John Kerry was, at heart, a pussy. That the new subway oracle is venomous in his contempt for George Bush isn't original; although unlike most media celebrities (past and present), Breslin probably does know some people who'll vote for the president, it doesn't make him happy. Frustrated that Kerry wasn't fighting back against the Bush machine-this was before the elite pundits described the senator as a suddenly transformed back-alley thug ready to go punch for punch with Bush-Breslin said, "The trouble is, the law says that the Democrats can't get another candidate."

Jimmy did make a half-hearted attempt to appear like a 21st-century man last Thursday when he wrote a somewhat convincing column about the misleading polls that voters, at least those who follow such findings, are blasted with almost every day. Now, if Kerry were swamping Bush in the surveys, maybe this Sept. 16 column wouldn't have even made it to the subways, but since that's not the case, Breslin acquainted himself with a device I have serious doubts he's mastered the intricacies of: the cellphone.

"Anybody who believes these national political polls are giving you facts is a gullible fool," he begins. "This is because these political polls are done by telephone. Land-line telephones, as your house phone is called. The telephone polls do not include cellular phones? Beautiful. There are 169 million phones [cells] that they didn't even try." Breslin is convinced the polls are skewed because young Americans-who are "quicker, and probably smarter at this time, and almost doubtlessly more in favor of Kerry than Bush"-use cells and are disproportionately underrepresented as opposed to their grandparents.

Maybe so, but that's not entirely relevant in this election since the newspapers and television stations (New York Times, meltdown CBS, USA Today, MSNBC) that show a significant Bush lead in national and swing-state polls, still shape perception, one that filters to the campaigns and voters alike. If the Kerry team followed Breslin's logic, it wouldn't have scaled back its advertising to fewer than a dozen states, conceding not only the South to Bush, but now Missouri, Arizona and, in a worst-case scenario, Ohio as well. Who knows if the polls will shift demonstrably in coming weeks, but if Bush is leading after the debates, the election is probably over, especially if a number of polls that give the president an eight-point advantage is bound to decrease Kerry's turnout on Nov. 2.

Some Kerry partisans in the media are trying harder than others. The Los Angeles Times' Maria L. La Ganga, for example, wrote a ludicrous story on Sept. 16 that says, "Arizona is one of the biggest prizes among swing states west of the Mississippi River," suggesting that John McCain's home state is up for grabs. Deeper in the article, La Ganga cites an Arizona Republic poll that had Bush leading Kerry 54 to 38 percent. Seems to me that Arizona ain't got no swing.

And the homepage of AOL on Sept. 15 ran this misleading headline: "Polls show Bush Trailing in New York." Big surprise, but that wasn't the real story. In fact, Bush is behind in New York, but both the Marist and Quinnipiac polls gave Kerry leads of eight and six points respectively. No one expects the state to snub Kerry in November, but if he can't defeat Bush by more than 10 points that's an ominous trend for the rest of the nation.

Other unofficial DNC hacks aren't quite so bullish. Let's go to Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, who joins the pack of insiders sniping at Kerry's onetime guru Robert Shrum, saying the millionaire consultant was far too complacent during the summer. He writes, more in anger than sorrow: "Shrum's plan wasn't complicated? No need to respond directly to Bush ads sliming [Kerry] for wanting to cut the same weapons systems that Bush's father cut. No need to explain how the Iraq war had been botched. No need to discredit Bush at all, because he was already thoroughly discredited. Oh, well."

Alter hasn't given up, suggesting to Kerry in his Sept. 27 column that a debate approach of "Keep It Simple, Stupid" (where do these newsweekly columnists come up with such original turns of phrase?), in which he sets a firm deadline of withdrawing from Iraq and giving reconstruction projects to allies in exchange for help stabilizing the country might win the election. Still, Alter says, "As the clock winds down, the odds against a Kerry victory grow longer every day."

Time's Joe Klein, also this week, agrees with his Newsweek colleague that the debates are crucial, even though "I've never seen George Bush lose a debate." That bugle call, the suspect notion that Bush, with his Texan twang and charm, is the Barry Bonds of debates will be heard loud and clear from all DNC operatives in the coming weeks. He concludes, "Unless Kerry can come off with a succinct, and lethal, response to [Bush's] vaporous but compelling platitudes, he will lose this election."

The Wall Street Journal's Albert Hunt, as vehement a Bush-basher as Rob Reiner (but a touch more polite), wrote on Sept. 9 that many Democrats are crying in their herbal tea that "Kerry has blown it." Hunt seems to agree, but offers hope: "The answer is, of course, Mr. Kerry, can still win this race. But only if he learns from his miserable performance of the past month and sharpens the focus-the raison d'etre-of his candidacy? Oh, and one more helpful change: Along with nuance, bag the windsurfing."

According to a slew of political stories in the Sept. 20 pro-Kerry dailies, the candidate has found his voice, simplified his message and is ready to pounce. Maybe so. After all, last weekend in Albuquerque, Kerry claimed that Bush has a secret plan to send more reservists and National Guard units to Iraq after Nov. 2. This charge might stick if Kerry offered any proof, but what the hell, it whips up a crowd. Kerry said, "Hide it from people through the election, then make the move-that's not the way we do business in the United States of America, my friends."

And John Edwards (remember him?) got into the act last Sunday in Phoenixville, PA, repeating Kerry's "secret plan" charge and promising that the Massachusetts Democrat, once in office, "will find Al Qaeda where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people."

Details of this offensive, apparently, are secret.

The Boston Globe's Thomas Oliphant, as reliable a Kerry mule as you'll find in Washington, was madder than a swarm of red ants in Lubbock on Sunday when he attacked the former Clinton officials who've signed on to rescue the Kerry campaign. Loyal to the Teddy Kennedy acolytes who'd reigned supreme until recently (Shrum, Mary Beth Cahill), Oliphant ripped into opportunists like James Carville, Paul Begala and Joe Lockhart.

He snorted: "John Kerry gave a more than decent account of himself in Michigan last week in an important oration about the economy ["more than decent" is an indication that even Oliphant sees the prize slipping away]. But several new members of his campaign staff thought it more important to step all over his message and promote themselves as the new bosses of the effort. Later in the week, Kerry was even more forceful and effective in Nevada as he discussed the murderous mess in Iraq. But again, his campaign's Narcissism Caucus got between Kerry and the public by spinning the political press into glowing accounts of their campaign coup."

It goes without saying that Oliphant has never been "spun" by the Boston pols who give Jersey officeholders a good name.

Terry McDonell, managing editor of Sports Illustrated, is getting close to the legendary Pauline Kael quote from '72 that Nixon defeating McGovern was a shock because no one she knew voted for the incumbent. In a Sept. 19 Times story, McDonell is mystified that his SI readers voted that Bush was a better athlete than Kerry. "Clearly Kerry is a much, much, much, much better athlete," McDonell said. "Kite-surfing is the hardest, most radical thing to do. It's what the most extreme surfers are doing." He then noted that Bush was a cheerleader at school during the 60s.

What McDonell doesn't understand, or refuses to acknowledge, is that most voters aren't kite-surfers, star fullbacks or gold medal Olympic winners. They're fans, just like Bush, who read the sports pages and watch games on tv.

Bush could yet pull a Gerald Ford in the debates-maybe refer to Britain's Tony Thatcher or not so subtly imply that Edwards is a little light in the loafers-but as of this week, Kerry better get "radical" not only in his athletic endeavors but his campaign as well. o