|
Jewish World Review /Feb. 17, 1999 /1 Adar 5759
MUGGER
History Lessons:
An Immigrant’s Advice
WHEN I TAKE JUNIOR TO SCHOOL in the morning it’s a crapshoot on what
kind of cabby we’ll end up with. Usually, after I tell the guy, "Go up
6th, take a right on 50th...," he keeps quiet and we have a tranquil if
lengthy ride. Lately, Junior’s displayed an interest in American
history, and so I’ve been telling him about the presidents and the
various wars, always with my own spin lest some pinko teacher a few
years down the road distorts actual events.
So while my son knows that
Bill Clinton is the most corrupt president in a generation, perhaps even
of this century, he’s also had a lecture on the folly of Vietnam and the
reasons it was imperative that the Union prevail in the Civil War.
One occurrence was beyond his comprehension: How could the U.S. possibly
defeat the Japanese in World War II. "But Dad," he said, "the Japanese
are such excellent swordsmen. I thought they’d beat anybody." That’s the
downside of the Power Rangers and Nintendo games. I explained that our
Air Force, carrying superior bombs, would triumph over snazzy swords,
jujitsu and karate any day, but he’s still puzzled that the Japanese
could lose at anything.
Last Thursday, however, we drew a cabby who interjected himself into the
conversation even before we passed Canal St. Uvan was from Romania and a
big Clinton booster, which I didn’t get since he roared his approval for
Ronald Reagan and how he "took care" of Qaddafi and "tore down the
Wall." When I said Clinton was a crook and Uvan was just talking with
his wallet, he admitted that might be true.
And he was a bit
confused—he’s only lived in New York for 15 years—about current
politics.
"But what about President Bush?" he asked. "He got his son
[Neil] off from that money corruption and now he’s a governor." I had to
explain that Neil’s never been heard from since, and that it’s Jeb and
George W. who live in the executive mansions in Florida and Texas.
The chat quickly segued into child-rearing when I told Junior to sit
upright. "That’s good," he said to my boy, "always mind your father
because he’s always right. My son is 40 years old but he still remembers
that big belt I used on him. I’d make his behind just a little bit red
to show who’s in control. And when his grandfather walked into the room,
even at 90 years old, he was treated like a general, just the way things
should be."
This wasn’t going the way I preferred, so I tried to ignore Uvan and get
back to the history lesson, but the man persisted. "Americans are too
free. In my country, there’s no competition between boys and girls. No
dating. A man chooses a woman and they get married. I told the man my
daughter married: no divorce, because my girl has two strong brothers
who will come after you. And he understood. That’s good!" Junior’s mind
was wandering, fortunately, and then we got into a different
conversation about what year FAO Schwarz was built, and before long we’d
arrived at his school.
We wished Uvan a profitable day, I hugged Junior goodbye and got another
cab down to 333 and thankfully this fellow didn’t say a word, except,
"Thanks a lot," when I got out at Healthy Choice at 7th and 29th.
Actually, a few words from the driver would’ve been a welcome break from
the rot I was reading in that day’s New York Times. First there was the
story by Richard L. Berke (a shamelessly biased Washington reporter) and
James Bennet (far superior) headlined "Clinton Vows Strong Drive to Win
a House Majority, Advisers Say." The gist of the piece was that
Clinton’s so pissed at Republicans, and the House managers in
particular, that he’s going to wage a Carville-like war against targeted
congressmen in the 2000 elections.
However, five paragraphs later, the piece reads, "The President’s aides
said that Mr. Clinton had always aggressively campaigned for House
Democrats and that he was making no special effort because of
impeachment." That’s believable. We can only hope that Clinton, who will
campaign like a rabid rat in 2000, will be so unpopular by next year
that he’ll sink not only poor Al Gore, but Democrats in general.
Flipping to the editorial pages, William Safire was disturbingly
sanguine about the results of the trial, writing, "The System worked.
What a great country." Safire is aglow that the House actually succeeded
in impeaching Clinton—"an ineradicable mark on his record"—and that the
Senate fulfilled its promise in dispatching the trial with speed.
It’s
true that Clinton will never erase the impeachment mark from the legacy
that’s so dear to him, but Safire was surely stoned when he wrote,
"Clinton and his allies, in reacting to acquittal, will not be so
foolish as to repeat the pep rally after the House impeachment. No
champagne corks will publicly pop; sobriety with a pinch of contrition
will be the message of the day." Safire’s nuts. Clinton’s statement
after his acquittal showed little contrition; it’s just not in his
nature. Once away from the podium, I assume he resumed plotting with
James Carville. Whether Sidney Blumenthal is still in the loop is
debatable: On the one hand, he’s awfully adept at smearing presidential
enemies; on the other, this unfortunate flap with Christopher Hitchens
probably makes him as expendable as the scores of other loyal
Clintonistas who’ve been dispatched once their worth to the President
has been extinguished.
One question: If the Times admits he wasn’t "faithful to the law," then
why didn’t the paper advocate his removal from office? And another
thing, while I’m at it: If the Democrats are so goddamn self-righteous
about a censure, why don’t they convene a caucus of their own and issue
a condemnation? Because that wouldn’t be "bipartisan," a word that I
hope will disappear in the next year as it’s been rendered meaningless
in the current political climate.
"Well, what began in lies, should, I suppose, end in lies."
Jack Newfield, a liberal who’s slammed Clinton in the New York Post for
years, is a similar advocate for a toothless rebuke of the President. In
his Feb. 10 column, "Censure the Radical Right," Newfield doesn’t
understand why many Republicans won’t accede to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s
soft censure. Newfield is not a stupid man, and yet he writes: "Bill
Clinton did lie, cover up and shame his office. This has to be made
clear for every parent, child, and historian. Yet Gramm, Lott and a few
other Hezbollah Republican senators are maneuvering to frustrate the
will of a majority of senators, and a majority of the American people...
Bill Clinton should not have a single night to gloat and celebrate. He
should not have a single day to feel vindicated or exonerated."
Jack, I don’t understand your logic. Acquittal by the Senate is
exoneration. It’s vindication. A slip of paper saying words to the
effect of "You did some really naughty things, Mr. President, and you
shouldn’t do them again" won’t mean anything to Clinton. If you really
believe that Clinton lied, covered up and shamed his office, then why
haven’t you advocated his conviction? Because, Jack, you’re just as
political as the men and women you castigate. The President’s removal
from office would’ve been a victory for the conservatives you detest,
and even if Clinton is guilty, which based on your columns you surely
believe, denying the enemy a victory is worth his acquittal.
I have no idea why any pundit thinks Clinton has learned his lesson.
They’ve certainly realized over the past six years that when he’s "The
Comeback Kid," he’s most prone to political errors. That’s why Dick
Morris’ advice to Clinton in the Feb. 11 New York Post is so futile. He
writes: "His self-image of dignity makes it hard to share his feelings.
Now he has to. Finally, he must not attack Ken Starr or the Republicans.
He should, indeed, say kind words about the commitment of the House
Republicans to purity and principle as they saw it. He must be generous
in describing their motivations and specifically absolve them of the
suspicion that they put America through this anguish only to score
partisan points."
Panetta, of course, inadvertently gave a
dead-on description of Clinton
Clinton’s motivation? Reading objectively, as the Times Olympians direct
readers to do, it’s a bit puzzling. On the one hand, the reporters
paraphrase unnamed advisers as saying, "President Clinton is so furious
at House Republicans over his impeachment...that he has vowed to mount
an all-out offensive to knock out many of his foes and win back the
House for Democrats in 2000." According to Berke and Bennet, Mr.
Campaign Finance Reform has already scheduled fundraisers in nine cities
to collect cash for the effort. In addition, advisers, said Clinton,
"now viewed winning back the House as almost as important an affirmation
of his legacy as electing Vice President Al Gore as his successor." Hail
to the Chief: me, me, me!
Carville
Later in the story another adviser is quoted as saying, "It will be a
personal crusade. The man knows he’s done wrong. But he also knows they
should not have taken it to the extreme they have. He says, ‘It’s the
unfairness of this whole process—these right-wingers who tried to undo
the election.’" It wouldn’t surprise me if Lindsey Graham, Asa
Hutchinson, Bob Barr and Bill McCollum wind up the victims of mysterious
"accidents" in the next year. As for Henry Hyde, the 74-year-old
congressman, a hero in this travesty, he might have a special reward
lying in wait. Should the maligned leader fall ill and require
hospitalization, I’d recommend bodyguards around the clock.
Gore
And, big surprise, David Geffen is rallying behind the man "whose legal
bills he’s helped pay" because "he’s broke." Geffen said, "After these
years of Ken Starr, people are more energized than I’ve seen them since
the 60’s and 70’s. Many of us are looking forward to spending time and
money and effort to defeating [House manager] James Rogan." Geffen’s a
billionaire crackpot, but how many times have you heard egotistical
activists swear that they’ve never seen people more "energized since the
60s"—whether the cause is No Nukes, Anti-Apartheid, Take Back the Night,
Gay Pride Day or Free Mumia—when it’s their pet cause?
Geffen
The Times’ lead editorial last Thursday, "After the Verdict," drums the
same theme the page has worn out over the last three months: censure,
censure, censure, as if that will mean anything to Clinton. Conceding
that his December pep rally was "repugnant," the editorialist writes:
"This time Mr. Clinton needs to step alone before the cameras and tell
the American people he knows he was not faithful to the law and
understands that his Presidency has been tarnished. Only then can he try
to regain the trust of the people."
Blumenthal
Michael Kelly, in his Feb. 10 Washington Post column, exhibited more
intelligence than his sorry colleagues in the mainstream press. "In a
few days," he wrote, "President Clinton will be acquitted and the
verdict among the Washington chattering class has been determined in
advance: The House managers, a bunch of blunderers from really not the
better schools, overreached with a weak case, which the president’s
brilliant superlawyers destroyed, and the Senate just disposed of the
wreckage.
Kelly
It’s hard to figure the slimy Morris’ role in this scandal. He was
publicly banished from the White House after revelations of his
dalliances with a prostitute back in ’96—although he and Clinton still
spoke in private—yet he was one of the first people the President called
when Oralgate was about to break in the press. Clinton took Morris’
advice to conduct a poll. Apparently, as Morris started writing columns
for the Post and appearing on Fox tv, Clinton had no use for him. Leon
Panetta, Clinton’s former chief of staff, told Washington Post reporter
Howard Kurtz in a Feb. 3 article: "[Morris] is the consummate mutation
of a political consultant. He’s a bright guy, lot of talents—but has
this fundamental sense that almost everything is determined by the
latest poll, as opposed to conscience... In his own way, he represents
the dark side of politics."
Morris
JWR contributor "Mugger" is the editor-in-chief and publisher of New York Press. Send your comments to him by clicking here.
02/12/99:The Man Who Owns the World
02/10/99:The Impeachment Trial Splatters: Lindsey Graham Emerges a Hero
02/05/99: A Slight Stumble for Bush
01/29/99: Rich Is Back in the Tank
01/29/99: Not So Fast, Mr. & Mrs. Pundit
01/27/99:This Is Not America:
Clinton’s Set to Walk and Party On, Suckers
01/25/99:Sniffles and High Fever: Kids Say the Darndest Things
01/20/99: Whole Lott(a) Waffling Goin' On
01/14/99: Senator Hillary Rodham in 2000:
The First Step Back to the Oval Office
01/08/99: Drudge Is the Hero
01/06/99 : MUGGER & the Martians
12/30/98 : Last Licks of ’98:
Some Heroes, Several Villains & Many Idiots
12/17/98 : Boy Mugger's obsession
12/11/98: Irving’s the King Wolf
12/09/98: What do Matt Drudge and Tom Hanks have in common?
11/26/98: Starr’s Magnificent Moment
11/18/98: Who could have imagined!?
11/11/98: Send Dowd Down to the Minors
11/05/98:
Feeding Gore to
a shark named Bush
10/30/98: "Pope" Jann and his rappers speak ---it's time for fun again
10/28/98: Lowered expectations, but the GOP holds the cards
10/23/98: Speaking from Zabar’s: Michael Moore!
10/21/98: Bubba redux?
His uptick won't last
10/16/98: Gore for President: The Bread Lines Are Starting to Form