|
Jewish World Review / Oct. 28, 1998 /8 Mar-Cheshvan, 5759
MUGGER
Lowered expectations, but the GOP holds the cards
I'M WRITING JUST EIGHT DAYS before the election and from this corner it
appears the GOP will have plenty of reasons to celebrate. Could be
wrong, but it looks like a gain of about 18 House seats and five in the
Senate.
True, Newt Gingrich was tempting fate, as usual, by proclaiming
that his party could win possibly 40 seats in the House, echoing
triple-agent Dick Morris' speculation of a 30-40 seat pickup, but most
Republicans, and conservative pundits, are keeping their lips buttoned,
just to tamp down expectations.
Chris Matthews, on his show Hardball last Friday night, was positively
ebullient about Clinton's success in brokering a Mideast peace accord,
but I have the feeling—especially since those agreements are a dime a
dozen—this will be a minor uptick for the President.
Can you say
Jonathan Pollard? Not so, contends Newsweek's Jonathan Alter in this
week's issue: "And what a weird moment it is. If the Republicans pick up
seats in the midterm elections, Bill Clinton might soon be impeached and
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize at the same time."
Sure. I prefer William
Safire's conclusion in Monday's Times: "I was about to give Clinton a
medium salute, but then he had to preach to black ministers that the
negotiation had been part of ‘my personal journey of atonement.' This
one was for Monica? That self-absorbed confusion of his need for
political forgiveness with the nation's need for an effective chief
executive was smarmy and solipsistic. As J.F.K. would say, ‘no class.'"
And after all, the Paula Jones case remains unresolved, polls show a GOP
advantage among likely voters, the Republican Party is pouring cash into
close races and Clinton still can't shake Lewinsky's tail. Just last
week, he sent an apology to the Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock.
The Rev. Rex Horne read the letter to his congregation, which "expressed
repentance for his actions, sadness for the consequences of his sin on
his family, friends and church family, and asked forgiveness from
Immanuel." Echoing the Great Communicator, all I can say is "There he
goes again," putting the word "sin" in the singular, but that's the
Clinton we've come to known and despise.
Molly Ivins, the gaseous lefty who writes for the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram, was uncharacteristically gloomy last Saturday, as if
she's reconciled to a bad showing for her beloved Democrats.
"What a
commercially disgusting political year it is," she said. "Both sides
lobbing stink bombs on the airwaves with unparalleled disregard for
truth, probity or the mental health of the citizenry." When have we
heard that opinion before? Why, only every two years. She continues:
"Leading off, in the totally vacuous, noninformation mode, we have
George W. Bush, who seems to be running for an insurance company
position. He's an optimist, he's responsible, he's honest, and he likes
family. At no point do we get a single hint of what he's for or against,
what he has done (not much to report), or what he plans to. There's just
not much there there."
Molly, I've got a surprise for you: he plans to
move to Washington, DC, two years from now.
New York's Senate race will be no exception to the GOP wave on Nov. 3.
Sure, Al D'Amato made a dumb faux pas last week by calling Rep. Jerry
Nadler "Jerry Waddler," and the "putzhead" remark aimed at his opponent
Chuck Schumer has Democratic consultants popping the bubbly, saying this
was the turnaround they needed to combat the Fonz's prodigious warchest.
In fact, the "putzhead" jibe was hardly an ethnic slur; it was delivered
to a small group of 40 people, of which D'Amato was the only person who
wasn't Jewish. Give Schumer credit: His campaign team produced an
instant commercial that features D'Amato denying making the joke and
then fuzzily admitting it, which dovetailed perfectly with the
Congressman's theme that the incumbent is a corrupt liar.
Schumer, as a Jew, is grasping at straws to gain any advantage in an
election that is clearly up for grabs. He called the "putzhead" shot a
"cheap slur against me" and linked it to D'Amato's using as a prop
Holocaust survivors to demonstrate his pro-Israel positions. Schumer,
who hasn't a competitor in current New York politics for
self-righteousness, was livid, saying, "I lost family in the Holocaust,
and my wife lost family in the Holocaust," implying that D'Amato, as a
Catholic, was not entitled to speak out about issues of interest to
Jewish voters. More importantly, Schumer was trying to distract voters
from D'Amato's heavy tv blitz about Schumer's poor attendance record in
Congress this year.
Post editorial page editor John Podhoretz wrote last Friday that none of
the attendees were offended. "Most people chuckled when D'Amato called
Schumer a putzhead. Every Jew in New York knows that Gentile politicians
here love to use Yiddishisms before Jewish audiences as a gesture of
familiarity. The idea that putz is an ethnic slur is preposterous. It's
an insult, not a slur. Was the senator being nice? No, he wasn't. But
who started calling whom a liar the minute the primary was over in
September? Putzhead, that's who." On the same day in the Post, Jackie
Mason and Raoul L. Felder suggested that D'Amato should've called
Schumer a schmuck instead of a putzhead.
The Times, in its Sunday endorsement of Schumer, wasn't as amused.
Declaring that it's "a pleasure to take sides" in this election, the
paper piously lectured: "The D'Amato attempt to capitalize on Mr.
Schumer's missed procedural vote on using the Capitol Rotunda for a
Holocaust memorial carried the whiff of panic. So, too, did Mr.
D'Amato's use of a vulgar term to describe Mr. Schumer and his
ridiculing of Representative Jerrold Nadler for being portly. These
incidents reminded voters of the cruelty and tastelessness that have
pocked this Senator's career."
Funny, D'Amato's alleged "cruelty" didn't
detract the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights
organization, from endorsing the Senator over Schumer, contrary to the
popular belief that the gay vote is the sole province of Democrats.
Writing about Saturday's debate between the two candidates, neither
Newsday's Jimmy Breslin nor the Daily News' Michael Daly was impressed.
Breslin: "All I get from D'Amato's screaming is that he's calling
Schumer a Jew. In doing this he hoped to get all of upstate roused
against the threat from Brooklyn. Schumer let you know that he thinks
D'Amato is a totally dishonest strong-arm guy, meaning Italian." Daly:
"In the debate, Schumer summoned the issue of trust and did manage to
prove himself more unlike Al D'Amato than their commercials suggest. The
problem was Schumer seemed taken with his own ads. He repeatedly tapped
his chest like he was touching somebody wonderful. On his part, D'Amato
acted like he was an ad. He raised the largely specious issue of
Schumer's attendance record no matter what the question."
Along with the Barbara Boxer-Matt Fong matchup in California, New York's
Senate election is attracting the most national attention. Beltway
pundits, of course, are rooting for Schumer, with The Washington Post's
E.J. Dionne only the most obvious in his partisanship. To most of the
buttondowned members of the press corps D'Amato is a sleazy, coarse pol
who hasn't the right to sup in their town. That he's a wily politician,
which you'd think they'd admire, or is popular with constituents, for
whom he delivers, is of no importance.
Dionne writes that "I've known
and liked Schumer since I met him in college nearly 30 years ago. But
the point here is not personal." Right. He then outlines how D'Amato has
defeated previous opponents, saying that the Senator "practically ran as
Bill Clinton's running mate" in '92, when in fact Clinton was perceived
as a liberal in his first presidential race and D'Amato's slogan was
that Robert Abrams was "too liberal for New York."
Most incredulous of all is his conclusion: "Watch this race. Enjoy it.
And pray that there aren't many like it." What a joke. This is precisely
the kind of election that reporters lap up. It's entertainment, it's a
welcome diversion from the rigors of everyday life and Dionne is simply
being condescending by denying it.
As of Monday, the reliable pollster John Zogby had the race as a
toss-up, with D'Amato losing ground in the suburbs. However, with the
likelihood of a minuscule New York City turnout, I think D'Amato will be
returned to the Senate by a tiny
Even The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes
lowered his Senate prediction last weekend to only two seats. Democratic
consultant-for-hire Robert Shrum, easily the most repellent man in the
business, told the Post a week ago that "Democrats could win the House
back—Republican gains will be single-digit at best. The Senate will be a
draw." Then again, Shrum has a lifelong habit of backing losers—another
Kennedy acolyte gone to seed—so take his words as those of a loon.
Mr. Newt
JWR contributor "Mugger" is the editor-in-chief and publisher of New York Press. Send your comments to him by clicking here.
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