Month: February 2001

Turns out we’ll need just a couple more days before we can put the tip jar on top of the piano. We want to get absolutely everything right – beta-tested, designed, aligned – to make giving a donation to the site as easy and reliable as humanly possible. There will be three options – the Amazon link, a separate credit card link that will give 100 percent to the site (rather than 15 percent to Amazon), and an old-fashioned address to send old-fashioned checks to. We’re anticipating that most of you will prefer to give once a year, if at all, so don’t worry about constant badgering or PBS-style pledge weeks. And we hope to set up a page on the site for any of you who want to be recognized as major donors of over $100. (A buck a month or nothing at all is just as acceptable, if not, obviously, as welcome). Jonah Goldberg, a friend and jolly chap, predicted last week that this business model for the web wouldn’t work. We have only to wait till Wednesday to prove him wrong.

GORE LOSES DADE: No news here, except a confirmation of what the Palm Beach Post found a while back. The real news is that there is now no doubt that, if Gore had had everything go his way in the first three weeks after the election, and if the recounts in his four cherry-picked counties had been completed in full and in time along the lines adopted by the respective, Democratic canvassing boards, then Gore would still have lost. It’s still possible that a full recount of every county, using the most liberal standards available, might still eke out a Gore win in Florida. But in some ways, that’s not the salient point. The salient point is that we should shed no tears for Gore. He had a chance to be a statesman and call for recounts in every county immediately after the second recount kept Bush alive. He blew it, by adopting a Clintonian win-at-all-costs strategy of picking a few friendly counties and trying to win the Clinton way – by cutting corners. It turns out that this sneaky strategy was too sneaky by half and ended up backfiring. Too bad, Al. For me, I see a seamless link between the ethical impulses behind the Pardon Scam and the Florida Recount. To pursue a skewed recount that could never have resulted in a clear victory for either side was the summation of a Clintonian moral compass. It said in a loud voice: “We don’t care what damage this will do. We don’t care about fairness. We care about winning.” The fact that Gore lacked any sense that this kind of strategy was beneath him, that it could embroil the entire system in a crisis for the sake of a tainted victory, is a clear enough sign to me that, in the end, Gore would not have been the antidote to Clinton. He was the continuation of Clinton by other means. A once-ethical man with genuine aspirations for his country was simply another victim of Clinton’s depravity. Thank God he’s not president now.

“The Clintons may or may not be led away in handcuffs someday. But whatever happens with the criminal investigations, it’s time for the Democratic Party to wise up. Ostracism would be a good first step. Bill Clinton should be cut completely loose. Cold turkey. No more talk about his political genius, his fund-raising prowess, his ability to captivate audiences. He was president for eight years and the bottom line politically is this: For the first time in nearly half a century, the Republican Party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress. Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing.” – Bob Herbert, New York Times, today.

It’s not about the brothers! You can see the spin now. This is Billy Carter Redux. But it has nothing to do with Billy Carter. This is not about some renegade relative out there doing embarrassing things over which the president has no control. It’s about those renegade relatives using their access to the president to undermine a sacred part of our criminal justice system. Without the president’s cooperation, there would be no scandal at all. It’s about Clinton, stupid. In fact, the most poignant part of Roger Clinton’s recent explanations of what he did was the naivete with which he dealt with his elder brother. Leaving an envelope on a table for the president to find is almost touching in its cluelessness. The very gesture suggests Roger knew he was doing something illicit; a more direct request for the president to pardon people simply because they were friends with his brother would have seemed a little crass – even for Bubba Junior. Nevertheless, Roger expected his brother to take the hint. He didn’t realize that what Clinton is about is not helping his trailer-park bro win some friends. It’s about using the pardon power to shake down money, establish new channels for fund-raising, and generally lay the groundwork for a post-presidential money-power tree from which to operate in future. Roger could never have been a part of that. And he never will be.

A NEW NEW PIECE: For the sheer pleasure of it, check out Michael Lewis’s account of the teenage target of the S.E.C.’s wrath in the New York Times Magazine. Michael – an old friend – is simply the most evocative reporter-writer of his – my – generation. But what was so rewarding about this piece is how it captures Michael’s instinctive support for the under-dog, and keen eye for naked emperors. At a time when the conventional wisdom is leaning against the revolutionary aspect of the Internet, he also reminds us how radical the Internet still is – how it can empower a fourteen-year-old boy to the same levels of influence as Wall Street machers. And how the greatest stories are simply there – lying for the picking in the unlikely breakthroughs of ordinary people daring to speak and think for themselves.

THE FULLER MONTY: The official biographer of legendary Field Marshall Montgomery is at work on an update of his three-volume tome written in the 1980s. Nigel Hamilton had unique access to hundreds of letters and materials thanks to close cooperation with Monty’s family and estate. Now that he has been freed from some of those connections and obligations, Hamilton has decided to include in his one-volume summary, “The Full Monty,” the argument that Monty was a repressed pedophile. According to yesterday’s Sunday Times of London, Hamilton “said he had no proof of a physical relationship between Montgomery and the many boys he befriended, though he has no doubt that he was passionately in love with them. One was Lucien Trueb, whom Montgomery met in 1946 when the Swiss boy was just 12, and they corresponded over many years. Hamilton, a visiting professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, says his new book, to be published this summer, has not been written to destroy but to explain the reputation of a man he regards as a “revolutionary” commander. “I’ve been curious to find out why he was such a revolutionary leader. I believe his sexuality is a key. His passion for young men helped him relate to his liaison officers and young staff. He felt a real concern for their welfare,” said Hamilton.” This raises an interesting but unnerving question. To what extent can illicit, even immoral, desires, if repressed, actually do good? Monty appeared to have serial crushes on boys and adolescents, although he probably never acted upon them. Channeling this repressed demon may actually have led to what helped defeat Rommel, Hamilton argues. The same defense has also been made about Lord Baden Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts, and almost certainly someone with pedophile inclinations – again probably repressed. I should say here, before Mary Eberstadt sinks her canines into my left ankle, that this is NOT a defense of pedophilia. It is an inquiry into whether the successful repression of it might be linked with worthwhile activities. We’ve all known that selfless, single teacher in high school, who devoted close attention to his young charges – but never went over the line. Is that teacher a molestation waiting to happen or a fine example of self-control and moral conduct? It’s a tough call. Barring such people from any profession which might lead them into temptation would not only rob them of a chance to prove their self-control, but also rob society of their talents. On the other hand, if a single child is hurt because of this, is it worth the risk? I lean toward thinking the latter. But Monty reminds us that even the greatest legends had human failings. And if they turn those failings to good, should we still see fit to condemn them?

DUH: “If this really is marital mutually assured destruction, which half will prevail?” – Maureen Dowd today.

“As he showed by turning the Democrats out in a time of prosperity, Mr. Bush is a formidable politician. In his first month in the White House he has not put a political foot wrong. He plainly hopes to build a popular majority for a Reaganesque policy of smaller, less regulatory government, and he might succeed.” – Anthony Lewis, in today’s New York Times.

Interesting and completely predictable piece in the New York Times today about the soaring costs of prescription drugs. The estimate of drug costs from all sources for the elderly in 2010 just went up by 23 percent. The costs for this year have been recalculated to post an increase of 7 percent. These kinds of statistical adjustments mean something quite simple: no-one has a clue what’s going to happen to drug costs in the next decade, but you’d be a fool if you think they won’t sky-rocket. Anyone who’s had a close look at what’s going on in pharmaceutical research will tell you that the potential for new breakthroughs is extremely high and the demand is limitless. Guaranteeing, as Al Gore would have done, a fat new entitlement on these grounds would have guaranteed us higher taxes and big deficits well into the future. And somehow I don’t think that every time the scheme was mentioned in the New York Times, it would have appended to it – the ‘enormous new entitlement heavily biased toward the wealthy.’ Bush has committed himself to something less onerous – but still a budgetary nightmare. He should start talking up these soaring cost numbers to keep the program as modest as possible. Or better still, drop it altogether.

The crumbling line between legitimate, medically prescribed drugs and illegal, controlled substances will soon disappear for good. Time for some clearer thinking on drug-use. Check out my new TRB, “Dude, Where’s My Drug Policy?” just posted opposite.

THE ALTERNATIVE: Can you imagine how this pardon mess would have played with Gore in the White House? It wouldn’t just have paralyzed the media, it would have paralyzed the government. The Clintons’ psychodrama would not have disappeared with a Gore administration. Its tentacles would still be growing everywhere. Close shave, huh? But one more reason to be cheerful we may soon see the last of them. We think.

“These outrageous pardons seem to confirm everything Clinton-haters said about them (well, maybe not the charges that they murdered small children, or poor Vince Foster). They appear to be the corrupt, self-dealing mandarins of their opponents’ most virulent imaginings.” – Salon.com.
“I can’t say these are illegitimate questions being brought up, because they are legitimate.” – James Carville.

TIPPING POINT: Maybe it’s being mentioned in the Washington Post and Rush Limbaugh this week, but yesterday, we had over 8,000 daily unique visitors – a record. We also got a recent mention on “Politically Incorrect.” Good timing to launch the tipping jar. A button will magically appear here on Monday, giving you three options for throwing a small donation at the site to keep it going – or even expand. More details and a pitch on Monday.

“Bob, having Leah Rabin call is not a bad idea. The problem is how do we contact her? She died last November.” – an email from the director general of the Marc Rich Foundation to a Rich lawyer in New York, dreaming up new angles to get a pardon for their wealthy fugitive friend. Leon Wieseltier has more gems from Jack Quinn’s email trail in the new New Republic.

Am I the only journalist to be troubled by Rolling Stone owner Jann Wenner’s complete conflation of journalism and lobbying in some of the pardon cases? The New York Post reports that “Clinton ended up commuting the sentences of 17 drug offenders supported by FAMM [Families Against Mandatory Minimums], which claims mandatory sentencing laws have left thousands of first-time, nonviolent drug violators languishing for years behind bars. Wenner lobbied Clinton for 14 of them. Wenner, who has donated over $30,000 to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, raised the issue with Clinton during a Rolling Stone interview in the White House family quarters in October. He later faxed Clinton and top aide Bruce Lindsey details of the cases along with a personal letter of support.” (My emphasis.) I guess we’re inured to the fact now that someone who runs a magazine like Rolling Stone has gone from counter-cultural rebel to high-level user of presidential access. And we’re no longer shocked to find that Wenner’s indebtedness to Clinton translates into fellatial coverage of the president in the pages of Rolling Stone. And this toadying to a man who expanded the drug war to new and invidious heights! But to use an actual interview to lobby for the cause of a friend seems to me a new low in principled journalism in which there is some distinction between a reporter/interviewer and political supplicant. I’m a big believer in the cause that Wenner was trying to advance. Our drug laws are way too rigid and harsh. But you shouldn’t have to trash any ounce of journalistic integrity to promote a worthwhile cause.