Category: Old Dish

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.

Some interesting developments. First, there’s a strong and immediate response to the idea that the AIDS office would be closed. Bush himself said that AIDS was a priority for his administration. We’ll see, of course. Then the Bush administration continues the Clinton policy of not pursuing sanctions against some Third World countries manufacturing generic anti-HIV meds to combat a public health emergency. To be honest, I haven’t come to a real conclusion as to what is the best compromise between keeping the financial incentives for AIDS research, while dealing with what is clearly an immediate and growing global AIDS crisis. But the Clinton-Bush compromise doesn’t seem to me to be obviously misguided – and their motives are clearly compassionate. Finally, John Ashcroft met yesterday with Log Cabin Republicans. I have to say I find this to be moving news. I’m not going to roll over and love the new AG. How could I? But his willingness to meet with LCR was welcome, constructive and good. Those left-wing critics who argued that any gay support for Bush was tantamount to Jewish support for the Nazis have so far been proven, as usual, wrong. A dialogue has begun. We need to keep it going.

I’m still waiting for the first black leader to say what should be said about the Carlos Vignali pardon. Why is Vignali free while dozens of mainly black, poor underlings in his crack-selling operation are not? Remember the canard that the FBI was secretly selling crack to inner-city black youngsters – and the African-American outrage this prompted? (The outrage was justified if the story had been true. Pity it wasn’t.) Well, now we have a pardon for someone convicted of peddling millions of dollars worth of crack into such ghettoes – thanks, in part, to the influence of Bill Clinton’s brother-in-law. Put it another way: the “first black president” singled out a non-black for a pardon, leaving dozens of black convicts in jail, and all for peddling crack to mainly black inner-city youngsters. Take it away, Jesse! Oh never mind.

A devoted reader makes the simple case that Clinton does what he does because he is a sociopath. Here’s the official American Psychiatric Association definition. Sound familiar?
(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as
indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning
others for personal profit or pleasure
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights
or assaults
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain
consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing
having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
Diagnostic Criteria for 301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition, 1994, pp. 645-650.