HELP
Author Archive
E-mail Author
Send to a Friend
<% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Print Version

Novermber 25, 2002, 8:30 a.m.
Hip, goateed, and right. Speaker Hammer? How would Michael look now? Etc.

hen I was young(er), I thought the most stupid cliché in the world was, “You can’t judge a book by its cover.” (Actually, the most stupid cliché in the world, as every sensible golfer knows, is, “Drive for show, putt for dough.”) I think I once heard Harlan Ellison say on television, “If there’s a spaceship and a laser-gun-bearing warrioress on the cover, chances are it’s a sci-fi novel.” On my college campus, if you saw a guy with a purple mohawk and a “U.S. Out of El Salvador” T-shirt, chances were he didn’t vote for Reagan twice.



  

People deliberately advertise things about themselves by how they arrange their “covers.”

But you can’t always judge a book by its cover, which I guess is the point. The more I meet conservatives and National Review readers, the more I’m amazed by the diversity of them (of us). We’re not all Ozzie & Harriet, not by a long shot — and, truth is, never have been.

Recently, I met a very cool college sophomore from Illinois. I mean, this kid was cool — from the goatee on his chin to his love of Nirvana (a rock group, or something). He has read National Review since he was 14 — doesn’t even read the website. He is extremely thoughtful and well informed. I asked him who his favorite officeholder was: He said, quickly, Orrin Hatch of Utah.

I also met some ’70s-ish, semi-hippie Southwesterners who are die-hard Milton Friedmanites — countercultural free-marketeers, if you will.

No, you can’t always judge a book by its cover — not a profound, or a new, point, but one worth renewing, from time to time.

I bring you an appalling thing from the New York Times. On November 16, reporter Lizette Alvarez wrote in an article — a news article, mind you — “It was on [the Homeland Security Department] issue, more than on any other, that Republicans battered both Mrs. Carnahan and Mr. Cleland, accusing them — unjustly, the defeated senators say — of being unpatriotic for failing to support the president in his war on terrorism.”

That sentence takes some eye rubbing, doesn’t it? “Mrs. Carnahan,” of course, is the defeated senator Jean in Missouri; and “Mr. Cleland” is the defeated senator Max in Georgia. Lizette Alvarez says flat-out that the GOP accused those candidates of being unpatriotic. The senators deny the justice of it — but Alvarez states as a fact, in a news article in our paper of record, that the Republicans accused them of lacking patriotism.

And how about “the president in his war on terrorism” — his war on terrorism? It’s just a personal thing, mind you — nothing more serious, or world-historic, than that. This is, of course, Maureen Dowd’s position: but she, at least, is an (acknowledged) opinion columnist.

It is by now Democratic holy writ — and, thus, media holy writ — that Saxby Chambliss won the Senate race in Georgia by questioning the patriotism of his opponent, Sen. Max Cleland. Like the Republican primary in South Carolina in 2000, this has entered the lore, and the facts will never fight their way back. (The Wall Street Journal had a wonderful editorial on that primary — Bush vs. McCain — called “The Legend of Carolina.”) Forgetting the truth or falsity of the Georgia charge (for a second), has anyone paused to consider what a mind-blowingly dumb tactic that would have been — to accuse Max Cleland of being unpatriotic? Cleland is a Vietnam War triple amputee; Chambliss received a student deferment (and was then kept out of the war by a bum knee, according to reports). Sen. Pat Leahy — the pit-bull Democrat from Vermont — denounced Chambliss publicly as a “draft dodger.”

It is almost impossible to run against a Democratic war hero in a wheelchair. But Chambliss did so anyway, and he did so unapologetically — we’re a democracy, after all, and no one is entitled to a seat, even if he has made a tremendous sacrifice in war. There were genuine differences between the two candidates on the Department of Homeland Security. And if a Democrat says, “Those nasty Republicans are trying to screw the unions again — trying to screw the working man,” there’s not a titter.

Look, the idea that Chambliss attacked Cleland’s patriotism is not only false but nutty. To have done so would have been catastrophic and suicidal.

National Journal publishes a little report that Denny Hastert isn’t long for this world — or rather, isn’t long for the House. He’ll finish his term, and that’s it, says this item. But will Tom DeLay — who just became majority leader, with Dick Armey’s departure — move up, as Speaker? No, says NJ. He’s not ready for prime time, and others will present themselves for the top job (assuming the GOP is still in control of the House).

Well, I want to register — early, here in 2002 — that DeLay is ready for prime time, and that the GOP shouldn’t fear him as Speaker. Nor should DeLay fear himself as Speaker! (Some say he doesn’t want the job, regardless.) Democrats — along with some Republicans — like to say that DeLay’s a right-wing ogre best kept in the shadows, away from the broad public, where he might scare women and children. (When I said “broad” there, by the way, I didn’t mean women.) My response: Nonsense! Congressional GOP-ers, elevate him if you dare! And you should!

That same issue of National Journal has a wonderful run-down on the new members of Congress — and governors, too. Granted, I’m a vicious partisan, but I couldn’t help noticing that the Republicans have more “normal” — less political — backgrounds than the Democrats. There are a lot of small-business owners; and the Democrats tend to be lawyers, career politicians, or “activists.” (In a recent interview with me — the basis of a piece in the current NR — Robert Conquest described himself as “anti-activism,” which I like very much.)

These are just generalities, mind you: John Engler, a marvelous conservative Republican, has done nothing but politics his whole life; and some Democrats have dabbled in the “real world.” But the generalities are true, as generalities.

About the new congressional class: Rep. Trent Franks (R., Ariz.) was a “small-business owner” (according to National Journal); Rep. Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.) was a “college administrator and a community activist.” Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.) is a lawyer, but he also ran an auto shop. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D., Fla.) is described simply as a “public official.” (He’s the son of outgoing representative Carrie Meek, who arranged for her boy to take over her seat.) A Republican from Georgia, Phil Gingrey (not Gingrich), is an obstetrician. A Republican from Minnesota, John Kline, is a retired Marine Corps colonel. Rep. Gresham Barrett (R., S.C.) was a furniture-store owner and a captain in the Army. NJ describes the new governor of New Hampshire, Republican Craig Benson, as simply an “entrepreneur.”

Here’s my favorite bio: Marilyn Musgrave, a new congressman from Colorado — Republican, of course — was a “teacher, homemaker, and hay-stacking-company owner.”

Other fun facts from the NJ report? Rep. Rick Renzi (R., Ariz.) has twelve children. Rep. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) was born in 1973; so was Rep. Tim Ryan (D., Ohio). The brother of Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.), Mario Diaz-Balart, was just elected to Congress, also from Florida. Their uncle and grandfather served in the Cuban legislature, pre-Castro (of course). Their aunt was once married to the dictator himself. The Diaz-Balart brothers are one of three sibling pairs in Congress (along with the Levins of Michigan and the Sanchezes of California).

Tim Murphy, a new (Republican) representative from Pennsylvania, is a psychologist, co-author of a book called The Angry Child: Regaining Control When Your Child Is Out of Control. Aren’t you glad your reps don’t all come from a cookie cutter?

Elected from Alabama was a lawyer named Artur (not Arthur) Davis. In the Democratic primary, he beat hater par excellence Earl Hilliard, a Cynthia McKinney-like, Maxine Waters-like congressman. Hilliard charged that Davis — a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School — wasn’t “black enough” to represent that Alabama district. Alluding to Davis’s career as a federal prosecutor, Hilliard said, “The only thing he’s done for black people is put them in jail.”

A wonderful line: but scandalously wrong, of course. When a prosecutor puts criminals away, he helps many, many people — innocents, potential victims — both black and white. Much of the time, black citizens are helped more than others, living in crime-plagued areas.

Unfortunately, Davis is — as National Journal tells us — pro-abortion and anti-school choice. Can he be in tune with his constituents on those issues? I’m afraid we have to sigh — but at least Davis is an improvement over Hilliard. Now, if only Davis isn’t motivated to prove his “black credentials” . . .

Here’s something funny: On Election Night, many Democrats (who didn’t have much to crow about) were crowing that Brad Henry, a Democrat, had defeated Republican star Steve Largent for governor of Oklahoma. But speaking of crowing . . .

Henry won in large part because he opposed a ban on cock fighting. Cock fighting! In America! In 2002! Now, that’s nothing that Al Hunt should be proud of, is it?

I’m sure I’m not the first to have thought of this: Democrats now pretend that only people with combat experience can pronounce on Iraq. But they weren’t all that hot to count military ballots in Florida, were they?

The New York Times had a very sad article on religious persecution in Belarus — outrageous, really, because religious people were persecuted for decades under Communism, and now the Communist yoke is off . . . and it doesn’t matter much, there.

After this last Election Night, John McCain sighed that we could have Bushes in the presidency “well into the 21st century.” I wonder: Was he rooting for Jeb in Florida? Why — tell me again — is he still in the Republican party?

Strangely enough, I’m a connoisseur of presidential Thanksgiving Day proclamations. I’ve always loved them, ever since I was a child (heard them read in church). One of my first published pieces — for The Weekly Standard, for which I was then working — was on the Thanksgiving proclamations.

You know that I’m a fan of the current president, but his new proclamation — found here — is rather bland. Fine, but bland. Not one for the ages (not that it has to be, get off my back).

You know how a newspaper or magazine will publish an “artist’s rendering” of how someone who died young would’ve looked if he’d grown older? People have done this with JFK.

I’d be interested in seeing an artist’s rendering of how Michael Jackson would have looked, at his present age. He was such a handsome kid — a handsome black kid. And then, in one of the sorriest, most pitiable spectacles of our time, he ruined himself, trying to look like someone else (a blend of Diana Ross and Elizabeth Taylor — no, seriously).

And will we ever have a straight account of his marriage to Elvis’s daughter? That has to be one of the most interesting unions of all time.

Much more to say, y’all, but gots to go. See you soon.

Misunderestimated

Bill Sammon paints a riveting portrait of President Bush as he broadens the war on terror overseas.

Buy it through NR

 
Looking
for a story?
Click here