The American Spectator

Editor's Desk

Boycott ''Crossfire''?

By Wlady Pleszczynski on 4.25.02 @ 3:23PM

Is a party under attack obligated to engage its attacker? Lately the right has been criticized for refusing to respond according to the left's prescriptions. In the Middle East, for instance, the government of Ariel Sharon has refused to respond to suicide bombings by sitting down and talking peace with the sponsors of the bombings, as the "whole world" would have it do. Instead, it has done what any other normal government would do, and asserted its nation's right to self-defense. The left cries foul, which is why it's the left. But in important matters prudence requires it be ignored.

Actually, there's every reason to ignore it in trivial matters as well. Champions of David Brock's recent confessional, for instance, continue to squawk that the right has largely ignored the book and failed to respond to its many wild charges which they all insist are true. Gee, they say, what are conservatives afraid of? Or as a "Press Clips" critic recently put it in the Los Angeles Times, "The right's relative hush on Brock's book suggests that he's telling the truth." No, it suggests something else entirely. The right is under no obligation to respond to someone who has simply switched sides. When Jim Jeffords flipped, were all Republicans honor-bound to renounce their party as well and declare themselves followers of Tom Daschle? Brock, among other things, is playing a political game, in which a staunch anti-Clintonite turn into an even stauncher Clintonite. That might qualify Brock for the Guinness Book. But it doesn't mean the right has hold his hand one last time.

It's amusing to see the left taunting the right to engage a book it has already pronounced unimpeachable. Why don't its adherents just come out with it and ask the right to turn itself in? Surely they don't expect any response from the right would change their minds? But then again, arguing under false pretense is what makes the left the left.

Moving into an area of even greater triviality, there have been several reports this week that Republicans are boycotting or planning or thinking of boycotting the new, hopped-up version of CNN's "Crossfire." Why should they participate in a cheap show co-hosted by very active Clinton-Gore Democrats? The same question perhaps could have been raised during the show's previous incarnation, though hosts like Bill Press or Geraldine Ferraro or even Bob Beckel were relative Democratic has-beens compared to the Begala-Carville duo that succeeded them.

What's more Begala-Carville have long been a pair, their opposites Bob Novak and Tucker Carlson hardly so. But more importantly, Novak and Carlson speak for themselves, not the RNC, the White House, or the GOP Congressional Leadership, all of which they might criticize not infrequently. Maybe not as often as Begala-Carville, but more often than those two will ever utter an unsupportive word for Democratic Party top dogs. In this respect, may Republicans should demand that the show's conservative hosts be Karen Hughes and Grover Norquist, people who will defend their side politically no matter what. Such a pairing would at least somewhat neutralize the biggest reason to distrust Begala-Carville: they're as actively engaged in promoting the current Democratic agenda as Terry McAuliffe.

Of course, with Begala-Carville the problem doesn't stop there. Everyone knows that Carville put the "vile" in "Car-vile," as one Kultursmog watcher has put it. But who could have thought that Begala would turn out the more vile of the two? His recent outbursts have made headlines (and adoring approval from his groupies at Media Whores Online), whether for calling Hugo Chavez more legitimate than George W. Bush or declaring Al Gore to be his president. It's only natural that well-mannered Republicans would rather not appear in the company of a man who asks questions as graceless as this one: "Miss Pieczynski, I want to bring Mr. Kane in by asking you this question: One hundred years ago, women were not allowed to receive communion during your menstrual cycle..."

On the other hand, the trashy television trappings notwithstanding, it is a political show, and for all the fanaticism and bullying that emanates from Begala-Carville, the twosome can be neutralized. The key is send on the right guests. Tell the politicians to stay home; they don't need the abuse. Instead, bring on someone like Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women's Forum.

Ms. Pfotenhauer was a guest on the April 16 show, brought on to discuss wage discrimination against women, just the sort of topic Begala loves to champion. On this day, though, he picked the wrong opponent. Here's how it started:

BEGALA: ...Take a look at these statistics. Back in 1963, I'm sure you're familiar with this, the pay gap between men and women was 59 cents. The latest data that we have from today is 73 cents. Well, my goodness...

PFOTENHAUER: The latest data from where?

BEGALA: That's progress. From the Census Bureau.

PFOTENHAUER: No, it's not from the Census Bureau.

BEGALA: Actually, we got this from NOW. Let me...

Pretty soon Pfotenhauer was talking circles around an overmatched Begala:

BEGALA: At this pace, you'll achieve full quality in the year 2080. So let's just be calm and...

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Television, Law, Supreme Court