LEADERSHIP VACUUM: Is gotcha politics a Democratic
specialty? Could be, given what we saw in recent weeks when, after
eight months of relative post-9/11 comity, leading Democrats
decided it was high time to accuse the current president and his
administration of engaging in some odd mix of devious coverup and
unpreparedness in connection to that day’s terrorist attacks. But
even if it is the Democrats’ game, it’s not an easy one to play,
and from all indications its instigators quickly backed off once it
dawned on them it was costing them points. Like all instinctive
competitors they’ll no doubt regroup and try, try again. If so,
they could perhaps use a new captain, as Tom Daschle’s sad
performance on last Sunday’s “Meet the Press” confirmed. Under Tim
Russert’s sharp questioning, Daschle appeared churlish, graceless,
contradictory, and small. He even lacked the grace to distance
himself from Cynthia McKinney’s rhetoric. Republicans are mighty
fortunate Daschle hasn’t proved to be the second coming of George
Mitchell.
OUT OF THEIR LEAGUE: Republicans are also lucky
that two can’t necessarily play the gotcha game, or that when they
sometimes try no one bothers to notice. Last week some Republicans
on Capitol Hill thought they had a golden opportunity to turn the
tables on Democrats by accusing them of premeditated dishonesty.
They felt they had a smoking gun, in the form of an e-mail exchange
between two Democratic House staffers that had inadvertently
reached a Republican staffer. The e-mail included a crudely argued
draft of a Democratic op-ed accusing the Bush administration of
wanting to privatize and Social Security, threaten the survival of
seniors, and enrich the rich and Enron-like corporations. Even Al
Gore would have argued the case in subtler language.
More interesting was that at the top of the would-be op-ed, one
staffer asks: “Does the rhetoric match the facts?” To which the
other staffer replies: “In response to your question: not entirely
factually accurate.” Then he adds: “I hope this is not under
consideration for the pull out. Talk about scaring seniors — this
may be a little over the top. But it is sooo fun to bash
Republicans.” (And he added a smiley face.) It was here that
Republicans somehow saw their opening, even though the memo’s jokey
expression of anti-Republican partisanship was accompanied by a
clear admission that the draft in question didn’t pass muster. A
bottom of page one story in last Friday’s Washington Times
dutifully reported,
“Social Security memo gives GOP smoking gun, ammunition.” It quoted
Rep. Tom Davis, chairman of the National Republican Congressional
Committee: “This is exactly what Democratic leaders have been
saying — scaring seniors, lying, going over the top.” And that was
pretty much the end of the hopped-up story, unless you include the
coverage the memo received late that afternoon on Fox News:
LINDA VESTER: …Congressman Tom Reynolds, I understand that you
have had a look at this memo that accidentally made it into
Republican hands. What is the most damning part of it?
REP. TOM REYNOLDS (R), NEW YORK: Well, what I think the biggest
problem is, it’s an outrageous lie that has been put together and
fabrication to scare seniors. And just the whole tenor of the memo
that accompanied the draft showed that we’re not going to debate
the issues or the facts in this country by Democratic tactics,
we’re going to lie, distort facts, and scare seniors. It’s
outrageous….
(So outrageous that the story evidently didn’t make the cut for
Brit Hume’s show.)
The Fox item continued in this vein for another minute or two,
most of it filled out with harrumphing by Rep. Reynolds, who called
the Democratic tactics “outrageous” an additional five times. You’d
think if it were a real scandal other Republicans would have been
interviewed as well.
What no one bothered to mention is that the obscure e-mail in
question was two months old, which only adds to the impression that
if Republicans couldn’t clutch at straws they’d do no clutching at
all.
CANNES LAUGHTER: In politics, as in other areas,
it remains true that most often it’s just not worth emulating the
other guy. If he plays cheap, you should play expensive. Consider
President Bush’s recent trip to Europe. In France he did fine,
especially when asked a demagogic, leading question by an NBC
correspondent, who then in French asked President Chirac to pat him
on the head for putting the cowboy president on the spot. At that
point Bush cut the NBC guy off at the knees, mid-section, and neck.
An American reporter who wanted to show up the representative of
the American people before a foreign audience was taught a costly
lesson in etiquette.
Too bad the lesson did not extend to all Americans in France
last weekend. At the Cannes film festival, for instance, a
seriously unfunny lefty clown by the name of Michael Moore won a
special award for a Canadian-backed documentary he’d done on
America’s obsession with “violence.” In accepting his prize last
Sunday night, Moore wouldn’t shut up, though his French was about
as fluent as a junior high school student’s after a week of
lessons. But more embarrassing was Moore’s gratuitous reference
during the English portion of his remarks to a fellow he
contemptuously referred simply as “Bush.” He said he had seen his
arrival in Paris earlier that day on CNN and thought maybe someone
should invite him down for a special screening of Moore’s
documentary. One couldn’t tell from the Independent Film Channel’s
live coverage how those remarks went over with sophisticates in the
audience, some of whom appeared to be under the influence of opium.
But the camera did capture Cannes jury member Sharon Stone laughing
at Moore’s anti-Bush line as if she were reliving her favorite
murder scene in Basic Instinct. As for the French, while
it’s clear what they may see in Stone, it’s totally unclear what
they see in the uncouth Moore — unless it’s that he is a most
useful idiot, an ugly American who regales foreigners with stories
about how ugly Americans are.
A Scotsman by the name of Paul Laverty would later pile on. In
accepting his award for best screenplay, he praised rainbow-colored
diversity, denounced lazy rich white privilege, and derided the
intelligence of a man he called “Mr. George Biuoosh.” Smug, cocky
fool he was, but at least no one could mistake him for an
American.
