MAKING IT: How does a conservative break into one
of the leading papers? There are two ways, as this week
illustrated. In one case, he gets involved in something certain
people in liberal Washington might find disturbing. This activity
then becomes the stuff of a major page one story. Exposed and
discredited, the man behind it is essentially told to cease and
desist — and crawl back in his hole. In the other case it’s the
conservative who actually does the writing, usually in the form of
an op-ed that at least in part criticizes the conservative or
leading Republican view of the matter under discussion. In such a
piece it’s possible to gently scold the liberal/Democratic position
as well. But the important thing is that it above all buy into
certain liberal premises. In return it runs as the lead op-ed.
It’s no accident that Grover Norquist has never written the
latter kind of piece for the New York Times and
Washington Post. As president of Americans for Tax Reform
and a leading conservative and Republican strategist, he doesn’t
seek the liberal papers’ approval but seems instead to measure his
success by the degree to which he can rub them the wrong way. His
latest score along these lines was last Monday’s Post
story ominously headlined, “GOP Monitoring Lobbyists’ Politics:
White House, Hill Access May Be Affected.” The short of it is that
in something called the “K Street Project” Norquist and “other
prominent Republican lobbyists” have gone through public records to
determine the political activity and giving of Washington lobbyists
and listed this information in a report, a draft of which is
apparently already in White House hands. The hope is that it will
cause the Republican administration to give preference to GOP over
Democratic backers, and also “prod” corporations, trade groups, and
lobbying firms to hire more Republicans for their Washington
offices.
In Washington, where Democratic lobbyists aren’t used to rude
treatment under a GOP presidency, Norquist’s project is akin to the
second coming of Joe McCarthy. As confirmed in its opening
sentence, the story is important because it describes a campaign
that “could deny government access and prime lobbying jobs to
Democrats.” Later we’re told: “Democrats expressed outrage that
Republican were politically profiling at best — and blacklisting
at worst — the denizens of K Street…” Tom Daschle is among those
very upset: “I am appalled that anybody would be that brazen.”
Daschle added that his lobbyist friends (such as his wife?) “have
cautioned him that Republicans are pressuring firms to purge
Democrats.” Said Daschle: “If they put this in writing, that puts a
whole new dimension to this practice.”
Now imagine if Norquist were a woman and his goal was to break
through the glass ceilings at Washington’s leading lobbying firms.
He’d be treated as a heroine and Daschle would be kissing his hand.
When it comes to challenging and changing the unwritten rules of
Washington, there’s no one like Norquist — and it must make his
day if Tom Daschle calls him brazen in the Washington
Post. How many Republicans can be said to be that
unafraid?
Which brings us to the second type of conservative appearance in
the Post-Times orbit. While Ramesh Ponnuru’s Tuesday
op-ed
in the Times would never qualify for the Kevin Phillips
award that Norquist likes to confer on conservatives who criticize
conservatives on liberal turf in order to win liberal favor, it
does say enough that can only be described as music to liberal
anti-Bush ears. Ostensibly, Ponnuru’s main point is unexceptional:
the war on terrorism should be the subject of healthy debate.
Everyone knows Republicans are generally more hawkish than
Democrats, or that the arguments for war against Saddam Hussein can
go either way. Let’s deal with all these issues openly, he urges,
and let the “terrorism war be a partisan issue.”
What worries Ponnuru, however, is that when it comes to the war
the country finds itself under a “smothering unity.” And here he
essentially blames the White House and its allies, for responding
to “mild criticism” by accusing “the Democrats of irresponsibly
undermining the war on terror.” Instead of welcoming a “robust
debate,” the Bush administration “would rather pretend that
criticism undermines American resolve and is always politically
motivated.” Well, when has the anti-Bush criticism not been
politically motivated? Ponnuru doesn’t say, though he does turn on
a dime to argue that “war time criticism, much of it politically
motivated, is an American tradition.” If that’s the case, what’s
the problem if the White House calls its critics politically
motivated? That’s rather healthy and robust of it, no? One might
even compliment the White House for doing a splendid, politically
motivated job in fending off its politically motivated critics.
One suspects, though, that that would be the last thing the
op-ed editors at the Times would want to hear.
CLINTONITES OF THE WEEK Why do liberals get no
respect? Consider this latest little episode. The kids at “Tapped,”
the American Prospect Online’s hot new blog, thought they
saw a new opportunity to go after some favorite neoconservative
prey, and so they pounced, with this
item last Monday:
FORGET SOCIALISM. WHAT ABOUT NEPOTISM? Astute commentators have
long noted the neoconservative penchant for nepotism. (The upwards
failure of John Podhoretz, possibly the worst movie critic in
Christendom, being the prime example.) Last week the excellent
Rittenhouse Review noted that Midge Decter’s latest review
essay in Commentary heaps praise on Joshua Muravchik’s new
book Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. But
that’s no surprise. Decter is Muravchik’s aunt! Like Rittenhouse,
we wonder if Commentary editor Neal Kozodoy knew this when
he assigned the book. [posted 11:10 am]
Now anyone who knows anything about anything immediately could see
the item is dead wrong. Pathetically dead wrong (not to mention
scurrilous — but then that’s what makes Democratic Party
mouthpieces so lovable). The only question is what kind of
correction and apology Tapped would post and how long it would take
before they appeared. Twenty four hours and ten minutes later,
“Tapped” did finally react, with
this:
OOPS. Yesterday we linked to what seemed like a juicy post from
the usually-reliable Rittenhouse Review regarding a supposed
familial tie between Midge Decter and Joshua Muravchik, the former
having reviewed the latter’s book in Commentary recently. Turns
out Rittenhouse was dead wrong. Here’s the
correction. (The original post seems to have been taken down.)
[posted 11:20 am]
What’s wrong with that picture? First, not a word of apology, not
just to Ms. Decter and Mr. Muravchik, but to Neal Kozodoy, whose
integrity was also impugned, not to mention to John Podhoretz, who
got mugged for no reason. Second, no acceptance of responsibility.
Instead, all blame is pointed at “dead-wrong” Rittenhouse. One day
you’re “excellent,” next day you’re dead meat. But what about
Tapped? One suspects its office is big on hygiene, a place where
everyone keeps very busy washing his hands.
