“It was the kind of fight for the Republican nomination I had awaited for more than sixteen years, not out of ideological fervor but from a reporter’s lust for a bloody political battle.”
— Robert D. Novak, The Prince of Darkness, p. 278
I dropped by the Arlington office of The American Spectator on Thursday just to say hello, and Wlady Pleszczynski gave me a spare copy of the Novak book he happened to have lying around.
Novak’s memoir is one man’s political history of the past 40 years, but it’s also an excellent primer on how journalism works in Washington. The label “investigative journalism” is sometimes applied to the kind of work Novak does, creating the notion of skullduggery, the secret back-alley rendevous and so forth. It’s actually more a matter of cultivating acquaintances with sources, such as Novak’s friendship with Richard Perle, which led to Novak obtaining the “Sonnenfeldt memo” in 1976, which in turn helped revive Ronald Reagan’s primary challenge to President Gerald Ford.
Novak’s confession of a reporter’s natural appetite for political conflict is spot-on. Which is why it’s so baffling that so many journalists are in such a hurry for Hillary Clinton to quit. One would expect most reporters to be rooting for her to take her fight all the way to the convention. Guess they’re just not Old School.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online