Terry (McAuliffe) the Pirate

Terry the Pirate

An unfortunate sentence construction in Juliet Eilperin's June 15 Washington Post report on the wealth, or lack thereof, of congressional members brightened this reader's Saturday morning. After disposing of politicians who lost money on Enron stock, those who live paycheck-to-paycheck (Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich and GOP Rep. Bill Thomas for example) and the millionaires for whom the U.S. Senate is a second career?I especially enjoyed the description of presidential contender John Edwards, a former personal injury lawyer who "has at least $7.3 million and possibly as much as $33.6 million, most of it in a blind trust"?Eilperin mentions in passing James Jeffords, that "flinty Vermonter."

She writes: "Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) received a $125,000 advance from Simon and Schuster to write last year's 'My Declaration of Independence,' which explained his decision to quit the GOP, as well as an autobiography set for release this fall." So that's the reason Jeffords betrayed Republican voters in his state, who'd reelected him six months before his calculated tip of Senate control to Tom Daschle. It was all about money! One wonders whether Joe Lieberman and his wife Hadassah, who are writing a potentially far more interesting book than Jeffords' self-aggrandizing Declaration, felt a bit cheated upon receiving an advance of only $13,500.

Not surprisingly, no politician could touch Bill Clinton?who's "never been about money," according to Carville/Begala/Conason propaganda?in his campaign to become the wealthiest ex-president. After leaving office, according to a financial disclosure filed by his wife Hillary, Clinton amassed $9.2 million for 59 speeches in just his first year as a civilian.

That's fairly remarkable, considering that until about April of 2001, after his messy, pardon-filled exit from the White House, the Dogpatch Kid was radioactive and kept a low profile. In addition, Bill and Hillary drew, respectively, book advances of $10 million and $8 million. Also not shocking, as Richard A. Oppel Jr. writes in last Saturday's New York Times, the Clintons still owe "between $1.75 million and $6.5 million in legal bills," stemming from serial misbehavior during his administration.

We'll have to wait until next year to see what the impeached president raked in for 2002, but as he's distanced himself from the Oval Office?when not mucking up George W. Bush's foreign policy with Jimmy Carter-like intrusions into world affairs?there's no doubt it was a dandy 12 months indeed. But hey, someone has to pay for Chelsea's extravagant European lifestyle.

Not quite as appalling was Thomas Edsall's June 16 Washington Post article that explained how Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe's lawyers are working to water down the McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. This is one reason why McAuliffe is a populist impostor and, despite his formidable fundraising skills, ultimately a detriment to his party. Obviously, he wasn't really in favor of the ludicrous reform legislation; browbeating contributors for "soft" money was/is his forte. But when the debate was before Congress McAuliffe's voice was loud and clear, denouncing sensible Republicans who opposed McCain and his minions.

Like so many multimillionaire Democrats, McAuliffe likes to pretend he's watching out for the "little guy."

Well-intentioned but misguided clean-government types were outraged at McAuliffe's latest moves. Edsall reports: "Fred Wertheimer, head of the reform group Democracy 21, also weighed in. He said DNC lawyer Joseph E. Sandler not only advocates [Federal Election Commission] regulations that would gut the campaign finance law, but also represents another client?the California Democratic Party [there's Gov. Gray Davis again!]?that has joined a Supreme Court case challenging the new law's constitutionality. 'The bottom line is, the lawyer for the Democratic Party and Terry McAuliffe is in court challenging the constitutionality of the soft-money ban, which seems to be a little bit in conflict with the strong professed support of Terry McAuliffe for the law,' Wertheimer said."

In addition, Common Cause president Scott Harshbarger said: "Terry McAuliffe says he supports reform, but his lawyers are working hard to undo the new law. Mr. McAuliffe, these guys [the lawyers] work for you. You have to choose."

Harshbarger also sent a letter to McAuliffe that said: "You and other party leaders cannot take public credit for enacting important reforms supported by the American people on the one hand, while sending your lawyers into court and into the F.E.C. to undermine the law, on the other."

Terry the Pirate, usually one of the more voluble cartoon characters in DC, has kept mum on this particular instance of double-dealing.

An indignant June 15 New York Times editorial on the subject predictably placed most of the blame on President Bush for McCain-Feingold's current troubles. The paper said: "The most disgraceful aspect of this travesty is its hypocrisy. President Bush signed the bill into law, getting credit for his action. He then authorized Republican Party lawyers to challenge its constitutionality."

This view is a naked distortion of facts. Bush did hold his nose and sign the bill, but there was no Rose Garden ceremony for McCain, Feingold, Shays, Meehan and Howell Raines toasting their victory. And far from receiving "credit," Bush alienated the conservative base of his own party, inciting The Wall Street Journal and National Review, for example, to declare that his political expediency was a betrayal of his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Two days later, The Washington Post countered with a far more accurate editorial, which didn't even mention Bush. Instead, the paper slammed McAuliffe and then questioned Democratic leaders Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt about their allegiance to campaign finance reform. The writer concluded: "One is entitled to wonder, however, if [Gephardt] and [Daschle] share [McAuliffe's] 'views' concerning how the law ought to be implemented. If so, why did they support it in the first place. And if not, why don't they do something about it?"

Hang Your Head, Mr. Kristol

A few weeks ago Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol thundered that President Bush was going "wobbly" on his plans for a regime change in Iraq. Kristol and co-author Robert Kagan based their June 3 essay on one article in The Washington Post, by Thomas Ricks, that reported that "sources" in the military were having qualms about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. Kristol also based his flawed essay on Bush's comment in Germany that he had "no war plans on his desk," as if the President were going to telegraph his strategy to the world.

Since then, Bush gave his most important speech, at West Point, since the "axis of evil" State of the Union address last January, outlining a new doctrine of preemptive strikes against hostile countries and terrorist groups that possess weapons of mass destruction. Last Friday, The Wall Street Journal printed a page-one story headlined "How Bush Decided that Iraq's Hussein Must Be Ousted." On June 15, as reported in The Washington Post, Secretary of State Colin Powell (who's far more hawkish on Iraq than his "good cop" role to Bush's "bad" conveys) said, "If you have a preemption option, a target, you should do it in a way that removes the threat, that is decisive."

On Sunday, Bob Woodward's lead sentence in the Post read: "President Bush early this year signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to undertake a comprehensive, covert program to topple Saddam Hussein, including authority to use lethal force to capture the Iraqi president, according to informed sources. The presidential order, an expansion of a previous presidential finding designed to oust Hussein, directs the CIA to use all available tools?"

In addition, on Sunday's talk shows, Democrats Joe Biden, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt all backed the President's plan to take out Hussein. Granted, it's an election year, and those Democratic leaders don't want to appear soft on the war against terrorism, but their statements all but assure that Bush won't meet with the same congressional resistance his father did more than a decade ago when he sought approval for the Gulf War. On Face the Nation, Biden said: "If the covert action doesn't work, we better be prepared to move forward with another action, an overt action. And it seems to me that we can't afford to miss."

Despite all this, as of June 17 Kristol hadn't seen fit to write either in the Standard or Washington Post that perhaps he was premature in his criticism of Bush's foreign policy.

Jews for Bush

My favorite letter to the editor last week appeared in the June 24 issue of The New Republic. It was a stinging rebuke of Peter Beinart's bellicose and prejudicial May 20 column that castigated Christian conservatives for their unflinching support of Israel.

Dr. Justin Cohen, of Charleston, WV, wrote: "As a Jew who lives among conservative, Bible Belt Christians, I was astonished by Peter Beinart's argument that I should distrust their friendship with Israel. I've discussed Israel with at least a hundred conservative Christian patients, colleagues and neighbors in the last year. Religious beliefs color some of their political views, but few couch their support for Israel in religious terms. Most simply feel that Israel is a righteous democracy that is under attack by dictatorships. Most also despise moral relativism and the appeasement of evil. Only one or two have suggested that Israel should expel Palestinians from the West Bank or have otherwise resembled the conservative, evangelical leaders mentioned by Beinart.

"Beinart is correct that Israel's security has come to dominate the political agenda for many Jews. In this regard, many of my secular or 'liberal' Democratic acquaintances consider Israel the aggressor or even an apartheid state. Unless Democrats start to clearly support Israel and take an aggressive stance on Iraq and Iran, I will hold my nose, switch parties, and donate very heavily to the Republicans for the first time in my 44 years. If the election were held today, I'd already be a Republican."

This is exactly what Beinart fears. A typical Beltway liberal (at least on domestic issues), the New Republic editor is vexed that Jews are finding friendship and common ground with Christian conservatives, a reality that not only offends his sense of intellectual superiority but also has political ramifications that might weaken the Democratic Party.

I'm not much for Father's Day or birthday celebrations, but it was a splendid weekend with Mrs. M and our boys. No thanks to the torrential downpours?I suppose Mayor Mike says we're still on "drought" alert?or the lackluster offense of the Red Sox against the Braves, save Derek Lowe's gem against Tom Glavine on Sunday afternoon.

MUGGER III's 8 a.m. Downtown Little League game was rained out, but a few hours later Junior's team crushed a competitive squad at Chelsea's Waterside Park. There was a comical moment when a coach from the opposing team complained to the umpire that the Indians' defense was playing too shallow, and not allowing his batters to hit the ball out of the infield. Had the contest not been so lopsided a rhubarb might have ensued, but Junior's manager, Polar Levine, a ponytailed "Eat the Rich" fellow who nonetheless is a devoted baseball fan and terrific with the kids, advised irritated parents to let it slide.

On Sunday morning, after my wife and sons presented Dad with a fashionable zip-up cotton sweater, a pair of shorts and a framed collage of the boys and me at a Sox-Yanks game at the Stadium, the four of us thoroughly enjoyed the "Baseball As America" exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. Running through Aug. 18, the show's brought a fraction of artifacts from the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown and is a must-see for any NYC fan. The highlights were numerous: Ty Cobb's lethal spikes; a heartbreaking audio clip of Lou Gehrig's farewell to fans at Yankee Stadium; a wooden ticket counter from the old Comiskey Park in Chicago; a case devoted to the heroics of Puerto Rican icon Roberto Clemente; a jersey worn by Jackie Robinson; and scads of Babe Ruth photos at various points in his career.

Despite the scolding by New York sportswriters about the Roger Clemens-Mike Piazza showdown at Shea Stadium on Saturday, with most of them chastising Yank-haters as vigilantes, I can't think of anyone who despises the Yankee organization (if not the players themselves, although David Wells is a total asshole) who didn't want to see Clemens plunked at the plate. Nothing dangerous, just a ball aimed at his leg.

But it didn't bother me that Shawn Estes missed Clemens on his first pitch against the Texan, although as Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy wrote the following day, "How could anybody miss that butt?" No, Clemens' humiliation was far more complete than getting hit: Not only did he give up homers to Estes and Piazza, but he also bruised his foot and was the loser of an 8-0 shutout. Class isn't a word you usually associate with the volcanic Clemens, but when he tipped his batting helmet to Estes after the latter's attempted act of vengeance, I took it as a sign of respect to the Mets pitcher and not just a wise-guy gesture.

But what ought to concern Mets fans much more is Piazza's incredibly selfish refusal to retire his catcher's mask and switch to another position where he'd not only extend his career but help the team by not being such a liability behind the plate. It was a joke to watch the Yanks steal bases against Piazza, who on Sunday night nailed his first runner since April 6.

Here's where Mets general manager Steve Phillips went wrong in his retooling of the team in the off-season: Instead of acquiring Mo Vaughn, who looks like a Krispy Kreme factory, to play first base, he could've moved Piazza there, and signed former Bosox catcher Scott Hatteberg for a fraction of Vaughn's contract. (I like Vaughn, once a Red Sox star, but despite his game-winning homer on Sunday, he's washed up.) That would've freed up a lot of money to attract another free agent?say Johnny Damon, Bret Boone or even Barry Bonds?and the Mets' offense wouldn't be so anemic today. Instead, if the team doesn't wake up at the plate, Phillips will be out of a job, and justifiably so.

June 17

Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:mug1988@aol.com) or fax to 244-9864