Shots in the Dark

1) Apparently there’s a lesbian in the WNBA. Stop the presses! Next thing you know, someone will say the Pet Shop Boys are gay.

2) Exxon has made a $25 billion profit this year—equal to its entire earnings for 2004. No way! And the great part is that it’s doing so much to deal with the whole global warming thing.

3) Scooter Libby is going to be indicted for dishing dirt in one allegedly illegal way or another. Hard to believe that anyone working for Dick Cheney would do something like that.

4) Freddy Ferrer is getting crushed by Michael Bloomberg even among the voters who ought to be his base. It’s as if he hasn’t even articulated a rationale for his campaign!

5) AOL has hired Dick Cheney’s daughter, Mary—and she’s a lesbian too! This after Cheney received a million-dollar advance to write a book about her life. I’m sure that she was hired because of her proven ability “to increase AOL’s Internet audience via Web-based programming and products,” as an AOL spokesperson put it.

6) There are 39 months of the Bush presidency to go. Apparently that’s more than three years.

Actually, now that I think about it, I am kind of shocked by that. Doesn’t it already seem as if he’s been president for, like, a decade?

The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has been withdrawn, though whether Miers jumped or was pushed is unclear.

This is a very smart move for the Bush White House (which makes me think Miers was pushed). On a day when they’re already expecting bad news from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, give the media some more bad news—a hit that the White House was going to have to take sooner or later. The weekend talk shows will be filled with chatter, as will the Sunday papers, and then, hopefully for the White House, next week is a new beginning.

That’s the plan, anyway.

As I (and lots of others) predicted*, Bush is using executive privilege as an excuse. “It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure as the White House - disclosures that would undermine a president’s ability to receive candid counsel,” he said in a statement.

I’m unconvinced by this argument; a White House nominee to the Supreme Court whose only real paper trail is her legal advice in the White House is an unusual, exceptional situation.

Moreover I will admit to some disappointment. First, I would have been curious to read Miers’ advice to the White House, especially on war- and torture-related issues.

And wouldn’t the hearings have been entertaining?

But for Miers, this is a good thing. Washington will quickly erase her, as the tide smooths over a footprint in the sand, and she can return to a job better suited to her abilities.
_________________________________________________________________

I wrote on Tuesday about the executive privilege argument: “This feels like an exit strategy. Bush can withdraw the nomination and simultaneously take the high ground, saying that he’s fighting to preserve executive privilege for his successors.

“Here’s a general rule that I believe about Washington: When you can imagine how a scandal will end, the very act of imagining a denouement hastens its realization.”

Good.

Because while I’m glad that the White Sox won, and I’m glad that their long drought is over, let’s face it: This World Series was boring.

While the White Sox played well when they had to—how about those two plays by Juan Oribe in the bottom of the ninth? Terrific.—the Astros choked. They got something like five hits in their last 60 at bats. And closer Brad Lidge is no Mariano Rivera. He singlehandedly lost three post-season games for the ‘stros.

Moreover, can we all just admit one thing: The World Series is more fun when the Yankees are in it.

I know, I’m partisan. But judging from the ratings, the rest of the country would seem to agree….

Tina Brown shares my sense that Patrick Fitzgerald has run a much tighter and smarter shop than Ken Starr did.

(Doesn’t Starr seem like a bad dream? Ugh.)

“Unlike Kenneth Starr’s late, unlamented operation, neither Fitzgerald nor anyone around him leaks,” Brown writes in her Washington Post column.

She continues: “It’s hard not to see Fitzgerald as the possessor of authentic traditional American virtues. Fitzgerald deals in facts, and lets facts speak for themselves. Bush talks ceaselessly of faith. The prosecutor is all about substance, the president all about surface. In nominating his personal attorney to the most august thinking body in the land, the Supreme Court, the president was caught showing the dismissive view he’s always held of intellectual depth and scholarly accomplishment.”

Well…we shall see about this. Sometimes Tina’s enthusiasm carries her away (one of the things I like about her, actually). But I do think this competence argument is really hitting home. Can this White House do anything right? It’s botched the war…the budget…the weather…the environment. And Fitzgerald, by contrast, looks like a man who knows what he does well and goes about doing it.

Today should be interesting….

Twenty-eight year old Abigail Brinkman of Columbus, Ohio, has died while scuba-diving off Belize.

Apparently Brinkman went out in a small group in a small boat, despite warnings of rough seas after Hurricane Wilma. When the boat engine died, she and three others jumped overboard and tried to swim to an island. The others survived. Brinkman, the only one not wearing a wetsuit, apparently died of hypothermia. (All of them seemed to have had on BCDs, the vests to which an air tank is strapped; they float.)

Having dived in the same area, I find this incident particularly disturbing. What were they thinking? In particular, the divemaster who took them out under such conditions….and poor Ms. Brinkman, going out diving after a hurricane without even bringing a wetsuit.

It makes me appreciate the dive boat I go out on when I’m in Cozumel, which is filled with guys who really care about the safety of their divers, something that is true for most, but definitely not all, divemasters. (I’d link to it, but this is one secret that is already too widely known.)

This incident reminds me that these guys have had problems of their own lately; Cozumel was hard hit by Hurricane Wilma.

Tony, Ricardo, Cielo, Roger, Jesus, Aaron—espero que todos estan seguros, mis amigos. Can’t wait to see you soon and hear Tony’s ebullient, trademark phrase, preceded by his pretty-good imitation of a seal bark: “We’re going diii—ving!“

David Brooks has a bizarre column today, which, if the New York Times would let you read it, would be found here.

But since you can’t, I’ll summarize: The Bush administration has succumbed to second-term blues. But all is not lost. The Bushies can regain their stride, just as Ronald Reagan did in the last quarter of his presidency, by following this advice. “Puncture the intellectual bubble of the presidency.” “”Iron out the feuds and tensions.” “Kick start a new policy agenda.” “Repair relations with Capitol Hill.”

Never mind that Brooks’ memory of Reagan’s last years is considerably more upbeat than the reality. (The Republicans remember Reagan through rose-colored glasses, just like he did with everything.)

But how about this? David Brooks has written an entire column about how to salvage the end of the Bush term without mentioning the word “Iraq.”

This is an intellectual lapse that makes one wince for Brooks. Because let’s face it: You could implement all four of Brooks’ reforms, and the real cloud hanging over this administration wouldn’t budge an inch.

Moreover, as soon as you enlarge the discussion to include Iraq, all of Brooks’ suggestions seem, well, pretty silly. “Kick-start a new policy agenda”? Never mind that this White House is not much interested in policy, as Ron Susskind’s devastating book revealed. But how much new policy can you concoct when burdened with massive debt due to a war whose costs seem only to be increasing?

And how, exactly, can the president iron out the feuds and tensions in his White House when the war with Iraq is the source of so many of them? By purging everyone associated with it? That leaves the little problem of the vice-president.

The truth that David Brooks can not even bring himself to deny is that the war is a ball and chain attached to this administration as it drags itself toward its finish line. And not even the White House seems to know how to rid itself of that weight.

As someone who once had a name that was easily mocked—see the item below—I was struck by this headline on Maureen Dowd’s column today: “Dick at the Heart of Darkness.”

Dowd’s column attacked Dick Cheney, of course. But the headline was clearly a double entendre, using “dick” both in reference to Cheney’s name and implying that Cheney is a dick.

Which may well be true.

Nonetheless, this kind of wordplay is beneath the New York Times. (It’s more the kind of thing you find, unfortunately, in the blogosphere.) I’m sure there are plenty of reasons for folks to criticize Dick Cheney. But let’s be adult about how we do it, shall we? Civility in print is always a good idea.

For what it’s worth, I considered whether I’m over-sensitive to this, and whether I’m being unfair to Dowd. Nah. For one thing, the ad hominem tone is typical of her. For another, it’s hard to imagine a similar headline being used about an administration official whose first name could not be turned into a crude joke. If you don’t believe me, imagine an equally obnoxious headline about someone you like. It’d seem weird, wouldn’t it?

(And, if one really wanted to push this, one could suggest that Dowd’s issues with men, widely written about by herself and others, come to the psychological foreground in such snipes.)

This is the second time in recent days where Dowd has crossed a line beyond which other Times reporters and columnists could not go. (The first was her column about Judith Miller.)

Maureen Dowd is very talented. But her editors allow her leeway that does not help the newspaper. Someone needs to rein her in. Just because many readers might enjoy this bit of nastiness—Dick Cheney probably isn’t a very popular figure among Dowd’s readers— doesn’t mean that it increases one’s respect for the New York Times. If such snark is what you want, go read Gawker.

A few days ago, Lloyd Grove of the Daily News wrote a gossip item about yours truly that struck me as truly trivial. First, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to read about me in a gossip column. (The definition of a slow news day.)

Moreover, the item in question was silly even by gossip column standards—even though, to be fair, Lloyd wrote about the episode, which involved a leaked e-mail, sympathetically.

(I didn’t read it—I’ve learned not to read things about myself that I suspect will make me cranky—but some friends did, and told me about it.)

When Lloyd first e-mailed me about the item in question, I called him and said, “Lloyd, this is so silly. Who could possibly care? I’d appreciate it if you just let this go.”

He said, “I don’t think I can withhold this from my readers.” As if they were dying for “news” about me. Although they had previously managed to get by just fine without it.

I’ve been mentioned in gossip items a few times over the years, and one thing that turns my stomach about the process is that I never know how to respond. When the incriminating/embarrassing matter is put to you, do you say nothing? Or try to laugh it off? Or fight back aggressively? I hate just being put in the position.

In this case, I wanted to say nothing at all. Lloyd argued that that was the wrong way to go, because a lighthearted response would make me look like a good guy with a self-deprecatory sense of humor. (Far from the truth, but there you are.) Of course, a response helps his column by creating a tit-for-tat, so the suggestion was in his self-interest. But the argument is kind of true, too. Giving a jokey comment makes you look like a good sport about it all. Even when you’re fuming inside.

So I thought about it and e-mailed Lloyd an attempt at humor, which in retrospect I don’t think was funny at all. I don’t know if he even used it.

Anyway, I read today that Lloyd himself has been the victim of a leaked e-mail from his boss to the managing editor of People magazine. Lloyd’s boss describes him as a “fucking idiot” and adds that “his page is stupid.”

Ouch. Unhappy as I was to be written about by Lloyd, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, except maybe Donald Trump.

Nonetheless, in an egregious act of narcissism, I choose to believe that this is the result of karmic equalization.

Having said that, I guess the incident will give Lloyd a pretty strong case for a large golden parachute when the time comes…..

A few years back, I had the opportunity to interview Bono, who is, of course, the lead singer of U2. We met at the Cafe des Artistes on West 67th Street, near Central Park, in Manhattan. Bono walked there alone from an apartment on Central Park South, about ten blocks away, which right away struck me as quite cool—hardly typical for a rock star.

I spoke with Bono for about two hours, and came away hugely impressed. We spoke mostly about his drive for international debt relief for poor nations, and he clearly knew what he was talking about. Well, let’s be honest—he knew vastly more about the issue than I did. But we also talked about the politics of being a rock star and some of the issues raised by his dual roles as activist and musician.

Bono had enormous charisma, humor and intelligence.

Also, he holds his liquor better than I do. But that is true of most adults. And many young people.

I am reminded of all this by the extensive interview Jann Wenner has done with Bono in the new Rolling Stone: This is a thoughtful and fascinating man. And inspiring. More than anyone else I can think of, Bono makes real change in Africa seem not only plausible, but mandatory.

I liked one particular answer of his, when Wenner asked if he has a “messianic complex.” Bono responds: “Once you see not only the problem, but also the solution, there’s no escape. You see it, you can’t look away from it. I want it to feel like an adventure, not a burden. …This is an extraordinary thing. This is not, ‘Oh, my God, all the poor starving Africans with flies around their faces.’ They are very noble, royal people, full of easy laughter and very innovative. This is about us, too. It’s about who are we? What are our values? Do we have any? It’s exciting.”

And inspiring….

That’s what he says on the Huffington Post, pointing out that the Texas senator now considers perjury a technicality—despite the fact that she twice voted to impeach Bill Clinton.

I’m tempted to make an Alec Baldwin joke, but you know what? He’s right. Kay Bailey Hutchison is full of shit.

In fact, it strikes me that the Fitzgerald investigation seems to me a model of how a special prosecutor can actually work well. Unlike Ken Starr’s office, Fitzgerald’s seems to be essentially leak-proof. And whereas Starr spent millions and millions and paralyzed the government to find nothing more than a little tomfoolery, Fitzgerald is spending his money to investigate an abuse of executive branch power that helped put the country on a path to war.

Which would suggest that Republicans got it exactly wrong then…and are getting it exactly wrong now. All in pursuit of, and now defense of, power.

Which is why the GOP is in the midst of a bitter ideological civil war between those who’ll do anything to hold on to power and those who believe that the party should stand for more than that…..