WEDNESDAY,  MARCH 12,  2008

THE SPITZER WATCH

For those of you who can't stand the excitement, I report that the governor of New York still is.  Despite repeated leaks to the media by uninformed leakers, Eliot Spitzer has not resigned.  He is in his multi-million-dollar Manhattan bunker, directing the troops and saving the Homeland from Bolshevism.

Look, can the guy really show his face in the office again?  I suspect he's involved in some kind of legal negotiation to leave office without fear of criminal prosecution.  His opponent here is the Justice Department, the Bush Justice Department.  Spitzer is a close ally of Hillary Clinton.  Hmm.  Consider the mischief that can be made.

I must tell you how annoyed I am at those who constantly refer to this as a "personal tragedy."  That it may be, but in a democracy leaders are expendable, and at some point they belong to the public.  Our better presidents have understood that.  The real tragedy here is that a public trust has been broken, laws have been broken, and a rotten example set. 

THE ENABLERS

The excellent Kimberly A. Strassel, in The Wall Street Journal, examines the less-than-heroic role of the media in enabling Spitzer to operate the way he has.  I'm afraid this is a scenario played out time and again, at different levels of American politics:

Journalists have spent the past two days asking how a man of Mr. Spitzer's stature would allow himself to get involved in a prostitution ring. The answer, in my mind, is clear. The former New York attorney general never believed normal rules applied to him, and his view was validated time and again by an adoring press. "You play hard, you play rough, and hopefully you don't get caught," said Mr. Spitzer two years ago. He never did get caught, because most reporters were his accomplices.

Journalism has many functions, but perhaps the most important is keeping tabs on public officials. That duty is even more vital concerning government positions that are subject to few other checks and balances. Chief among those is the prosecutor, who can use his awesome state power to punish, even destroy, private citizens.

Yet from the start, the press corps acted as an adjunct of Spitzer power, rather than a skeptic of it. Many journalists get into this business because they want to see wrongs righted. Mr. Spitzer portrayed himself as the moral avenger. He was the slayer of the big guy, the fat cat, the Wall Street titan -- all allegedly on behalf of the little guy. The press ate it up, and came back for more.

That hits it.  It's the "make a difference" crowd in journalism.  It's the same attitude that allowed a Durham prosecutor to hang three innocent Duke lacrosse players out to dry despite overwhelming evidence that they were innocent. 

The purpose of journalism is to report the news.  If you want to make a difference, write for the editorial page or resign from the paper and become a social worker.  Strassel continues:

What makes this more embarrassing for any self-respecting journalist is that Mr. Spitzer knew all this, and played the media like a Stradivarius. He knew what sort of storyline they'd be sympathetic to, and spun it. He knew, too, that as financial journalism has become more competitive, breaking news can make a career. He doled out scoops to favored reporters, who repaid him with allegiance. News organizations that dared to criticize him were cut off. After a time, few criticized anymore.

It's refreshing to see a first-class journalist take on her own profession.  Don't expect to see her at too many chic Manhattan parties.  And don't expect to see a Pulitzer Prize in her office.

IRONY

The word fits precisely.  Eliot Spitzer crusaded against prostitution.  Now his allies in that fight feel, understandably, that they've been knifed:

As New York’s attorney general, Eliot Spitzer had broken up prostitution rings before, but this 2004 case took on a special urgency for him. Prosecuting an international sex tourism business based in Queens, he listened to the entreaties of women’s advocates long frustrated by state laws that fell short of dealing with a sex trade expanding rapidly across borders.

And with his typical zeal, he embraced their push for new legislation, including a novel idea at its heart: Go after the men who seek out prostitutes.

It was a question of supply and demand, they all agreed. And one effective way to suppress the demand was to raise the penalties for patronizing a prostitute. In his first months as governor last year, Mr. Spitzer signed the bill into law.

Now the human rights groups, which credit him with what they call the toughest and most comprehensive anti-sex-trade law in the nation, are in shock. Mr. Spitzer stands accused of being one of the very men his law was designed to catch and punish.

“It leaves those of us who worked with his office absolutely feeling betrayed,” said Dorchen Leidholdt, director of Sanctuary for Families Legal Services, one of the leaders of the coalition that drafted the legislation.

Betrayed by a political leader?  What a concept!  It's sad, but it happens all the time.   Rarely, though, does it happen so dramatically.

SCHEMING

American Thinker, one of our preferred sites, has a great piece by Jeffrey Schmidt that makes me think he was really Machiavelli's ghost writer.  Schmidt theorizes - I think it's more than theory - about Hillary Clinton's real strategy if she doesn't get her party's nomination for president.  This is very juicy, entirely logical, and thoroughly Clintonian.  Read on:

No one doubts that Hillary Clinton is playing for all the marbles this year. But what if she fails to undercut Barak Obama's lead and loses her party's nomination? And what if the Illinois senator goes on to capture the presidency this November? What does the future hold for Senator Clinton?

Well, not much, not by Clintonian standards, and that's why she has begun laying the groundwork to help John McCain defeat Senator Obama in a General Election matchup. Absent her own presidency, a McCain presidency may better serve her interests.

It gets better...

Given the Clintons' penchant for gamesmanship, the positioning is already well underway. The Clinton campaign is now running a dual track strategy. Track One is centered on ways of pulling the rug out from under Senator Obama and securing the Democratic nomination. This means doing everything from strident negative campaigning to cutting backroom deals with super delegates. It's Pull-Out-All-the-Stops time for Team Clinton, and, rest assured, every stop will be pulled.

Track Two is essentially part and parcel of Track One. If Senator Clinton can't win the nomination, she'll cede it to Senator Obama -- what's her alternative? -- but on a much diminished scale. She'll send the Illinois senator into the General Election bloodied and rubber-legged after a spring and summer worth of pummeling.

And she's begun to do something else. She's adding a subtext to her stump speeches. It's praise for Senator McCain, for his experience. An article by Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard (The Veepstakes) offers these insights:

"His [McCain's] strong suit against Barack Obama, his likeliest Democratic opponent, or even against Hillary Clinton, is experience. In fact, Clinton has set up Obama to be attacked by McCain on this front."

Finally...

By doing so, she's speaking to her voter base. Yes, ostensibly, it's aimed at raising red flags with wavering Democrats about Senator Obama's viability in the General Election against Senator McCain. But it's also code. She's giving her voters -- older, whiter, blue-collar and more traditional -- permission to vote for the Arizona Republican next autumn, if it comes to that.

As to a bloody battle with Senator Obama leaving a bitter taste in Democrats' mouths, Senator Clinton will wager that a lot of fence-mending over thirty-six months will heal the party.

Impossible, you say?  A fantasy?  Hey, friend, who we talkin' 'bout here?  It's Hillary.  Read the whole thing.  This is better than any feature film around.  We may even see her up there thanking the Academy.

FLORIDA - NO VOTERS NEED APPLY

The New York Times reports that Democratic officials in Florida are close to a plan to redo the Florida primary, using mail-in ballots. 

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Democratic Party officials here are close to completing a draft plan for a new mail-in primary that would take place by early June, a proposal that seeks to give Florida delegates a role in the party’s presidential contest, several people involved in the discussions said Tuesday.

A spokesman for Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat who has been pushing for a mail-in contest, said Mr. Nelson expected the Florida Democratic Party to finalize details of the complex plan as soon as Wednesday. The state party would most likely submit the proposal to Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, by week’s end, said the spokesman, Dan McLaughlin. Mr. Nelson is a supporter of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the plan's approval:

But after meeting with Mr. Nelson on Tuesday night, Florida’s Democratic members of the House of Representatives added a serious new wrinkle by announcing they were unanimously opposed to a mail-in contest. They did not elaborate, but released a statement that said, “Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.” The statement also said the delegation was committed to working with state and national Democrats and the two candidates “to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated.”

Isn't this the party that questioned the Republicans' handling of the Florida vote in 2000?

Now a plan is presented to allow Florida to, thank you very much, participate in the Democratic nomination for president, and the state's entire Dem congressional delegation is against it. 

Didn't anyone check?  Do they talk?  Do they pay their cell phone bills? 

This is no advertisement for Democratic competence.  Maybe that 3 a.m. phone call that Hillary's ad talks about should deal with the rules for holding an election in a democracy.

FOR PURITY AND GOODNESS

The House has passed a fresh addition to its (laugh now) ethics code.  This one creates a new office, something Washington always manages to create:

The House last night approved one of the most significant changes to its ethics rules in decades, creating for the first time an independent panel empowered to initiate investigations of alleged misconduct by members of the chamber.

The six members of the new Office of Congressional Ethics would have the authority to initiate preliminary reviews of allegations against House members, conduct investigations and refer their findings to the House ethics committee along with a public report.

Six people?  That's it?  To investigate congressional ethics?  I urge you to send them chocolates and orange juice for energy and health.  I also urge you to show compassion, to have patience in waiting for results.  With six people, you'll be waiting a long time. 

Members of Congress, do your Spitzer.  There is no threat here.

THE CULPRIT FOUND!  THE EVIL EXPOSED!

Finally, as someone who's labored in the film industry, I feel a sense of serenity this morning.  The real cause of rotten movies has been found.  I am grateful to the cultural detectives, humble before their work:

For a decade now, Hollywood acting has been slowly, steadily poisoned by a bacterium called Clostridium botulinum. This week, I was watching the hypnotically horrible new Coen brothers movie, No Country For Old Men, and I couldn't shake off the sense there was something different, something thrilling and vivid, about the performances of all the lead actors: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin. It was only after half an hour of awe that I realised what it was. They can all move their faces.

Today, most actors in most movies have deliberately paralysed faces, incapable of registering anything. An ocean of Botox and collagen has been jabbed into the most famous faces on earth – leaving the audience feeling disconnected without knowing why.

It's Botox.  Botox has ruined Hollywood.  Botox has made the MGM lion incapable of roaring.  Botox has made films like "Funny Face" impossible because the face can no longer be funny.  Botox has destroyed the prospect of a new "Singin' in the Rain" because you can't sing if you can't move your lips.

It's Botox.  The cultural destroyer.  That's what's wrecked American films.  It was the not knowing that was so painful, that made life so precarious.

Now that we know, let's fight back.  We're Americans.  What's a little chemical against a mighty nation of nostalgic film goers?  Botox, get back in your bottle.  The land of Lincoln is coming at you.

And, armed and ready, I'll be back later. 

Posted on March 12, 2008.