Mugger: 2003: Make or Break for Bush

George W. Bush/> begins the new year with an enormous opportunity to virtually guarantee his reelection in 2004. Because the GOP recaptured the Senate—and quickly disposed of the Trent Lott Problem—the President has at least nine months to propose a dramatic domestic and international agenda before the media turns its attention to the growing number of />

Democratic presidential aspirants. It’s encouraging, after much speculation that Bush would present a scaled-back economic plan, that he’s apparently decided to propose eliminating the onerous double-tax on dividends, provide incentives to small businesses and accelerate his lackluster 2001 tax cuts. Not surprisingly, liberals have already attacked, in advance of Bush’s Chicago speech on Jan. 7, claiming his blueprint will not stimulate the economy, will create increasing deficits and unfairly favor the most affluent Americans.

Which is exactly why the administration ought to follow its own instincts and not compromise with the opposition before the legislative battle begins. On Jan. 6, The Washington Post editorialized: "Let’s see if we have this right. President Bush plans to propose a stimulus plan the centerpiece of which [ending the dividend tax] will have little or no stimulative effect. At a time when some people badly could use help, Mr. Bush’s tax cut mostly will help those who need it least."

Wrong. If Bush follows his gut, the financial markets will likely rise in value, reversing the downward trend that began in April of 2000. With more capital available, entrepreneurs and large companies can be expected to create more jobs, which is bound to decrease unemployment. There’s no risk for the President: no matter what his economic agenda, Democrats will attack it as a sop to the rich. As for deficits, if the economy improves in the next year, voters, if not editorial boards, won’t give them a second thought.

Also on the domestic front, Bush’s intention to overhaul Medicare (and one hopes Social Security as well) is a bold but imperative initiative that, if enacted, will modernize decades-old entitlements. It’s probably too much to expect, given the Lott controversy, but the President should also express his administration’s opposition to affirmative action in the upcoming University of Michigan Supreme Court case. Finally, while he’s still flush with political capital, Bush would be smart to bring back both Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen before the Judiciary Committee now that Sen. Patrick Leahy can’t exercise his power to deny the nominees a fair up-or-down vote in the entire Senate.

In the current Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes made the following convincing argument for Bush’s strategy. He wrote: "The politics here are quite simple: The economy itself is the only political factor that matters, not the packaging, not the distributional tables, not the size of the majority that votes for the tax cut. Rather than avoidance of Democratic criticism now, Bush’s goal must be a booming economy a year from now. If the economy is growing at a crisp pace in 2004, Bush will bask in the glow of good times and win reelection easily. If it isn’t, he’ll be blamed and reelection will be difficult." /> Count Edwards And Daschle Out

Next week, I’ll size up the bunch of Democrats who plan to defeat Bush next year, but for now just a few thoughts. Sen. John Edwards, the condescending champion of "regular people," will not last the year as a candidate. With the country at war for probably the next decade, it’s not likely even advocates of a Southern standard-bearer will choose the young North Carolinian over John Kerry, Joe Lieberman or, especially Dick Gephardt, who, I suspect, will be the political surprise of 2003: he’s hawkish on Iraq, is still a favorite of unions and has enough political chits to raise the money necessary to compete against the patrician Kerry. It’s too early to tell which one of the contenders will receive the John McCain idolatry from the media, though that’s not necessarily a ticket to the White House.

Even more interesting is this scenario: In the early primaries, like in New Hampshire, where undeclared voters can vote in either primary, wouldn’t it be swell if Republicans—with Bush unlikely to face opposition—voted en masse for Al Sharpton, just to cause some mischief? That’s what happened in the Michigan primary in 2000, when Democrats voted for McCain over Bush even though they intended to support Al Gore in the general election. Sharpton’s a cheap demagogue and racist, but he gets attention. Wouldn’t it be a wonder to watch Kerry and Lieberman, for example, kiss his ring in the debates that’ll start next fall? It’ll be Christmas every day for Sharpton. /> Cockburn’s Crackers

My friend Alex Cockburn does like to jazz up his column with a smattering of shock value and sensationalism, perhaps betraying a fascination with the tabloids of his homeland. In last week’s New York Press, Cockburn was off the charts in describing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist as "the cat world’s answer to Dr. Mengele!" His source was an Oct. 27 Boston Globe Sunday Magazine article in which it was revealed that Frist, as a medical student at Harvard, trolled animal shelters looking for cats to experiment on, an act he later described as "heinous and dishonest."

In addition, Cockburn mentions that his brother Andrew spoke to one of Frist’s interns at Vanderbilt Medical Center who called the doctor an "asshole." As usual, the man who’s been vilified by both Eric Alterman and Christopher Hitchens (an honor) does manage to include a funny zinger at the conclusion of his article. He writes: "If any further particulars are required to convict Frist, we need only say that he has been attracting the toadying attentions of Bono. Bereft of his two prime hosts in Washington, former Sen. Helms and former Treasury Secretary O’Neill, the appalling Bono has been calling on Frist and dining with Rupert Murdoch."

Frankly, I’ve long suspected that Cockburn, ever the opportunist, is a secret admirer of Murdoch, but that can slide for now.

But here’s a question: Where exactly do university students find the animals required for their research? After graduating from high school, my summer job was performing menial tasks at Princeton University’s science labs. This entailed cleaning the trays underneath rat cages, dispatching them in a bucket with chloroform once their usefulness was exhausted, and feeding about a dozen angry monkeys whose skulls were augmented by devices I couldn’t figure out.

Oh, and there were cats as well. Every Friday, in the parking lot behind the lab, I was also required to kill the felines and an occasional monkey, often drawing boos from throngs of snotty students who accused me of murder. Technically true, perhaps, but I was just following my minimum-wage ($1.85/hour) orders. Most galling were the catcalls, so to speak, from a few of the very same young men and women who had conducted experiments on the animals. Anyway, where were all these creatures obtained? Probably the local pounds or, in today’s parlance, "shelters."

If that’s the worst Cockburn can dig up on Frist, the California resident’s been riding horses and meditating in the hot tub far too much for his own good. /> Gaga for Esquire

I got a belly laugh reading Simon Dumenco’s "Glossies Awards" in the Jan. 1 Folio. My favorite entry was "The ‘Thanks for Not Sucking’ Award," which presumably wasn’t intended as parody.

The discriminating Dumenco writes: "Regular readers of ‘The Glossies’ know that I’m not so hot on a lot of magazines. But there are actually plenty of publications (in addition to The Atlantic Monthly) that occasionally—and in some case, frequently—amaze me, namely Arena and its brother Arena Homme Plus, Artforum, Attitude, Butt, Details, Esquire, The Face, Frieze, GQ, Index, Interview, Jane, Los Angeles Magazine, L’Uomo Vogue, Milwaukee Magazine, New York Magazine, The New York Times Magazine, The New Yorker, Philadelphia Magazine, TransWorld Stance, Texas Monthly, Time Out New York, Toronto Life, Vanity Fair, and W."

Space constraints must’ve forced Simon to omit Maxim, Gourmet, The American Prospect, Business Week, Playboy, Vibe, Gear and about 100 other titles.

Yes, I found some "amazing" content in many of those publications as well. For example, the February issue of Esquire included its barely breathing "Dubious Achievements 2002" and if you can’t find at least a dozen knee-slappers among them, well, you’re just not Simon Dumenco.

Two of the most asinine: "For a White Guy, Maybe: An irritated traveler at Miami International Airport responded to a security guard’s request that he take off his belt by dropping his pants and snarling ‘Is this good enough?’"

"But We Hear She’s Not A Big Fan of the Ol’ ‘Glow Stick,’ If You Know What We Mean: Janet Reno hosted a rave fundraising event with an invite list that included Ziggy Marley and a couple of Wayans brothers at a trendy club in South Beach."

Outside the rarefied bubble of New York publishing—typified by Lewis Lapham’s increasingly zany opening essays in Harper’s—a legitimate "dubious achievement" was cited in the Jan. 13 issue of The Weekly Standard.

In the magazine’s "Scrapbook" section is a beaut. It reads, in part: "Over the last several years, we have become accustomed to all manner of pedagogical malpractice from the Oakland Unified School District. In 1996, they introduced the world to Ebonics, angering white and black parents alike who didn’t want their children sounding as if they’d learned the queen’s English from an episode of Good Times. The following year, a single parent who was an amputee and widower living on disability was forced to sue the district when he found out that, unbeknownst to him, his 5-year-old son had been enrolled in a bilingual education class conducted almost entirely in Cantonese (neither father nor son was Chinese)." /> Through the Past Darkly

New York’s Rep. Charlie Rangel, openly frustrated by his party’s failure to recapture the House last month, ought to retire and lobby for a CNN talk-show slot. His Harlem district is 100 percent safe for a younger Democrat, so there’s no worry that Nancy Pelosi might smear her makeup in a tizzy. Rangel, with his gravelly voice, is perhaps the most entertaining member of Congress, and would trounce conservative guests in primetime debate, if only because he wouldn’t let them finish a sentence. In fact, Rangel’s the perfect replacement for James Carville on Crossfire—Bill Clinton’s wealthy apologist has appeared to lose his appetite for the program, letting the less-nimble Paul Begala shoulder the burdensome task of representing the left wing—and it’d be a hoot to see him cross swords with Tucker Carlson.

In addition, such a venue would allow Rangel to fully amplify some of his goofy political views. On Dec. 31, for example, the Korean War veteran published an op-ed piece in The New York Times advocating a reinstitution of the draft, and will introduce such legislation this week. Rangel, who denounces an invasion of Iraq as "obscene," writes: "I believe that if we are going to send our children to war, the governing principle must be that of shared sacrifice... Service in our nation’s armed forces is no longer a common experience. A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups [read: blacks] make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent."

While it’s gratifying to see Rangel invoking the Democratic staple of class warfare—one hopes that President Bush’s opponent in 2004 will follow suit—the elderly Congressman is living in the past. Perhaps he hasn’t noticed, but America’s military arsenal has advanced so rapidly in technology that it’s no longer necessary to field the same number of troops as in the wars of his generation. As for the "disproportionate number" of minorities in the armed forces, Rangel ought to recognize that the government doesn’t force anyone to choose this profession. The all-volunteer concept has produced a military composed of men and women who want to be in uniform—just like those in the police and fire departments—and they’re apt to be better soldiers because of it.

Rangel appeared on countless talk shows last week stumping for his disingenuous proposal for renewed conscription, and won over the sappy Mike Barnicle, who was subbing for Chris Matthews on the ratings-deprived Hardball. In Sunday’s Daily News, Barnicle was on auto-pilot, writing: "The truth is that reality doesn’t always have a happy ending. War isn’t a video game or a quick, bloodless exercise where our overwhelming power guarantees a lasting peace. It means dead Americans, funerals, casualty lists and a military filled with honorable volunteers fighting and dying for a country where we rush toward a three-, four- or five-front war without really discussing the merits or meaning. The President of the United States has sincere beliefs and great determination, but he has yet to tell people like Charlie Rangel...and the rest of us where we’re headed, and why."

You’d think that a veteran journalist like Barnicle might read the newspapers once in a while. How many times do Bush and his administration have to explain that Saddam Hussein is a threat to this country and the entire Middle East?

Clarence Page, in his syndicated column last week, was no more coherent. He said: "With most Americans looking the other way, as Mr. Rangel suggests, the unilateralist hawks who want the United States to go it alone in imposing our policies around the world have too easy a time getting what they want. If we do go to war, we should do it with the rest of the world’s support."

Another ostrich. Page has apparently purged from his memory the laborious process that Bush has undertaken since last summer to build exactly the kind of multination coalition that unilateralists were opposed to. That’s why Saddam’s still in power, as Hans Blix—who undoubtedly worships at the peanut gallery of busybody Jimmy Carter—and his UN inspection team dawdle in Baghdad.

T.R. Fogey, who runs a blog called Tobacco Road Fogey, offered the most poignant rebuttal to Rangel’s rant on Jan. 2. Fogey, whose oldest son enlisted in the Army after graduating from high school last year, is incensed at the Congressman’s political ploy. He said: "My boy’s a volunteer. He wants to join one of, if not the best and most professional military organizations that this planet has ever seen... He’s willing to risk his life for the chance to travel and for the GI educational benefits. He wants to drive a tank some day. Save the anti-war politicking for another time, Congressman.

"I want to know that, if my son has to put his butt on the line for this country, he’s going to be accompanied by other brave men like him. Brave men who believe in the mission and who believe in each other... They are not bargaining chips in your cheap, rhetorical, political game. One of them is my kid. I’ll give him to my country, even for tawdry and divisive people like you have become in the past fifty years, Congressman, because this country is worth fighting for and dying for. But I’ll never forgive your efforts to cheapen the value of that gift, Congressman."

Kathleen Parker, in the Orlando Sentinel on Jan. 5, was more succinct: "Reinstating a draft to ensure that Congress’ sons are equally at risk as those who chose to join the military is a fake punch that may sound like equality but smells like race-baiting political blackmail."

Aging boomers who pine for the massive anti-Vietnam War marches of the 60s, and can’t understand why today’s youth isn’t as fervent in protest, forget that the vast majority of students who demonstrated more than 30 years ago did so mainly because they didn’t want to be drafted. Self-preservation trumped ideology, although few would now admit that.

It’s certainly possible that in the years ahead, with so many global conflicts looming, a form of conscription may indeed be necessary, but for now Rangel’s idea is simply an attempt to rabbit-punch the Bush administration in an attempt to rally the Democrats’ base in 2004. /> It’s Just a Shot Away

As predicted in this space last week, Rolling Stone didn’t see fit to feature the late Joe Strummer on its current cover. The biweekly’s Jan. 23 obit for the Clash’s frontman is a mere tease on the front page, along with six other stories, including the groundbreaking news that Guns ’N Roses is probably kaput. Instead of Strummer, RS goes out on a limb and features a shirtless Justin Timberlake on the cover, with the headline "At Home with Mister Heartbreak."

One more disgrace notched on Jann Wenner’s permanent record.

Meanwhile, the Strummer retrospectives continue to appear almost daily. John Schacht, in a Jan. 3 Salon essay, typified the struggling website’s ideology, saying that "Now more than ever, rock music could use a Joe Strummer."

Why’s that? Schacht writes: "As the music industry collapses under the weight of its own avarice and mediocrity—not just the suits, but the artists and patrons as well—the drums of war pound ominously, homeland security reads like Orwell, and the environment is once again available at discount rates. The time is ripe for an artist or group to emerge that actually matters."

Younger people might argue, even if they agree with Salon’s time-warped politics, that acts like the Streets and Bright Eyes are at least partially filling that void, but that’s not my fight. As a middle-aged nostalgist, I was more interested in Schacht’s claim that the song "London Calling" is the "strong[est] album opener in all of music." I’d say it’s a Top Fiver, but doesn’t top Let It Bleed’s "Gimme Shelter," Beggars Banquet’s "Sympathy for the Devil" or Highway 61’s "Like a Rolling Stone." You could also make an argument for the Smiths’ "The Queen Is Dead" and Elvis Costello’s "Accidents Will Happen." /> Send comments to />[MUG1988@aol.com/>](mailto:MUG1988@aol.com)