The Bosque Boys

This has been around for a few days--but it is worth noting belatedly:

Put away the flags!

"On this July 4," says Howard Zinn, "we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed."

The gist?

A false belief in American exceptionalism leads us into all manner of self deceptions--many of which are dangerous to ourselves and others.

What is American exceptionalism?

The belief the United States of America as a "nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history."

Zinn asserts that America is not "uniquely moral." But we are adept at framing our self-interested forays "into other lands" as noble crusades to "bring civilization, liberty, democracy" to the less fortunate.

Zinn asserts that this view is dead wrong. The peace-seeking brotherhood of man all over the world, as well as the naive in America, are "victims," casualties of our "government's lies."

Zinn's prescription:

We need to refute the idea that our nation is unique and disabuse ourselves of the notion that we are a force for good in the world.

"We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation."

The full essay in the Progressive here.

Although Zinn was a World War II bombardier--he makes no mention of any of the folks to whom we are not morally superior: the Axis powers he fought against, the Soviet Empire that filled the vacuum of power in Eastern Europe after the defeat of the Nazis or the current threat: Islamism.

In the crudest sense, Howard Zinn embodies the moral equivalency of the "blame America" crowd. Noting flaws and egregious mistakes in American history, which Zinn has done so expertly and lucratively over his career, is not tantamount to saying our system and ethos is fraudulent and malevolent.

For this week dedicated to celebrating American independence, I prefer to think of the myriad heroes who understood the uniqueness of our nation in their souls.

I prefer Lincoln over Zinn:

"It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I am extremely reluctant to comment on the current Gore family crisis. I am a father of two sons, and my heart goes out to Al and Tipper. There But for the Grace of God go I. With all sincerity, I wish the Gores the best. Politics aside, I ask God to bless the Gore family with health, security and happiness in abundance.

However, by his own design, Al Gore is a crucial figure in our national political culture. He has inserted himself in to the very fabric of our national conversation. Why is the arrest of Al Gore III in play? The incident speaks to the cloud of hypocrisy and artificiality (and perhaps rotten luck) that perpetually swirls around the Gore campaigns.

Some brief comments:

The best laid schemes of Mice and Men, gang aft agley. Someone in the Gore camp was media savvy enough to arrange for Al Gore III to drive a hybrid Toyota Prius. However, running your environmentally friendly Prius at 100 miles-per-hour on the freeways of Southern California during the wee hours of the morning while smoking marijuana negates a multitude of forethought and pre-planning on the part of your dad's PR staff.

Reaping what he sowed? We may never know who made the decision, on the eve of Election Day 2000, to release the news that twenty-four years earlier, on a July 4th weekend in 1976, the Kennebunkport Police Department arrested a thirty-year-old George Bush for operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol. However, the irony (or perhaps the karma) of Al Gore's current embarrassment on the eve of his big moment seems thick.

Previous Bosque Boys musings on the "Strange Career of Al Gore" here.

On the Fourth of July, my family went to the movies to watch Ratatouille.

For an insightful review, let me direct you to Thomas Hibbs via NRO here.

For the most part, I agree with Hibbs (a friend and an authority on American cinema), who called Ratatouille "a smart, funny, well-made film." However, I must admit that I liked it slightly less than he did.

Even Hibbs complained that the film "dragg[ed] a bit toward the end." I rue the day filmmakers decided that all fine films must be two hours long. Sometimes a story about a rat who can talk and cook and transform a sagging Paris restaurant just might be more appropriately told in ninety minutes.

Perhaps the length is my main gripe. Or perhaps the movie lost me when the whole colony of rats took over the kitchen to save the day. One cooking rat I can buy. A whole army of cooking rats stretches my credulity.

Anyhow, I have not walked out of a Pixar film less excited since Monsters, Inc. I will not be counting the days until the DVD release.

Having said that, a less-appealing Pixar film is still magic.

I wholeheartedly agree with Hibbs in his interest in and admiration for director Brad Bird (The Incredibles).

Hibbs writes:

Like The Incredibles, Ratatouille is really about nobility or excellence in a democratic setting: Not everyone has equal talent or ability but there is no predicting, on the basis of class or nationality, where talent might arise. Fortunately, for moviegoers, there is still some talent left in Hollywood.

Well said.

Read here for other Bosque Boys thoughts on the Incredibles, Cars and Pixar.

In terms of disdain generated from the mainstream media and the liberal establishment, Matt Drudge ranks second only to Rush Limbaugh. The Left hates Drudge; they have parodied him, slandered him and attempted to reduce his readership by brutally disparaging his audience.

None of it has worked.

Why? What is the value of Drudge?

Like most of America, I had never heard of the Drudge Report before January 21, 1998. As we all remember, Drudge entered the American political lexicon by breaking a huge story that Newsweek refused to publish: the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Once I realized that Drudge readers found out on January 17 what I didn't learn until four days later, I decided that Drudge was a necessary supplement to my news diet.

Drudge cuts to the chase with sensational political stories. The recent Al Gore III and John Edwards dust-ups are cases in point. While the establishment outlets wringed their hands and waited for the sensational to become news (because others were reporting it), Drudge reported. Drudge became the one-stop center for Gore news this morning.

Similarly, when George Stephanopoulos mentioned John Edwards's latest hair gaffe this morning on GMA, I clicked around a bit to no avail--and then went to Drudge. Of course, there it was: Top-Right Corner. Easy.

Most times, as in the case of the Edwards story, Drudge is not an investigative reporter; he is not a newshound in the sense of a muckraking journalists, but he is a newshound in terms of highlighting interesting but obscure stories already in play. In the case of Edwards, the story came from an incredibly elite source, the Washington Post. But Drudge made it the story of the day.

Although the field is congested now with imitators on both sides of the divide, Drudge continues to play a vital role in electronic politics. Slap me if I ever get too cultured for the Drudge Report.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.


A lot of the people seem to be catching on.

Today the Washington Post ran another Edwards "hair" story--but this time the cumulative damage strikes me as edging toward lethal.

Following up on the original $400 haircut, Post staff writer John Solomon reports:

"Beverly Hills hairstylist, [Joseph Torrenueva] a Democrat...has cut Edwards's hair at least 16 times."

Evidently, the stylist met the candidate at a fashion summit back in 2003, which brought "several fashion experts together to advise the candidate on his appearance." According to the story, Edwards and Torrenueva "hit it off" and began a mutually satisfying business relationship.

Over the course of the next four years, the stylist made arrangements to meet the candidate in various locales all over the country, charging as much as $1250 for his services (full story here).

Why is this a big deal?

Initially, back in May when the $400-haircut story broke, the Edwards camp tried to laugh it off as an oddity. Edwards had stumbled in for a haircut somewhere; he didn't know the price; someone on his staff paid. Embarrassing but harmless. A country boy in the big city taken for a ride by some fella in Beverly Hills. It was almost endearing.

But, evidently, that was not the case. Sixteen haircuts. Warm relationship. The celebrated four-hundred-dollar bill was on the cheap side.

This story digs at the festering concern that something about Edwards is not quite right. There is the vanity issue. Rush famously labeled him the "Breck girl" years ago, which the ubiquitous YouTube classic (here) so humorously reinforces. There is the the question of hypocrisy: he poses as a populist everyman but acts like a high-rolling dandy. And, perhaps even more damning, this revelation also speaks to the issue of basic integrity. Either he tells the truth--or he doesn't. In other words, if he lies about his hairdresser, can we trust him to tell us the truth on matters of state.

Even worse news for Edwards:

The other revealing part of this story is the lack of cover accorded Edwards from the mainstream media, historically friendly to Democratic politicians.

As Robert Novak wrote a month ago:

"Edwards now is massively unpopular among party regulars, who neither like nor trust him." According to Novak, the "Democratic establishment" is convinced that an Edwards nomination would mean a "catastrophe" in the general election (full Novak column here).

Perhaps that explains the "unfriendly" press coverage from unlikely places such as the Washington Post and ABC News (George Stephanopoulos made note of the flap this morning on GMA). This is not exactly the George Allen treatment, but when the Washington Post starts sending real reporters to investigate your hairdresser, you are in for a long and bumpy ride.

This race is taking shape, and Edwards certainly looks like the odd man out.

Other Bosque Boys thoughts on Campaign 2008 here.

Don't forget to bookmark Bosque Boys.

Tocqueville points us to the latest essay from Thomas Sowell, who applauds "democracy" for defeating the so-called comprehensive immigration reform bill.

He charges that the "elites" who supported the bill employed "fraudulent procedures to rush this bill through the Senate." This is an accusation that may have been true for the first few days of the "grand bargain" campaign--but it is certainly overblown in the context of what actually transpired: an extended floor fight in which opponents won a very public battle for the hearts and minds of the American electorate.

He also charges the elite compromisers with "fraudulent arguments." He is right on that accord--but, of course, on this issue, he is living in a glass neighborhood. There was plenty of outrageous and unsubstantiated rhetoric from both camps.

Having said that, I do not dispute his catalog of false assertions on the part of proponents or his correctives:

--if we paid high enough wages, we could find citizens to do traditionally low wage jobs

--admittedly, deporting 12 million illegal aliens is impossible--but we should be concerned with the next wave, if we choose to do nothing

--the last bill really did not address the real problems

--elitists like to smear conservatives

All true enough. But my real question for Professor Sowell goes something like this:

If "democracy" saved us from a bad bill, how does he envision "democracy" solving our problem?

In other words, now what?

Read Thomas Sowell's article in its entirety here via NRO.

Some quick thoughts in re the commutation:

1. There are real downsides to this action:

--Too Much Mercy? As the Washington Post, an undeniably moderate voice throughout this entire imbroglio, opined this morning,
"commut[ing] the entire prison sentence sends the wrong message about the seriousness of that offense." Perhaps the President was right that the sentence was excessive, the probation office recommended significantly less time, but as the Post points out, the President "moved from excessive to zero" (editorial in full here).

--Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right. One can reasonably argue that this commutation makes Libby's punishment more commensurate with other high profile cases, namely President Clinton and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. But every schoolboy knows the chant: "two wrongs don't make right." Either you are for the rule of law--or you are not. This kind of nuanced thinking on law and order, crime and punishment hurts Republicans--not so much with the electorate--but with our own self image. This process does painful internal damage to conservatives.

--The Lingering Question. And for as long as anybody cares to think or write about this story, we will face this question: was the commutation offered to silence a potentially destructive witness for the prosecution? Was this quid pro quo? Was this part of cover-up that went all the way to the Oval Office?

2. An Observation: This President will never win with the media. Two weeks ago, I took issue with the banal speculation that President Bush would not pardon "Scooter" Libby because of the intense political fallout, which would emanate from such a move.

My point then: how can anyone say this President fears a firestorm?

You may review that post here.

Today the common storyline asserts that President Bush granted clemency because he feared that his remaining supporters might desert him, if he let Libby go to jail.

As I said two weeks ago, riding to the aid of Libby is good politics--it will temporarily buck up his flagging base a bit--but, again, who can say with a straight face that this President operates with that brand of political acumen or calculation?

But my point is: "damned if you do, damned if you don't." It is either Bush doesn't have the grit to save his loyal subordinate for fear of political backlash or Bush intercedes on behalf of his loyal minion to stave off political backlash. Pick your poison.

3. We were promised the "Paris Hilton talking points"--and we have them. Everybody from Dick Durbin to Chris Mathews wants to compare Scooter Libby to Paris Hilton. It is a ridiculous analogy. Conservatives prefer Clinton and Berger as points of reference, but that brings us back to "two wrongs..." (see above).

4. Ramifications overblown. George Stephanopoulos on GMA this morning predicted a potential backlash for the President and Republican candidates for president. He noted that already Democratic candidates are making hay of this Executive Order, which polls indicate the American people disapprove of in large numbers.

I disagree wholeheartedly for two reasons:

--I am not convinced that this is a story that will penetrate the consciousness of the American people. No matter how many times Democratic politicians and pundits bring up Paris Hilton, the sad truth is that only a fraction of the population who followed the Hilton story can even identify Scooter Libby.

--More importantly, I will bet the house right now on the certainty that Mrs. Clinton will not run a presidential campaign that centers around presidential pardons and perjured testimony before a grand jury.

The Good News: Please take note of the excellent Richard Brookhiser historical perspective piece on New York politicians and American presidential races. With great skill and perceptive analysis, Brookhiser covers Jefferson's "botanizing" trip up the Hudson, which sowed the seeds for the first two-party system in American political history, to the Mario Cuomo candidacy that never materialized and everything in between. It is first rate. Read the TIME story here.

The Bad News: And this may be too petty--but TIME is on my list right now--you will need to look hard for this very fine history, as it appears sandwiched in between teen-aged girls and their woes at the mall, trash-talking wine salesmen, wedding gifts and extreme vacations in the "LIFE" section.

Come on, TIME mag. History just don't get no respect over there in Rockefeller Plaza at the Time-Life Building.

From the Washington Post:

"Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign today announced widespread cutbacks and said it was considering whether to accept public campaign funds after another disappointing fundraising effort that has left the Arizona Republican with only $2 million in the bank" (full Post story here).

So long, John.

Prior to the immigration barrage, insiders refused to count out McCain. The oddsmakers focused on his loyal and talented campaign staff, which was exceedingly confident, competent and convinced. Everyone knew the scrappy McCain was fearless and could take a punch--and, with an exceptional team of true believers in his corner, many wondered if he just might not have a shot in the later rounds of the nomination battle.

But that is not to be. The already beleaguered McCain sustained a ferocious flurry of heavy blows on immigration; a mean right hook stopped him cold. Cutting staff at this point deprives him of his one remaining potent weapon and renders him defenseless. It is over for McCain, "throwing in the towel" officially cannot be too far off.

Too bad. A break here and there and a few different decisions, and he could have been a contender.

Quoting the President (excerpted):

"Critics of the [Plame] investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak.

"Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation.

"Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury."

On the other hand...

"[A] jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice.

"[Critical observers] argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place."

A Solomonic Compromise.

"Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

"I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

"My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby [which has inflicted great damage to his reputation and his family].

"He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

"The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power."

Statement by the President in full here.

My Analysis: Not an easy call, but the President has it right this time.