As Nasty As They Want To Be

"The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left — exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources — will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around." -- Hugh Hewitt on the New York Times Op-Ed Page, via Kevin Drum (emphasis added)

Wow. I am glad that the Republicans avoided using "exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources" when attacking John Kerry with those fun kids from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or that George Bush's henchmen played above board in South Carolina in 2000 when engaging in a push poll against John McCain about whether he fathered an illegitimate "black baby" (he and his wife had adopted their daughter out of Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh). And I hope sincerely that the Republicans don't stoop to the Democrats' level when attacking someone like Hillary Clinton. After all, if they did, then they would be engaging in something like Hillary hate-porn, to steal James Wolcott's phrase. Oh, wait . . . .

"BYE FOR NOW [John Podhoretz]
In news that will doubtless gladden many hearts, I must report that I am taking a leave from The Corner through the end of this year because, like everybody else on this website, I am in the process of finishing a book . . . . I wish you Godspeed. And buy my book on Hillary when it comes out in the spring!"

Here is a random and far from exclusive list of Hillary hate-porn, available from Amazon.com right now for your pleasure (note the Jonah Goldberg title for special fun)!

"Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race
by Dick Morris, Eileen McGann

The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President
by Edward Klein

Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton
by Barbara Olson

The Case Against Hillary Clinton
by Peggy Noonan

Ron Brown's Body: How One Man's Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary's Future
by Jack Cashill

Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House
by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., Mark W. Davis

American Evita: Hillary Clinton's Path to Power
by Christopher Andersen

Hillary's Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists
by Richard Poe

Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House
by Carl Limbacher

Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton
by Jonah Goldberg

The Hillary Trap: Looking for Power in All the Wrong Places
by Laura Ingraham

The Seduction of Hillary Rodham
by David Brock

Big Sister Is Watching You: Hillary Clinton and the White House Feminists Who Now Control America--And Tell the President What to Do
by Texe W. Marrs

Can She Be Stopped? Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States Unless . . .
by John Podhoretz"

My Dad Reviews My CD Collection So You Don't Have To: Part III

"* Beck -- Odelay -- wasn't crazy about it"

My First Time

Two people have now linked to this page on their blogs:

* Mr. Tony Pierce, about whom I have written previously, gave me a shout-out and then published a gut-wrenching rant from a Cubs' fan dealing with the White Sox victory.

*Mr. Joe White, one of the few people I know who has strong opinions about both Frederich Hayek and Salma Hayek (for the record, he is a fan of both of their work), nodded in my direction as well before writing a little ditty about Scooter Libby and then analyzing the Texas ballot propositions. He is a great friend, and the first person I knew personally who could make web pages sing, dance, and talk.

I cannot imagine that Misters Pierce and White have much in common other than they both were kind enough to point their readers toward me. And for that, they have my thanks and hold my marker. "Only in America!" as the philosopher once said.

Please allow me to re-introduce myself . . .

Hi. Okay, so you spend your whole life waiting for a forum within which you can howl at the moon or giggle at the sun, and then you find that forum, and you start writing. And then you realize that it may be true that in space, no one can hear you scream, but that on the Internet, everyone can hear you howl or giggle . . . but no one has to listen. Sure, a few old friends come to watch the show and some new ones crane their necks to see if they should stop the car to check out the show. And when they visit, they have been very kind. But at some point, they ask, "Hey . . . so . . . interesting . . . but . . . well, what's the deal?"

And someday soon, I hope to have the answer. In the meantime, I promise you this -- no more absences without leave:

"Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game"

My Dad Reviews My CD Collection So You Don't Have To: Part II

"*Steely Dan - Can't Buy a Thrill - okay

*Marshall Crenshaw - Marshall Crenshall - okay

*Bruce Springsteen - The Wild, the Innocent, & the E Street Shuiffle - very good

*The Velvet Underground - Loaded - Excellent"

Poor Mr. Buddy's been murdered in his own stately home!

Exhibit #1 -- Email from Swung On and Missed headquarters to Ms. Wonkette and her minions in response to her Indictment Contest, sent at 11:15 a.m. on October 19:

"Indictments guess contest: Perjury and obstruction of justice by Libby and Rove (committed in the lounge, with the assistance of Col. Mustard, with the wrench)."

Exhibit #2 -- Headline of a Swung on and Missed post plugging (in a good way) Wonkette's contest, posted at 11:44 a.m. on October 19:

"Wonkette Contest: Col. Mustard in the Lounge with a Wrench"

Exhibit #3 -- First line of Wonkette post (written by Michael Weiss as Ms. Wonkette relaxes in Puerto Rico as news about her novel spreads), posted on October 20:

"WaPo has all but fingered Mr. Green, in the library, with the candlestick."

Clearly, there are three explanations for this.

One, that Mr. Weiss, trying to stake a claim in the Wonkette universe, took the idea from my email and cleverly changed the Mustard to Green, lounge to library, and wrench to candlestick. (All of those changes make his Clue sentence funnier than mine, which is why he is a professional writer and I am a lawyer.)

Two, that he reads this blog. Clearly, that would show that young Mr. Weiss has good taste, but I find this idea dubious given that fewer than five people read this blog (and most are looking for scoop about Iggy Pop because of the "Blah Blah Blah" subhead at the top of the page).

Three, we both came up with the Clue idea independently. In other words, a coincidence. To this, I must paraphrase Spy Magazine from those heady days in the early 1990s: "Coincidence . . . or Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy?"

(Of course, like this poor chap, I am yet another Jew who was left out of the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy. Although given that I have now typed that fun phrase twice, I imagine I'll soon be receiving comments from Neo-Nazi Iggy Pop fans.)

Tina Brown: Mad as Hell and Not Going to Take It Anymore

As Tony Kornheiser said on the radio this morning, you should read Tina Brown's Washington Post column if you can handle more words spilled about Judy Miller and the NYT. Yes, Tina Brown. The column is funny and vitriolic. One passage is about Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger:

"You have to feel sorry for Sulzberger. Like every spirited young man who inherits a newspaper, he hankers after something more exciting than sitting in the front office fretting over the price of newsprint. He wants to feel as real in his role as valiant publisher as his reporters -- those driven, passionate, sometimes reckless seekers after truth -- feel in theirs. When he threw his support behind Miller's fight to protect her sources, he didn't think he was in a bad reality show."

Joe Buck: The Anti-Larry David

I have a free one-year "subscription" to The Sporting News but haven't read it in weeks. Now I remember why. The indispensable Deadspin points me toward Joe Buck's latest column in TSN. In the course of beginning his piece about how hard it is for him to put up with questions from fans while he travels, he throws out this little bon mot:

"I am sure the same thing will happen to me in about 2009 when I finally chuckle at one of Larry David's lines from that unwatchable HBO series -- I think I am the only person in this hemisphere who finds nothing on that show even remotely entertaining."

No, Joe, you're not the only person who feels that way. Many people -- even in this hemisphere -- feel that way. Comedy is subjective -- the vast majority of people in this vast country don't watch Larry David's show. Me, I love "Arrested Development" and "Extras" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm." Maybe you find "According to Jim" the best showcase for wackiness on the airwaves.

Later in the column, Buck tosses out some of the few questions that he doesn't mind receiving from fans:

"Hey, what's your name? What game you gonna cover? Where you off to next week? And those are just from my wife.”

Remember how I said comedy was subjective, Joe? Well, that's usually true. But in your case, I can say with all objectivity that you are not funny. The master of the preening, supercilious, holier-than-thou announcing style? Absolutely. But someone who knows funny? Nyet. No matter what Timmy McCarver tells you.

Buck ends the column by writing the following three paragraphs:

"Time to stop typing. We're about to land, and the flight attendant just gave me that look.

By the way, how is it possible that by leaving my iPod on I pose a threat to the safety of the plane?

Hard to . . . wait a minute . . . where . . . I thought this was the . . . this isn't Chicago?! Sorry, that was so Larry David of me."

No, actually, you're confusing a bad Catskills comic with Larry David. You see, I can understand why people don't like David -- it's no sin. But liking you? To paraphrase a comic you might appreciate, "Take Joe Buck. Please."

Bill King, the Voice of Oakland: RIP

Bill King, longtime Bay Area announcer, died yesterday. I think a lot of us grew up listening to games on the radio feel a kinship with our old local announcers, who before the age of cable TV and SportsCenter served as lifelines to a world that we only saw through their words. I pass along the thoughts of a friend who grew up listening to the man who ruled the radio airwaves in Oakland:

"I could, like so many people, talk about how growing up in the 70s and early 80s I would huddle with my transistor radio “watching” as Bill described Barry’s free throws, Purvis Short’s arching jump shots, or a Bernard King fast break drive along the sideline into the lane for a dunk . . . . Stabler’s scrambles and passes in the “House of Chills,” Ray Guy’s soaring punts, Otis Sistrunk’s steaming head . . . story telling with Lon Simmons during A’s games, describing Rickey’s record breaking steals, Canseco’s blasts, Dwayne Murphy’s wizardry in center, Stewart’s masterpieces against Clemons . . . . All the while wondering about what seemed like a glamorous and exotic life as Bill would interject literary references, what he had seen in his travels, restaurants he had been to in NYC, the opera and all that stuff that seemed so exotic and crazy but also eye opening to a kid . . . . And more than a few times needing a dictionary to look up a word I had never heard that Bill used to describe something (and then proudly using that words immediately there after).

But when I think about it, that is what is uniquely special about Bill King. No doubt people who love Chick Hearn or Vin Scully or Jack Buck or Lindsey Nelson love them because they evoke a season or their favorite sport . . . . But with Bill King it is that he personified the city of Oakland – even if he never actually lived there – especially the Oakland of the late 60’s to early 70’s . . . that somewhat hip, worldly in a understated and under-appreciated way, defiant of authority, counter culture, not image conscience – everything that Oakland was - somehow he was a perfect fit for a city and I don’t think anyone, with the exception of Herb Caen, personified a city and its people like Bill did.

We say it all the time; we think people will be around forever that we don’t take the time to appreciate them fully while they are here . . . . In the Bay Area I don’t think that was the case with Bill. I think people did appreciate him and were thankful for this wonderful gift we were given . . . we would have just liked to have had it for a little longer and been able to say thank you one more time."

A Candy Store Filled with One Flavor of Bubblegum

In honor of tonight's Cardinals-Astros game, I give you a snippet of Tony Pierce's classic anti-Bob Costas/pro-Harry Caray rant from a few years ago:

"but the worst thing that Costas has done, jay, is mess up the bell curve. he has made it okay for announcers to be soulless and bland and average and background filler. fakers like jack buck's son, and harry's grandson, step children of milo hamilton have polluted the airwaves with a lust for attention and a fear of life. corporations would never hire a man like Harry Caray when they could put their money on dull and hire a Bob Costas who would never get caught closing down a tavern buying a beer for a cop and chasing it down with a redhead.

People say that baseball has lost its edge because of spoiled players and high salaries and greedy owners, but i say it's because the storytellers only want to read from the children's library and live the lives of elves.

Rot in peas little man with all the potential in the world but sits on it like so many telephone books used for your pampered ass so you can see over the mic. All the vocabulary in the world but with no backbone to bring the game to life the way one would if chatting about it over a twelve pack in a basement.

That's what Harry did.

In fact when Harry realized that he had accumulated a ton of cash from being the best there ever was, he and his wife Dutchie (they never divorced) decided that no one would be a better saloon owner than Harry, and they were right.

What would Costas open if he could? A candy store, I bet.

Filled with one flavor of bubblegum."

Wonkette Contest: Col. Mustard in the Lounge with a Wrench

Wonkette is running a contest where you can predict the indictments that Patrick Fitzgerald will be handing down. You can email your guess -- people who will be indicted AND for what crimes will they be indicted (obstruction of justice, conspiracy, etc.) -- to her at tips@wonkette.com. If you would rather play at home, she has created a handy bingo card. The New York Times says that Fitzgerald will not be issuing a final report, which means that indictments should be a near certainty, but that he will not be taking any action in the case this week, which will disappoint people around DC who were set to celebrate indictments the way that most people celebrate St. Paddy's Day. Then again, we are speaking about the Times. Given its coverage of this case previously, this morning's Times article likely means that Fitzgerald will issue a final report today saying "no indictments." And if that happens, we would need to start discussing Iraq, or social security privatization, or LaVar Arrington, which would lead us to drink again.

UPDATE: Via Josh Marshall (looking very serious in his new photo), The Hotline has a list of people "who have either testified or have been interviewed by Patrick Fitzgerald (or by FBI agents) in connection with the Plame probe." (I have had dinner with one of them!) Use for your guesses to Wonkette.

My Dad Reviews My CD Collection So You Don't Have To: Part I

"*Pulp Fiction - terrific

*Jimi Hendrix - very good

*The Strokes (Room on Fire) - good

*Creedence Clearwater Revival - good to very good

*Pearl Jam - terrible, no stars

*Arrested Development - I like them

*Merle Haggard - I'm not at all crazy about him

*Otis Redding - fine

*The White Stripes - good

*The Mighty Quinn (soundtrack) - one of my all-time favorites, especially Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

*Belle and Sebastian - I didn't fall in love with them

*Badly Drawn Boy - I rather liked

*Prince's (Musicology) - clearly very talented but I'm not all that crazy about it

Like a lot:
*Ron Carter - All Alone
*Hello I'm Johnny Cash
*Marvin Gaye - What's Going On
*Beatles - Rubber Soul

Liked:
*Nirvana - Nevermind
*The Band - Music from the Big Pink
*Rolling Stones Now
*Stevie Ray Vaughan - The Sky is Crying
*Michelle Shocked - Short Sharp Shocked

Didn't like:
*Nirvana - Unplugged in New York"

Dancing with Myself

So, about this blogging thing . . . .

"Dumb move, man . . . dumb move, but it's like them old reflexes coming back."

I know that no one is reading this. So what am I doing? Reprinting Vin Scully calls from 30 years ago? Making political yucks? Trying to do serious political commentary? Doing a 180 on Lou Piniella in the course of a couple of days? Writing about TV like a geriatric "TV Guide" subscriber? Spending 45 minutes looking for the perfect photo of Billy Idol?

The post I spent the longest on -- about Judy Miller -- is the one that makes the least sense. I like photos way too much. I desperately need a proofreader. I still don't know the proper usage of "lie" and "lay." And I come up with headlines -- "DePalma Long Shot", "Jerome Dome It Is", "Why Is Chucky Brown Shooting the Ball?", and "There Is No Way That We Can Lose This Game" -- without knowing what I would write under them.

Yet, as I once told a very dear friend in a different context, "On a scale of 1 to 3, I give it a 2 . . . but I can dance to it."

And I take requests. Even for "Rosalita."

"Somehow, you know, you just end up where you are."

Quote of the Hour

"I can’t die with dignity. I have no dignity. I want to be the one person who doesn’t die with dignity. I lived my whole life in shame. Why should I die with dignity?”

Two Cheers for Sweet Lou

Maybe it's exhaustion caused by too much racquetball, but Lou Piniella is starting to grow on me as an announcer. During games three and four of the Angels-White Sox series, he pointed out a couple of times that the Angels were being hampered by their inability to draw walks, thereby deviating from the Joe Buck-Tim McCarver company line that on-base percentage is an overrated Moneyball concept that real baseball men disregard.

Tonight, he seems to be getting his announcing legs under him. He is anticipating managerial situations -- should your catcher throw to third base if a runner tries to steal it with two outs late in a close game? should you pinch run for a slow-running slugger if he gets on base late in the game with the potential game-winning run? -- and adding information that the person watching on TV would not have otherwise. Was I too hasty in dismissing him? Of course. The rule with my opinions, is, as always, "Trust, but verify."

Miller Time: "Don't Go There"

(* update at bottom of post)

Judy Miller should have listened to Jack Shafer back in July: “Listen to a real criminal defense lawyer and not a First Amendment legend.”

It's not as much fun as Mad Magazine's old "Spy Vs Spy" feature, but one of the many things to emerge from the Miller-palooza in today's New York Times is a lawyer vs. lawyer battle between New York Times' attorneys Floyd Abrams and George Freeman on the one side and Miller lawyer Robert Bennett and Scooter Libby lawyer Joseph A. Tate on the other. An in-house corporate lawyer usually takes pains to tell employees that the lawyer represents the company and not the individual. The reason for this, of course, is that the company's interest might diverge from the interests of the employee. Here, Abrams and Freeman's advice to the NYT and Miller – to not accept Scooter Libby’s waiver (according to Miller); to not seek a more “more voluntary” Libby waiver of confidentiality or even tell Libby’s counsel that Miller had not accepted Libby’s more general waiver of confidentiality; to not try to negotiate with Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald; to counsel against agreeing to testifying – might be interpreted as moves designed to please the First Amendment community (which sees Abrams as a legendary figure and the approval of which both Miller and top newspaper brass is always seeking) at all costs. Regardless, Miller says that strategy changed after she hired started listening to Bennett and disregarding Abrams and Freeman’s advice. (Maybe she was reading Mickey Kaus.)

After Miller was subpoenaed in August 2004, Abrams met with Tate:

"According to Ms. Miller, this was what Mr. Abrams told her about his conversation with Mr. Tate: "He was pressing about what you would say. When I wouldn't give him an assurance that you would exonerate Libby, if you were to cooperate, he then immediately gave me this, 'Don't go there, or, we don't want you there.’"

Mr. Abrams said: "On more than one occasion, Mr. Tate asked me for a recitation of what Ms. Miller would say. I did not provide one."

In an e-mail message Friday, Mr. Tate called Ms. Miller's interpretation "outrageous."

"I never once suggested that she should not testify," Mr. Tate wrote. "It was just the opposite. I told Mr. Abrams that the waiver was voluntary."

He added: "'Don't go there' or 'We don't want you there' is not something I said, would say, or ever implied or suggested."

. . . .

"You never told me," Mr. Tate wrote to Mr. Abrams recently, "that your client did not accept my representation of voluntariness or that she wanted to speak personally to my client.” Mr. Abrams does not dispute that.

. . . .

The two sides did not talk for a year.

Ms. Miller said in an interview that she was waiting for Mr. Libby to call her, but he never did. "I interpreted the silence as, 'Don't testify,' " Ms. Miller said.

She and her lawyers have also said it was inappropriate for them to hound a source for permission to testify.

Mr. Tate, for his part, said the silence of the Miller side was mystifying."

Abrams admits never going back to his learned adversary, Mr. Tate, and saying, "Hey, my client thinks that your client was pressured into waiving confidentiality," because Abrams, on behalf of Miller, could not "hound a source for permission to testify." A criminal defense lawyer would ask, "I need to present to my client all of her options, including testifying and staying out of jail?" Perhaps a media lawyer who believes lawyers should never testify about what a source says asks, "How can I make sure that my client does not have to testify?"

"Ms. Miller recalled Mr. Bennett saying while he signed on to her case: "I don't want to represent a principle. I want to represent Judy Miller.""

Even with Miller finally itching to obtain a clear waiver from Libby and get out of jail, the NYT's lawyers were worried about perception rather than legal consequences:

"While Mr. Bennett urged Ms. Miller to test the waters, some of her other lawyers were counseling caution. Mr. Freeman, The Times's company lawyer, and Mr. Abrams worried that if Ms. Miller sought and received permission to testify and was released from jail, people would say that she and the newspaper had simply caved in.

"I was afraid that people would draw the wrong conclusions," Mr. Freeman said.

Mr. Freeman advised Ms. Miller to remain in jail until Oct. 28, when the term of the grand jury would expire and the investigation would presumably end.

Mr. Bennett thought that was a bad strategy; he argued that Mr. Fitzgerald would "almost certainly" empanel a new grand jury, which might mean Ms. Miller would have to spend an additional 18 months behind bars.

Mr. Freeman said he thought Mr. Fitzgerald was bluffing. Mr. Abrams was less sure. But he said Judge Hogan might release Ms. Miller if Mr. Fitzgerald tried to take further action against her."

If this account is to be believed, Abrams and Freeman advised her that she should stay in jail and play a game of chicken with a special prosecutor because of a fear of the conclusions that people might draw. According to Miller, Abrams and Freeman didn't want her to go back to Libby and ask for a specific waiver and didn’t want her to agree to testify without that waiver. They thought that she could outlast Fitzgerald, apparently.

Of course, Abrams has forgotten more about media law than most of us will ever know, and my knowledge of this case comes from journalism exclusively. Moreover, much of the NYT’s account is dependent on Miller as a reliable witness, of course. Miller had her own reasons to avoid testifying, which might include her own First Amendment views, a desire to take the focus off her disastrous WMD reporting and put it onto her role as a martyr, and sympathy with her friend and source Scooter Libby. And regardless of her legal advice, she seems singularly unworthy of anyone's sympathy (to take just one example, she arguably lied to the grand jury, her editors, and her readers, as Kevin Drum (among others) explains).

UPDATE:

Josh Marshall notes that Abrams in Monday’s Washington Post has taken the extraordinary step of accusing his (former?) client (or at least his client’s employee – it is unclear to me from the stories whether Abrams represents Miller or just the NYT) of twice coloring the truth in the previous day’s NYT:

"In an interview yesterday, Abrams declined to endorse Miller's account that Libby did not want her to testify unless she was going to exonerate him. "That's Judy's interpretation," Abrams said. Tate "certainly asked me what Judy would say, but that's an entirely proper question."

Abrams also minimized Miller's assertion that another source may have given her the name "Valerie Flame," as she recorded it in the same notebook used for her first interview of Libby. Abrams said others may have mentioned Plame only "in passing. . . . The central and essentially only figure who had information was Libby.""

Dick Cheney: Ham Sandwich?

Last week, in discussing Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of Scooter and the rest of the Gang that Couldn't Testify Straight, Wonkette wrote,

"We hear Cheney . . . . We hear "Watergate-esque." We hear 'perjury.'“

I gasped when I saw it -- I couldn't imagine that Cheney would leave his fingerprints on this mess. Libby? Sure (he signs his letters "Scooter," after all). Rove? Maybe. But Cheney? Does he even have fingerprints?

Today, I learn via Tom Watson that Judy Miller's first-person love note to herself in the New York Times contains this nugget:

"Before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked me questions about Mr. Cheney. He asked, for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interviews with me or was aware of them.”

Mr. Watson then points us to the AP story, which nails this point in its lead paragraph:

"The prosecutor in the CIA leak probe repeatedly asked New York Times reporter Judith Miller how Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff handled classified information in their discussions, and asked whether Cheney knew of their conversations.”

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but . . . wowsa. How about this for a crackpot unified theory of Plame-Miers: If George Bush and Andy Card knew that Prosecutor Fitzgerald was sniffing around not only the Office of the Vice President but the Vice President himself, then maybe the President and Card (sans Bush's Brain and the Dark Prince) saw the potential for a weakened Bush to limp into a Supreme Court nomination battle without the firepower to overcome a Democrat filibuster to an Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen nomination, which prompted Bush's choice of the Harry Reid pre-approved Harriet Miers. (Under this theory, Mickey Kaus would be right that Reid's potential change of position from supporting to opposing Miers would be a "double-cross." I'm still wondering, however, if, Plame-gate aside, Bush might like to see a Reid reversal on Miers to help him attempt to change the nomination paradigm and line up the Republicans in a partisan battle.)

(Don't worry -- I'm not going to try to wrap DeLay and Frist into this discussion . . . yet.)

Eliazabethtown: 'Not as Horrible as My Fellow Critics Said'

You sense a theme here?

"Hey, Elizabethtown Isn't That Bad" says Slate's homepage headline to David Edelstein's review

"Cameron Crowe's latest isn't as bad as you've heard, but it's still a desperate mess of a movie" says the Salon headline to Stephanie Zacharek's review

What's funny about these headlines is that they presume that a large number of readers will know that the latest Cameron Crowe picture received a brutal reception at the Toronto Film Festival before being re-cut. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on whether the critic liked the movie now? Or am I underestimating the number of non-critics who know about the pre-release buzz?

Did Peggy Noonan Really Say That?

Am I the only one bothered by the passage in Peggy Noonan's latest column when she compares Miers’ decision whether to “take a hit” and withdraw her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court to the decision of a Secret Service agent to take a bullet intended for the President? "An excellent moment of sacrifice and revenge," indeed.

"The Miers pick was a mistake. The best way to change the story is to change the story. Here's one way.

The full Tim McCarthy. He was the Secret Service agent who stood like Stonewall and took the bullet for Ronald Reagan outside the Washington Hilton. Harriet Miers can withdraw her name, take the hit, and let the president's protectors throw him in the car. Her toughness and professionalism would appear wholly admirable. She'd not just survive; she'd flourish, going from much-spoofed office wife to world-famous lawyer and world-class friend. Added side benefit: Her nobility makes her attackers look bad. She's better than they, more loyal and serious. An excellent moment of sacrifice and revenge."

Josh Tries to Make Democrats Spontaneously Combust with Joy

From Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo:

"What did Harriet Miers know about the White House plan to bulldoze Joe Wilson and reveal his wife's identity?

Even more interesting, what does she know about what the president knew?"

According to Josh (quoting Texas Lawyer), Miers' position as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy

"gave her 'more one-on-one contact with the president than nearly any other staff member in the West Wing' and made her 'the ultimate gatekeeper for what crosses the desk of the nation's commander in chief.'

. . . .

Given her role at the White House at the time, Miers would seem uniquely placed to give some read on just what he knew and when he knew. Indeed, what she knew and when she knew it."

A month ago, this would have sounded beer-nuts crazy to even the most conspiracy-minded of the Democratic Underground gang. George Bush would nominate his personal lawyer to the U.S. Supreme Court even though she might have to testify under oath (to the Grand Jury? to the Judiciary Committee?) about what she and the President knew about the Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame matter? No chance. But after DeLay, Frist, Miers, and Rove/Libby, not to mention a 3-1 start by the 'Skins, nothing seems impossible in the crazy little town full of dreamers, where liberal kids, who came to DC thinking that the closest they would get to real power was winning the trivia contest at The Pour House, now -- close their eyes and cross their fingers! -- imagine themselves getting drunk with Sally and Ben and taking back K Street!

Fugging Hilarious

One of the Fuggers on Michael Stipe's latest ensemble:

"It's like a child's half-assed George Washington costume from the waist down, and, like, Baked Communications Professor on Graduation Day from the waist to the neck, and then, god, I don't even know, like, MY GRANDPA from the neck up."

Good stuff. Even The Wall Street Journal acknowledges their influence.

Misleading Drudge Headline of the Night

No, it's not, "Meet Five Toes, the Two-Tongued Cat!" That one seems spot-on.


Instead, it is "Rove 'No Target'".

If you click through to the AP story, however, you learn the following:

"Prosecutors had warned Rove before his latest grand jury appearance that there was no guarantee he would not be indicted. The grand jury's term is due to expire Oct. 28.

. . . .

His lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, said Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald "has not advised Mr. Rove that he is a target of the investigation and affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges. The special counsel has indicated that he does not anticipate the need for Mr. Rove's further cooperation.""

This is an example of Kevin Drum's "Always Click the Link" rule of thumb. Why am I guessing that Karl Rove isn't as convinced as Drudge about not being a Fitzgerald target?

(We need a Kausfiles' review of Rove's Jag. One thing is certain -- Rove is taking a different tact than John Roberts, who tooled around DC in a PT Cruiser, much to Mr. Kaus's disdain.)

P.S. -- Speaking of Kevin Drum, he seizes upon the key nugget in the Post story:

"Rove's defense team asserts that President Bush's deputy chief of staff has not committed a crime but nevertheless anticipates that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald could find a way to bring charges in the next two weeks, the source said."

Wowsa.

McCarver and Fox Strike Again

Tonight, in the third inning of Game 3 of the Angels-White Sox Series, McCarver narrated a video montage of sloppy play from the series. He once again showed Vladimir Guerrero throwing the ball past Adam Kennedy and Orlando Cabrera and said that Guerrero "overthrew" both fielders. Yet when I watched the play live, and then watched the replay several times, it seemed clear that Vlad didn't overthrow Cabrera. He overthrew Kennedy, but Cabrera, the secondary cutoff man, simply missed the in-between hop.

The play ended up not hurting the Angels, but what bothers me about this is McCarver's (and Fox's) laziness. (And this isn't limited to McCarver and Fox. You see it on NFL telecasts on all networks.) It's fine to not notice what really happened when you are announcing it live. McCarver just keeps repeating what he thinks he saw instead of actually watching the play again on replay, however, because he is sticking to a storyline that he assumes applies and never takes the time to look closely again. He has already decided in his mind what happened. Are you going to believe McCarver or your own lying eyes? Moreover, Buck and Piniella just sit there and agree. They "know" what happened because McCarver said so. Had McCarver said instead, "Let's take a look at this replay and see what happened on that throw," they would have noticed.

I compare this to Jon Miller and Joe Morgan on ESPN. I don't think that both of them would keep repeating something that, once they saw the replay, was inaccurate. Morgan has his obvious liabilities as an announcer, but he is strongest when analyzing something that happened on the field -- I have heard him many times say, "Well, you know, looking at it again, I think I was wrong." And if he doesn’t, Miller will. (Part of this may come from having better people in the truck who tell the announcers, “Hey, look at the replay again – I think something different happened.”)


P.S. -- Read King Kaufman on more baseball love from Fox -- as the Salon subhead says, "Fox hates baseball, exhibit 3,442."

Miers' Remorse*

(* shamelessly stealing Mr. Kaus's line even after John Fund used it in The Wall Street Journal because I added an apostrophe to make the headline possessive and no one is reading this anyway)

Last week, Wonkette found a fun 2004 Legal Times profile of Ms. Miers that contained this fascinating nugget:

"She always remembers everybody's birthday."

That talent would undoubtedly help on the Court, because Justice Stevens always remembers holidays and Justice Ginsburg is always wandering the halls talking about "this day in baseball history," but no one has been good with birthdays since Justice Black left the Court (he was always passing around oversized “from all of us” birthday cards for everyone to sign the morning of someone's birthday and then organizing a "surprise" cake in Justice Stewart's chambers for the afternoon).

Except . . .



(Via The Smoking Gun and the NYT.) It turns out to be yet another left-wing MSM lie! If Miers is so good at remembering birthdays, how could she have forgotten the birthday of “the most brilliant man she had ever met” and "the best Governor ever"?

Don't let Drudge find out -- he'll start those sirens on his site and get everyone excited that a Rove indictment might be imminent.

What Happens When You Never Invite George Will to Play Golf

"Q Who gave you the hat, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Forty-one gave me the 43 hat.
Q And you gave him?
THE PRESIDENT: "Thank you, sir." (Laughter.)
FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH: A guy in Fort Worth gave me the 41."

"The unpleasant sound Bush is emitting as he traipses from one conservative gathering to another is a thin, tinny "arf" - the sound of a lap dog." -- George Will on George Herbert Walker Bush, 1992

"He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections." -- George Will on George W. Bush, 2005

Quote of the Hour

"Let's leave it all alone. I'm stupidest when I try to be funny."

Because Don Zimmer Wasn't Available

I said that it couldn't get more painful for me than Buck and McCarver. (Other than a doomsday scenario of Berman and McCarver.) Fox decided to up the ante by having Sweet Lou Piniella join the Buck-McCarver booth last night.

Besides being a bit of a mush-mouth, which is always a fun condition for an announcer to have, Piniella said nothing of substance. It was like sitting next to a guy at the game who tells you obvious or unsupported things as if he is imparting "insider" information ("This is a bunting situation . . . He'll probably waste a pitch here . . . Bud Black looks like he would be a good manager [why, Lou, because of the part in his hair? the crease in his pants? why, why, why?] . . .). (I know this because I am often that guy at the game saying the inane stuff. But only one or two people have to listen to me, rather than the millions who are subjected to Piniella.) He is Bret Boone from 2003 -- the "baseball guy" who adds nothing to the booth and actually manages to make you appreciate McCarver a little more. He sounds like he has been on cruise control for years, which is what can happen to you when you manage in Tampa Bay, I guess.

(The one possible benefit -- and it's a long shot -- to having Piniella in the announcing booth is the chance that he will lose his mind at some point and start screaming at Buck and McCarver like they were umpires who just called a balk on Lou's pitcher. Fox could turn this to its advantage by having Hugh ("House") Laurie limp into the booth and administer a sedative to Piniella while McCarver said "Amazing!" and Buck said, "Only here on Fox, folks.")

Breaking the Law, Breaking the Law

A reason for Washingtonians to consider moving to the suburbs, from today's Washington Post:

"Debra Bolton had a glass of red wine with dinner. That's what she told the police officer who pulled her over. That's what the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test indicated -- .03, comfortably below the legal limit.

She had been pulled over in Georgetown about 12:30 a.m. for driving without headlights. She apologized and explained that the parking attendant must have turned off her vehicle's automatic-light feature.

Bolton thought she might get a ticket. Instead, she was handcuffed, searched, arrested, put in a jail cell until 4:30 a.m. and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Bolton, 45, an energy lawyer and single mother of two who lives in Alexandria, had just run into a little-known piece of D.C. law: In the District, a driver can be arrested with as little as .01 blood-alcohol content."

There, but for the grace of your personal deity, goes any of us.

I heard about Ms. Bolton's arrest the day that it happened, and I couldn't believe it. Now that I've read about it in the Post, I still can't believe it. Understand that Ms. Bolton is an accomplished lawyer with friends all over town. And it took her four months and thousands of dollars to fight this after a terrifying and humiliating night in jail. You can imagine how it turns out for those people without such intestinal fortitude or education.

So, my friends, if you want a glass of wine with dinner, do it in Virginia or Maryland. Moreover, if you see Ms. Bolton out in the suburbs, buy her a drink. She deserves it.

Managerial Miscue of the Night (Bill James is right again)

In the 1984 Bill James's Baseball Abstract, James discussed a quote from then-White Sox Manager Tony LaRussa. Known as The Boy Genius (because we all know that a law degree makes you brilliant), LaRussa’s “Winning Ugly” team had been thrown out of the base paths a couple of times during Chicago's unsuccessful 1983 AL Championship Series with the Baltimore Orioles. LaRussa said something to the effect of, "We took the extra base during the season, and we can't change the way we play in the playoffs." James wrote something to the effect of, "You must change the way you play when you are playing against the best teams. The things you do during the 162-game season won't always work in the postseason."

Tonight, Ozzie Guillen set his team loose on the base paths and saw them thrown out twice. He also insisted on keeping the bunt on in the bottom of the ninth inning with a pinch runner on first and no outs. As a former true believer that the bunt was almost always the waste of a precious out for the smaller gain of a base, I have come around to the notion that there are times when it is a good, wise play. Here, Chone Figgins was playing about 30 feet from home plate and KRod was throwing BBs down the middle of the plate (eschewing his devastating curveball), however, because they KNEW that Aaron Rowand was going to bunt. Figgins, KRod, and Mike Scioscia knew that Rowand would bunt, even with one strike, even though Podsednik had been unable to bunt in the 8th on Scott Shields, because Rowand was telegraphing it and because everyone in the park and everyone watching felt confident that Ozzie Guillen would not take the bunt off. The White Sox had been playing tight all night. Maybe Guillen thought that bunting was the best way to win in that particular situation. More likely, he thought, “This is how we play. We aren’t changing now.”

Chicago played this way all year, but it killed them tonight:

5th: Podsednik thrown out stealing when Scioscia called for a pitchout.
6th: Jermaine Dye -- 31 home runs on the year -- pops up a bunt to lead of an inning.
7th: AJ Pierzynski is thrown out stealing by five feet with one out.
8th: Podsednik fouls off two bunt attempts before striking out.
9th: Rowand drills his bunt right to Figgins, who almost turns a double play with Adam Kennedy.

As much as Scioscia loves small ball as well, I would suspect that he would have taken the bunt off if Crede had been playing as close to the plate as Figgins was.

It is always dangerous to extrapolate too much from one baseball game. That won't stop me here. I get the sense that the White Sox and the Angels play similar games: good starting pitching, very good bullpens, good defense, and managers who like to play "small ball" and who try to steal bases more than is wise. Scioscia likes to play veterans at any expense. (See the perceptive Matt Welch for the best analysis of the Angels – his comments about game 5 of the Angels-Yankees series brought new things to light.) And Ozzie loves to steal and bunt (sacrifice, squeeze, drag, you name it).

None of this will matter if Vlad the Impaler begins wreaking havoc, or if Paul Konerko and Carl Everett start taking apart the exhausted Angel bullpen. But if this series comes down to the small ball that both managers love, then I’ll be interested to see if Ozzie is willing to adapt to the strategy that got him there.

P.S. -- I see that I am in good company with Matt Welch and the ESPN "Second Guessing" boys (Neyer and Schoenfield).

Vast Wasteland Line of the Night

"I hope the war goes on forever and Ryan gets drafted."

Desert Island: The Vast Wasteland

"Never mind what people are like, what do they like?"


Hall of Fame


Arrested Development -- The best sitcom ever. (Yeah, I said it.) The acting is sensational, from top to bottom – there really is not a weak link in the cast, from Jessica Walter and Jeffrey Tambor to little Michael Cera and Alia Shawkat. (Jeffrey Tambor deserves his own post -- hell, he deserves his own mountain -- for portraying Hank "Hey Now" Kingsley on The Larry Sanders Show and George Bluth here.) I start giggling just thinking about AD. The direction, the writing, Opie's narration. So far, the third season has been the weakest, and it is still the best thing on television. As the man says, if loving this show is wrong, I don’t want to be right.


Deadwood -- Shakespeare in the West. I'm not a big fan of Timothy Olyphant's Gary Cooper impersonation, but the women, mostly forced to be wives or prostitutes, are amazing (especially Paula Malcomson as Trixie and Kim Dickens as Joannie Stubbs). Ian McShane deserves all of the accolades that he receives as Al Swearengen -- he is the heart and soul of the show as a man with a damaged heart and soul. The use of music (from Jelly Roll Morton to June Carter Cash to Mississippi John Hurt) is outstanding. And the writing . . . well, David Milch works out his demons for all of us to see, and I'm sure as hell richer for it. It’s high art.



All Star


Curb Your Enthusiasm -- A little too smug sometimes, but Larry David’s creation is like nothing else on TV. "The Survivor" episode from Season 2 will always be a classic. From Gina Gershon slurring, "Shlomo is in shul, Larry," to the argument between the Holocaust survivor and Colby from "Survivor" about who had the tougher time, it was perfection in 22 minutes.


Extras -- I have seen three episodes and it is already in the pantheon because of Kate Winslet's performance in the premiere as the star who works in a Holocaust film in an effort to win an Oscar (she may take on the role of a "mental" to take another stab at a statuette, she says). In between takes, she explains to one of the extras the best way to talk dirty on the phone (it involves cleaning out the basement and polishing an Oscar). Is there anything that Ricky Gervais can't do?


Lost -- At its best when it is funny and scary. I don't think that the creators have a coherent view of what it all means -- I believe it when Entertainment Weekly reports that they are making it up as they go along. But the acting is solid, the colors are vibrant, and use of backstory to deepen our appreciation of the characters is innovative and tremendous fun.

The Office -- Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's not the British original, which was one of the most extraordinary things ever shown on television. But during this season, it has reached its own level of quiet brilliance. The episode about the Office Olympics illustrated all of the show's strengths -- laugh-out-loud moments of silliness, pitch-perfect glimpses of the richness of the humans dulled in an office park, and moments of grace (Michael receiving a "gold medal," his eyes glistening with tears, not understanding but touched by it all the same). Don't be afraid of it.


Scrubs -- I want to drop this, to let it go, but even with its missteps (Heather Graham, bless her, err, heart, was out of her depth), it has a sublime luminance that make me happy. Not a classic? Maybe. Nevertheless, it's quirky and different and manages to combine silliness and pathos in a way that is almost unheard of for a popular American sitcom. Whenever Zack Braff's mannerisms start to grate, John C. McGinley or Neil Flynn come roaring to the rescue. And who knew that out of the whole cast of Roseanne, it would be one of the Beckys who would make it big. Oh, and The Todd rules, of course.


The Sopranos -- The gaps in between seasons makes me forget sometimes how brilliant and startling it was when it came on the scene. Gandolfini and Falco’s scenes together are remarkable. I sometimes find myself gasping at their intensity.


Veronica Mars – Joss Wheedon is right (as he usually is, despite his Serenity misstep). The first season was a slice of perfection -- a perfectly contained little world full of surprises and emotional resonance. It deserves to take the audience from one of the shows where they walk around analyzing hair fibers.



Overrated by the Fans, but Solid Middle-of-the-Rotation Guy (and we do mean "Guy")


Entourage -- Other than Ari, is there any reason to watch this? Probably not (unless they develop Debi Mazur's character, as Dana Stevens suggests). But, as pointed out by Bill Simmons, the second-to-last episode of last season (when Ari's career goes up in flames) featured some fantastic acting by Jeremy Pivan. I won't soon forget him thinking, eyes closed in his office, and then leaping up from his sofa, collar askew, to begin his ill-fated coup attempt. (Now, about that hair, Jeremy . . .)


Fun Guys to Have in the Clubhouse


Grey's Anatomy -- Cheesy music, ER-like medical drama, inconsistent acting. Yeah, I know. I'm not all in, but I'm calling the ante. In spite of Patrick Dempsey.



The OC -- No excuses. The Cohen household is a gas. And Rachel Bilson gets funnier and funnier. She'll outlast Mischa in Hollywood, if not on Page Six.







Old Players Falling Apart Fast


Alias -- Oh dear. The curse of Affleck. A former guilty pleasure, its fastball seems long gone.








Nip/Tuck -- A high-wire act from the beginning, this season seems . . . boring. Which is amazing for a show featuring post-op transsexual sex, a regular threesome, lots of plastic surgeon-on-young-woman action, and a family where the biological dad is the best friend of the dad . . . I'm even bored typing all of this . . . .