Contents:

Stand By Your Man, April 14, 2000
Perrogate, March 31, 2000
Where are the Queer Pioneers? March 17, 2000
He Who Sells the Most Toys Wins, March 17, 2000
Keep it Flying? March 3, 2000

Stand By Your Man
April 14, 2000

In late February, Marvin Olasky took a beating in the secular press when one of his syndicated columns complained about reporters with "holes in their souls." One of those reporters, The New York Times' Frank Rich, responded in one of his Saturday columns. Of the University of Texas journalism professor who serves as Bush's religion and faith-based charity advisor, Rich wrote:

Bob Jones IV wrote a cover story for a rag called World magazine slapping around the McCain family. Mr. Bush had nothing to do with this "religio-political sleaze" as William Safire described it, either, though World is edited by Marvin Olasky, the sometime Bush adviser who invented, if you please, "compassionate conservatism."

Now Mr. Olasky [has written a piece] for the Austin American-Statesman implying that journalists who are critical of Mr. Bush have "holes in their souls," practice "the religion of Zeus" and are therefore hostile to the Texas governor's Christianity. The only three journalists he cites by name happen by total coincidence to be Jewish (Bill Kristol and David Brooks of The Weekly Standard are the other two). I'm sure it's also a coincidence that Mr. Olasky, a former Jew who converted to Christianity over twenty years ago, has spun this theory at a moment when Pat Robertson is targeting Mr. Rudman, the most visible Jew in the McCain campaign. Mr. Olasky phoned me -- but only after his column prompted embarrassing national press calls to the Bush campaignto reassure me that of course he's not an anti-Semite. Whew! He still hasn't told me whether the religion of Zeus goes in for Bar Mitzvahs.

In a subsequent column Olasky responded that he had "no knowledge" of the religious affiliations of the columnists he cited, and "that Rich should make such a crazy charge [of anti-Semitism] shows how ugly New York politics has become."

Now the Institute for Democracy Studies is pushing Olasky back into the news cycle, using an interview he did with the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1998 to flog an I.D.S. report on the growth of "antifeminist organizations." Among the enclosures with the I.D.S. "Antifeminist Organizations: Institutionalizing the Backlash" is a photocopy of an Olasky interview with the editors of the quarterly publication of something called the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Olasky's interview includes his standard mix of ersatz sociology and biblicism.

In the 1950s, people were moving to the suburbs. You had the introduction of a number of labor-saving devices in the home. Add to this the fact that the federal government was expanding its social welfare programs. Previously this work had been done by community and church-based organizations, staffed largely by female volunteers. Now it was being done by government-paid professionals.... One result was a lot of lonely women, removed from their roots, who didn't have a productive way to spend their time.

Olasky uses Betty Friedan as his straw woman, arguing that her The Feminine Mystique was written out of this context, and her suggestion to these lonely suburban women was that they join the work force. "This they have done," Olasky observes, "with dire consequences for society as a whole." Olasky concludes with an empirical observation somewhat surprising from a professor of journalism (the "just the facts" profession): "Of course, feminism has led to increased poverty among women."

He is on sounder biblical ground when he describes the role of women in politics:

God does not forbid women to be leaders in society, generally speaking, but when that occurs it's usually because of the abdication of men. As in the situation of Deborah and Barak, there's a certain shame attached. I could vote for a woman for the presidency in some situations, but again there's a certain shame attached. Why don't you have a man who's able to step forward? God's Word says very plainly that an elder is to be a man; he is to be the husband of one wife. It's harder when there are women who are CEO's on companies and so forth. Still, it comes down to the question of "Do we trust in God and do we believe that He has wisdom that we don't have?"

Olasky's argument should helpfully eliminate Liddy Dole and Christine Todd Whitman from the short list of GWB's potential running mates. It also raises the question of whether Bush will distance himself from Olasky's loopy anti-feminism, which is unlikely to appeal to your average soccer mom. The latter seems dubious; Bush will win or lose with Marvin. The Governor wrote the introduction to Olasky's forthcoming book, Compassionate Conservatism. "Marvin is compassionate conservatism's leading thinker," Bush writes. The book (out in July) won't be a bestseller. But it will provide some insight into Bush's odd mix of religion and politics. By a copy before you vote. Buy two copies and send one to Christi Whitman.

Perrogate
March 31, 2000

While President Bush preferred pork rinds and the Oak Ridge Boys when he wanted to get down, George W. requires a little more sabor. Emilio Navaira -- a one-namer, "Emilio," like the late Selena -- is Bush's Latino pop icon. For the '98 governor's race, Emilio reworked a Bush campaign version of the hit "Juntos," a ballad about two lovers so devoted to each other that they remain together (juntos) in Heaven. And as recently as the Iowa straw poll, Emilio was the Latino hat act in Bush's C&W road show which (mercifully) does not include the four-ball, basso profundo drone of "the Oaks."

But it could be that Bush and Emilio are juntos no más. As Ramiro Burr recently reported in the San Antonio Express-News, Emilio's career and personal life seem to be on the skids. It's not likely that Bush will drop Emilio just because he wasn't even mentioned -- for the first time in a decade -- in the nominations for this year's Tejano Music Awards. There's another problem. Emilio has gotten crosswise with the law, in a minor domestic dispute that involves throwing a set of keys at his girlfriend in a public place, and perhaps even worse as potential attack ads go -- kicking a dog.

A little dog.

A little dog, from Mexico.

And Emilio has used the dog's Mexican pedigree to justify kicking it.

Emilio's domestic violence charge, and a divorce from his wife of ten years, presents Bush with a minor "domestic" problem. Perrogate is an "international" incident that could dog Emilio and cause problems for Bush.

Emilio says he didn't "kick" the dog. "My girlfriend has a little schnauzer," he told Ramiro Burr. "We were in the hotel lobby, and the dog is from Mexico. So he didn't know about automatic doors that close. The door opened and the dog wanted to run. I said 'This guy is going to get run over.' So I stuck my foot out to stop the dog while I was trying to walk."

Left Field has learned from informed sources that there are automatic doors in Mexico. Miguel Váldez is the co-owner of Herrería Váldez, a Saltillo, Coahuila, business that manufacturers door and window frames. "Well, yes, we have automatic doors in Mexico," Váldez said in a telephone interview with Left Field. Váldez said his small company manufactures metal doors, not automatic doors. But he recalls seeing his first automatic door some twenty years ago. "The first automatic door I saw was at Autodiscuenta, when I was in high school," Váldez said. Autodiscuenta is a grocery chain controlled by former Mexican President Luis Echeverria. More recently, market penetration by the U.S. businesses that rushed into Mexico after NAFTA has resulted in the spread of automatic doors.

Váldez suggested that unless Emilio's girlfriend's schnauzer is from a very small town or village, where there are no automatic doors, the "Mexican-dog-in-an-automatic-door" defense might not hold up.

Emilio's February trial in San Antonio, on charges of assault and resisting arrest, has been rescheduled until August. He claims that he is "factually innocent of all charges." And the Bush campaign, bogged down in its daily attack pages aimed at Al Gore, has had no comment on Emilio's canine conundrum. But an Austin journalist watching the Bush campaign thinks it might be over for Bush and Emilio.

"Bush will drop that guy faster than Clinton dropped Lani Guinier," the source said.

Where are the Queer Pioneers?
March 17, 2000

"I have gay supporters. I don't ask their sexual orientation though." -- George W. Bush to Larry King, Presidential Primary Debate Special.

Coming just ten days before the primary in heavily Catholic New York, Bush's letter of apology for appearing at Bob Jones University (where Catholicism is considered a cult and the Pope sometimes called Satan) had all the sincerity of a deathbed confession. (The letter's recipient, New York Archbishop John O'Connor -- who literally is on his deathbed -- didn't bother to respond.) But that's more than a national organization for gay Republicans, the Log Cabin Republicans, got following their mistreatment by the Bush campaign. According to a phone interview with spokesman Kevin Ivers, they aren't holding their breath for anything better.

Ivers is still steamed about an exchange between Bush and McCain during a recent presidential debate, conducted on Larry King Live on the eve of the South Carolina primary. Some of the give-and-take got lost in the finger-pointing and recriminations of that freewheeling evening, but if you listened closely, you heard the sound of a subtle gaybaiting in progress. According to Ivers, it was just a hint of what has been going on behind the scenes for months. Addressing Bush, King brought up the Bob Jones appearance. The Governor declined to apologize, saying he would bring his message to anyone who would listen, regardless of whether or not he agreed with their views. King then pounced, asking the Governor why, then, he had declined a standing invitation to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans -- while McCain had agreed to a meeting. Bush responded, "Well, they had made a commitment to John McCain." There was the briefest pause, during which the camera focused on the Governor's face. Before his handlers broke him of the habit, the Governor used to smirk after delivering what he considered to be a good one-liner. Now he purses his lips, and gives a half-second look which says, "I'm not smirking." (Or perhaps: "I'm Chevy Chase, and you're not.")

King switched gears, but the moment was not lost on the audience for whom it was intended. One was John McCain, who quickly responded, "I have no knowledge that they have made a commitment to my campaign." A second was Kevin Ivers, watching in D.C., who hit the roof. "They are trying to rearrange the facts of what happened," Ivers told Left Field. In fact, Log Cabin has not endorsed McCain (they don't make endorsements) and did not raise money for him until after the Governor's campaign had publicly and privately snubbed them. The real chronology of events (much of which has been reported in The New York Times and elsewhere), tells a different story, one that Ivers says is emblematic of the campaign's scorched earth tactics.

Last April, according to Ivers, the Bush campaign approached Log Cabin as part of their much-touted campaign of inclusiveness. "Karl Rove and I were talking for months about [gay] issues. We were trying to give them advice. There was an understanding that we would not agree on all issues, but we were getting them very favorable press. We were getting them front page New York Times stories ... making them look like good Republicans," Ivers says. Most notably, Bush said that being gay should not disqualify someone from public service. Then, in October, an account of a meeting between Bush and a splinter group of Christian conservatives led by Michael Farris was leaked to the press, and Bush was quoted as saying he would not knowingly hire a gay person. Ivers says he went to Rove quietly to seek a clarification about the apparent contradiction in Bush's stance. "Karl Rove said to me: 'Do you want to elect the next president or not?' That was his response, basically: 'Shut up and get on board. Stop asking questions.'" Then, in November, Bush appeared on Meet the Press, his first major national appearance, and told Tim Russert that he would "probably not" meet with Log Cabin, even though McCain had recently taken up their offer.

"We hit bottom internally after that," Ivers says. "People were so angry at Bush for the way he handled that and the way his people got more and more negative behind the scenes and in the press against us." About two weeks after Bush appeared on Meet the Press, Log Cabin held a conference call, during which angry members pledged $40,000 for John McCain. But it was only after Bush refused to meet with them (and, as Ivers put it, "after Karl Rove and his campaign deliberately antagonized our organization") that the "commitment" was made to McCain, not before, as Bush implied on Larry King.

But first and foremost, Bush's nod and wink on Larry King was for the benefit of Christian conservatives in South Carolina, who turned out to vote in record numbers in the primary the following day. It was the culmination of what Ivers describes as a beneath-the-radar campaign of "sub rosa gaybaiting" that began almost immediately after Bush lost New Hampshire. "There were fliers saying that McCain was the 'fag candidate.' There were mailings of the press articles about our meeting [with McCain] to McCain supporters saying, this is the man you're supporting, the gay rights lover," Ivers says. "There was push-polling by the Christian Coalition using the Log Cabin issue."

Ivers thinks Rove (who did not respond to Left Field's request for comment) has steered Bush too far to the right. "Do they think they can sort of go back in time and sort of be the George W. Bush of last summer again, as if people won't remember what he said and what he did? There's a sort of moral blindness there," he says. Not that he doesn't understand why Bush went to the gutter in South Carolina. "After New Hampshire, there was open talk that ... if he didn't win South Carolina, his campaign was over. It would be the $80 million boondoggle, and it would have been one of the most infuriating, crushing failures in American political history. So they were gonna do whatever they had to do to win."

He Who Sells the Most Toys Wins
March 17, 2000

During the final debate before the New Hampshire primary, Steve Forbes testily announced, "No one can buy me." The test of this assertion is beyond Forbes' personal fortune (although if Forbes had stayed in the race, Donald Trump could at least have made a bid). Cybercitizens who ventured into the realm of campaign websites, you see, also discovered Forbes had been the only major-party candidate who wasn't "merchandising" in virtual reality. That his political ideas were in as much demand as his non-existent campaign tchotchkes led him to drop out of the race in the wake of the all-important Delaware primary (a winner last time, this go-round he wasn't on the radar). Yet even the also-ran who knocked him out -- the so-far-from-contending and so-far-from-the-fray Alan Keyes -- is giving bumper stickers and cassette tapes to contributors.

That's nothing compared to the stuff being hawked by the rest of the candidates.

The Bradley Store (www.billbradley.com) is easy to find, easy to use: no frills, just like the candidate. The only thing a dollar bill buys is your choice of four buttons. The webstore -- although it promises "cool stuff" -is not terribly creative, selling the standard buttons, signs, bumper stickers, t-shirts and hats. The merchandise succeeds only in further distancing Bradley from the shouting neighborhood of Cool. Balloons, mouse pads, coffee mugs, and -- the very apex of hipness -- the lavaliere I.D. holder. The featured item, a navy sweatshirt with a small embroidered logo, concisely captures the campaign's low-key aloofness.

John McCain's (www.mccain2000.com) campaign has been boosted by millions in web contributions, and the team clearly views its website's top priority as selling. As the site loads, a smaller pop-up window appears right in the middle of the screen asking for a donation. One of the eleven navigation choices on the site takes you to the "Campaign Store," where you can get t-shirts, bumper stickers, the McCain bio video and a poster of the young flyboy McCain.

The pickings are nowhere near that thin on George W. Bush's site (www.georgewbush.com). Bush has more knick-knacks for sale than he can fit on his campaign plane. It's harder to find the GWB Store than it is to find McCain's merchandise, but the political collector might find it well worth his while. (Bush's campaign has long had an affinity for stuff: they gave away cowboy hats at an event in New Hampshire.) The store's front page advertises spring water -- "Prepare to experience a watershed moment in American history..." -- bottled (as The American Prospect reported last year) not in the Texas Hill Country, but in Kentucky. The scrolling menu at the top of the page advertises the GWB black windshirt ("the perfect gift!"), director's chair, totebags, sweatshirts, long sleeved t-shirts, rally signs, steel coffee tumblers, plastic tumblers, travel mugs, navy twill caps, children's caps ... and that's just the tip of the cornucopia. There are golf balls, lapel pins, balloons, and great deals on bulk purchases. Throw in the free calendar magnet that comes with every purchase, and it's enough to knock any recovering packrat right off the wagon.

Just as Bush's decision to slap his name on any conceivable item seems perfectly in character, so to does Al Gore's (www.algore2000.com) unwillingness to choose a vendor for his campaign. Instead, three different "official" outfits are selling Gore paraphernalia (though there is no Gore bong advertised, despite the claims of his former Tennessee friends). The products offered by gorealltheway and goregoods are fairly conventional -- basically competitive with the Bradley Store (all in earth tones, of course).

The discriminating collector should head straight to goregear, the only official store in this campaign to offer embossed Bic Clic Stic pens (as well as the $29 genuine Cross Century pen for the ritzier set), cuff links, a tie slide, and the indispensable baseball cap with an embroidered back reading "Looking Gore-geous in 2000." If only he had water for sale, we could ban TV commercials and hold two blind taste-tests a week: the Presidential Challenge.

Keep it Flying?
March 3, 2000

As Jim Hightower laments, in an election year the gods don't provide the candidates. But the candidates we are provided are generally good at least for a few laughs and a little education. As George W. Bush and John McCain -- representing the Party of Lincoln -- headed South, it was amusing to watch the Republican candidates squirm over the issue of the Confederate battle flag, most notably that flag atop the South Carolina capitol. On different days, McCain pronounced the flag a symbol of hatred, and then of heritage, while the Governor declared himself firmly on both sides of the fence. Then poor George found himself on "Meet the Press," defending the racialist Bob Jones University - where they abhor miscegenation, Mormons, and the Pope, and where they once described Bush's father as "the devil."

"A leader doesn't shirk," Bush told "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert. "A leader leads. A leader stands up and sets an agenda, and that's what I'm going to do." Asked if that meant he was coming out against the Confederate flag, Bush answered, "My opinion is that the people of South Carolina need to come together and get this issue resolved just like we resolved the issue in the state of Texas." Hmmmm. Stunned at this good news, Left Field checked our Resolved-Issues-in-Texas File. Nope, the Confederate Flag Issue definitely appears to remain "Open." Last fall, the state's N.A.A.C.P. declared its determination to remove plaques honoring the Confederacy and its battle flag from the Texas Supreme Court building, and the organization's president, Austin attorney Gary Bledsoe, remains adamant. "The Confederate battle flag has no official connection with the state of Texas," Bledsoe told Left Field. "The Confederate battle flag is a hate symbol, and [in the Supreme Court building] would suggest that our highest courts are dedicated to a small group of people, to the exclusion of many others -- particularly African Americans." The Governor and the state responded that they hope to post "explanations" of the plaques, emphasizing nervously that money to build the Supreme Court building came from the Confederate Widows' Pension Fund. Bledsoe remains unpersuaded. "The amendment that enabled that funding was repealed," he said, "and the symbols have been there for forty-five years, long satisfying whatever obligation the state may have had."

Meanwhile, down the road in Anderson, seat of Grimes County, the Sons of Confederate Veterans hope to erect a statue on the courthouse grounds, honoring the Confederacy -- over the objections of local black citizens as well as several state legislators. The county commissioners have yet to request a formal decision from the state Historical Commission, which has jurisdiction over the courthouse. Campaigning recently in Detroit, Bush nervously told a group of black ministers, "I don't think they ought to have the Confederate, the statue, on the courthouse grounds." Bledsoe points out that the same objections apply, from county courthouse to the state courthouse. "A courthouse is where people go presumably to get justice," he said. Raising the Confederate flag there, he added, is "like a 'Buyer Beware!' sign, a warning sign: 'Minorities, seek justice at your own risk.'... It sends a chilling signal, that minorities cannot get justice inside the confines of that building."

Lieutenant Governor Rick Perry, helpful as usual, threw up his hands and said, "like it or not, the Confederacy is part of our history." "Heritage Not Hatred" is the bumper-sticker argument of the neo-Confederates. But just what is the "heritage" being celebrated by the flagraisers? Consider one of several similar passages from the Texas Ordinance of Secession, dated February 2, 1861: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

"People say they were fighting for states' rights," said Gary Bledsoe, "But the Civil War was clearly fought over the right to enslave people with black skins." It's a history lesson worth recalling as the campaign begins its Deep Southern Swing.