Tuesday Reads: New Political Books

Good Morning!!

There are lots of interesting books coming out this month, so thought I’d preview a few of them. I pre-ordered the fourth volume of Robert Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson, The Passage of Power, which comes out today. I have the first two volumes, and I admit they’ve just been sitting on my bookshelf for years unread. I thought I might read vol. 4 first, since it covers the Kennedy assassination and Johnson’s first few years as President. Then maybe I’ll be inspired to read the earlier volumes. Caro is 77 this year. I hope he has time to finish this series, which is considered one of the greatest biographies of all time.

Another interesting book that is being released today is Steve Coll’s Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power. The book is an investigation of the giant corporation beginning with the Exxon Valdez oil spill and ending with the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Salon published an excerpt from the book on Sunday.

Also coming out today is It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism, by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. The authors had an op-ed in the Washington Post a few days ago to preview the book: Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

And then yesterday there was a bit of a media circus over a book that will be released next Tuesday, May 8: Yours in Truth, by Jeff Himmelman–a biography of Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post back when it was a real newspaper. New York Magazine published an excerpt from the book that led to a fascinating back and forth over what I think are some pretty minor issues about the Washington Post’s Watergate coverage. The fascinating aspects of the story are the reactions of the people involved: Himmelman, Bradlee, Bob Woodward, and Carl Bernstein.

Jeff Himmelman worked for years as a research assistant to Bob Woodward, helping him with articles for the WaPo, as well as Woodward’s book Bush at War. Woodward was Himmelman’s mentor.

My office was on the third floor of Bob’s house, down the hall from the framed apology from Nixon’s press secretary that sits at the top of the staircase. I was back working as Bob’s research assistant for a few months, after having more or less lived in his house from 1999 to 2002. Bob had been my first real boss, hiring me when I was 23. I’d been with him on September 11, as he charged toward the Capitol while the plane presumably targeting it was still in the air, and had helped him begin Bush at War, the first of his blockbuster portraits of the Bush presidency that were a late turning point in his legendary career. As a reporter, I was in awe of him. I had also gotten to know Carl Bernstein, who called often and sometimes stayed in the guest bedroom on the other end of the third floor. I still remember the charge I got out of relaying Carl’s phone messages—­Bernstein for Woodward.

Carl was important to Bob, but Ben Brad­lee was something entirely different. Bob revered him, and so I did, too. I had only met Ben once, for a few seconds in Bob’s kitchen, but I had seen All the President’s Men. When Bob said, “I told them they should hire you,” I leaped at the chance.

Woodward’s mentor had been Ben Bradlee, long-time editor of the WaPo. So naturally when Woodward suggested Himmelman as a co-author of a memoir by Bradlee, Himmelman was thrilled. Eventually, Bradlee decided he didn’t want to write the book, but he was fine with Himmelman writing a biography. Bradlee generously opened up his archives to the young writer. All of which led up to a mini-Shakespearean tragedy.

Himmelman discovered that Bradlee had on a few occasions questioned whether Woodward’s portrayal of his relationship with Deep Throat had been embellished–perhaps the story about the signals he used to schedule meetings (using a flowerpot on Woodward’s apartment balcony) with the mysterious source wasn’t quite true or perhaps there were more or fewer meetings in the parking garage than Woodward had described. Bradlee had told an interviewer in 1990:

Did that potted [plant] incident ever happen? … and meeting in some garage. One meeting in the garage? Fifty meetings in the garage? I don’t know how many meetings in the garage … There’s a residual fear in my soul that that isn’t quite straight.

To me, that’s a big *so what?* Those details aren’t integral to the Watergate story.

The second big revelation in yesterday’s New York Magazine article was that one of Carl Bernstein’s anonymous sources had actually been had actually been a grand juror in Judge Sirica’s investigation. If that had ever come out, Woodward and Bernstein would have been jailed. The two young reporters and Bradlee had made the decision to approach some of the grand jurors, although it would have been a crime for the jurors to reveal any of the evidence. It was risky, but frankly, I have no problem with it. Journalists should take risks. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

In early December, Judge John Sirica was told by prosecutors that a grand juror had been approached by the Post reporters but had revealed nothing. Incensed, Sirica called Woodward and Bernstein into court two weeks later and warned against any further meddling. “Had they actually obtained information from that grand juror,” he wrote later, “they would have gone to jail.” According to the Post’s lawyers, who negotiated on their behalf, Sirica almost locked them up anyway.

Before the scolding from Sirica, Bernstein visited the apartment of a woman he identified, in the book, as “Z.” She wouldn’t talk to him in person, but she slipped her number under the door. “Your articles have been excellent,” she told him, advising him to read their own reporting carefully. “There is more truth in there than you must have realized,” she said. “Your perseverance has been admirable.” She sounded, Carl thought, “like some kind of mystic.”

Through an old memo from Bernstein, Himmelman learned that this woman was actually a grand juror, although Bernstein didn’t know that when he first approached her. They used her as a source in All the President’s Men without revealing her identity. Again, I have no problem with that. No one is going to jail for this now.

But Bob Woodward especially is very upset. Bernstein is concerned, but less than Woodward, who IMHO is self-involved, pompous ass. Anyway New York Mag published a response from Woodward and Bernstein along with Himmelman’s article.

But that wasn’t enough for Woodward, he also spoke to Politico at least twice about his objections: Woodward rejects new Watergate claims

In an interview with POLITICO Sunday night, Woodward asserted that Himmelman failed to include in the New York magazine article a much more recent interview he did with Bradlee that was more supportive of Woodward.

“There’s a transcript of an interview that Himmelman did with Bradlee 18 months ago in which Ben undercuts the [New York magazine] piece. It’s amazing that it’s not in Jeff’s piece,” Woodward said. “It’s almost like the way Nixon’s tapings did him in, Jeff’s own interview with Bradlee does him in.”

….

According to Woodward’s reading of the transcript, Bradlee told Himmelman: “If you would ask me, do I think that [Woodward] embellished, I would say no.”

Bradlee and wife Sally Quinn also defended Woodward to Politico. Poor Woodward–stabbed in the back by his beloved protege: “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is/To have a thankless child! (King Lear)

And then Himmelman fired back, revealing to Politico an even more recent statement by Bradlee.

That interview between Bradlee and Himmelman took place on March 9, 2011, just two days after Woodward met with Bradlee and Himmelman at Bradlee’s house to encourage them not to publish the potentially damaging quotes from his 1990 interview.

In the 2011 interview, which Himmelman provided to POLITICO and are included in his forthcoming biography of Bradlee, Bradlee reiterates his initial doubts about Woodward’s reporting.

“I wanted to be crystal clear about it, so I just went ahead and asked him,” Himmelman writes. “‘You said what you said in 1990, and there’s a record of it…’”

Bradlee: “Yeah.”

Himmelman: “And you don’t retract it?”

Bradlee: “I don’t.”

If, like me you’re still fascinated by the Watergate story and by political journalism generally do go read the Himmelman article in NY Magazine. The part I found most interesting was how upset Woodward was by these minor revelations–he even begged Himmelman not to include them in the book and convinced Bradlee to also ask that Himmelman leave them out of the book. Woodward tried to convince Himmelman himself and then showed up at Bradlee’s house to enlist his mentor’s help. From the NY Mag. article:

When Bob arrived, he didn’t look like he’d slept a lot. We shook hands, but only in the most perfunctory way. Ben sat at the head of the dining-room table, and I sat to Ben’s left, facing Bob. There was no small talk. Bob had brought a thick manila folder with him, which he set down heavily on the table in a way that he meant for us to notice. When Ben asked what it was, Bob said, “Data.” Then he asked Ben what he thought of the whole situation.

“I’ve known this young man for some years now,” Ben said, meaning me, “and I trust his skills and his intent.” Then he looked down at the transcript and said, “Nothing in here really bothers me, but I know there’s something in here that bothers you. What’s in here that bothers you?”

Bob went into his pitch, which he proceeded to repeat over the course of the meeting. He would read the “residual fear” line out loud, and then say he couldn’t figure out how Ben could still have had doubts about his reporting so many years after Nixon resigned. This was the unresolvable crux of the problem, and one they circled for the duration of the meeting: How could Ben have doubted the flowerpots and the garage meetings, when the rest of the reporting had turned out to be true? Bob thought this was inconsistent and hurtful. Ben didn’t. Bob tried everything he could to get Ben to disavow what he had said, or at least tell me I couldn’t use it. Ben wouldn’t do either of those things. “Bob, you’ve made your point,” Ben said after Bob had made his pitch four or five times. “Quit while you’re ahead.”

Clearly Bradlee agrees with me that this is no big deal. But Woodward is worried about his legacy. Sorry, Bob. You already sold out your legacy by becoming the Bush administration’s court stenographer.

Bob turned to me. I had worked for him; he had given an impromptu toast at my wedding. You know me and the world we live in, he said. People who didn’t like him and didn’t like the Post—the “fuckers out there,” as Ben had called them—were going to seize on these comments. “Don’t give fodder to the fuckers,” Bob said, and once he lit on this phrase he repeated it a couple of times. The quotes from the interview with Barbara were nothing more than outtakes from Ben’s book, he said. Ben hadn’t used them, and so I shouldn’t use them, either.

The article ends with the further revelation that the original tape of the 1990 interview has disappeared from the archive.

“What does that mean?” Ben asked.

“I don’t know.”

“Do you think Woodward’s got it?”

“Maybe,” I said. He laughed, and then I laughed. The Watergate parallels were a little much, though we were surely imagining things. “His reaction to this thing was off the charts.”

“Off the charts!” Ben said. “It suggests that he’s really worried. That it might be true.”

Who cares about these little revelations about a long ago scandal? I don’t. Sadly, if Watergate happened today, it would be just a minor blip on the political radar. Huge scandals and abuses of power are now routinely ignored or defended by the supine and power-worshiping corporate media. But the insight this story provides into the psychology of Bob Woodward is fascinating.

Sorry this ended up being so long. I hope you’re not all bored stiff. So what’s on your reading list today?

About these ads

21 Comments on “Tuesday Reads: New Political Books”

  1. Enjoyed this post BB, and I am with you…so what if Bradlee had doubts about the pot and the garage. Woodward has issues for sure.

  2. Maybe this has something to do with it…
    Bob Woodward to Receive National Press Club’s Top Honor – PR Newswire – The Sacramento Bee
    Maybe Woodward feels the “doubts” that Bradlee talks about will diminish his prestige in connection to this award?

    • bostonboomer says:

      I think it’s more about Woodward’s relationship with these two men. Bradlee is like a father to him, and Himmelman got to live in Bradlee’s home and go through all his papers and talk to him a lot. Himmelman is Woodward’s protege, and now he’s stabbed him in the back and Woodward’s mentor let him do it.

      Woodward probably has all kinds of confusing emotions about this. The problem I have with Woodward is that he turned into the court stenographer, writing admiring books about the Bush administration instead of exposing them. Would the 1972 Woodward have wanted new information held back? If so, he wasn’t the journalist we thought he was.

  3. Pat Johnson says:

    bb, thanks for the link to the Himmelman interview.

    For those of us who lived through Watergate, we are fully aware of the “government takeover” that was underway during that period and it was thanks to Bradlee’s guts and the reporting of Woodward and Bernstein that exposed as much. One can only imagine what this nation would look like today if these sinister characters had gotten away with it and this was long before Karl Rove arrived on the scene.

    I’m about to order the Mann/Ornstein book since they too seem to be “rooting around” the underbelly of who and what this movement involves.

    Am clutching a handful of gift certificates from Amazon for my Kindle – birthday gifts! – and your suggestions are welcomed!

    BTW: I was treated to a complete tour of Fenway Park on Sunday as the Sox were out of town and all I can say as that I was in awe. One thing to attend the game itself from a seat in the stadium but another to go behind the scenes and view it from another angle!

    We fans of Red Sox nation are blessed that they decided to keep this historical ballpark for the generations.

    It was a fabulous and unexpected day in Boston from a ride on the Swanboat to dining at The Top of the Hub!

    • Good to see you had a wonderful time Pat, Happy Belated Birthday!

    • bostonboomer says:

      Happy Birthday Pat! I didn’t get that it was your birthday celebration you were going to. So glad you got the Fenway Park tour , etc. Sounds like a fantastic birthday.

      I’ll be interested in your reactions to the Ornstein/Mann book. I’m hesitating, because Ornstein is a bit conservative for me. I’m going to download the sample and read that anyway.

      And let’s talk about what’s really important: are the Red Sox actually turning it around? They won again yesterday!

    • RalphB says:

      Happy Birthday Pat! Hope it was great and leads to an even greater year!

    • The Rock says:

      Happy birthday!! Maybe your trip to Fenway is the good luck the Sox need to battle the evil empire that is the Yankees!! :D

      Hillary 2012

    • dakinikat says:

      Happy Birthday Pat!!!

  4. ecocatwoman says:

    Loved the post. NPR did a story on the Exxon book this AM. The former head of Exxon had made a statement that he didn’t consider Exxon an American company, nor did he operate the company in the best interests of America. DUH! Profits, profits, profits – that’s why businesses exist. Oh, and Exxon spends more on lobbying Congress than any other entity.

    I think Woodward’s heads (no typo) permanently swelled when the fabulously, gorgeous & wonderful Robert Redford played him in All the President’s Men. It’s image & Woodward is, after all, a super star. That’s an ego that needs to be downsized.

    • bostonboomer says:

      I agree. As I said, Woodward is a pompous ass and a sellout.

      Coll argues that ExxonMobil is a global empire unto itself. They aren’t an American corporation, and yet they have huge influence on our government–along with other global corporations. It’s very creepy.

      • Pilgrim says:

        His consternation about this flowerpot suggests, as did Bradlee, that it was an “embellishment.”

  5. This is a good way to keep updated on today’s May Day events: MAP: What’s Happening Where on Occupy May Day | Mother Jones

  6. bostonboomer says:

    Ann Romney says Mitt can be “wild and crazy.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57424786/ann-romney-mitt-can-be-wild-and-crazy/

    He sure can tell a lot of wild and crazy lies. Maybe that’s what she means.

  7. dakinikat says:

    I’m on the fence about reading the Mann and Ornstein book. Their editorial is sure getting play in the blogosphere.

  8. dakinikat says:

    From BAR and Glen Ford

    Private Prison Corporations Are Modern Day Slave Traders
    The Corrections Corporation of America believes the economic crisis has created an opportunity to become landlord, as well as manager, of a chunk of the American prison gulag.

    http://www.alternet.org/story/155199/Private_Prison_Corporations_Are_Modern_Day_Slave_Traders/

    • Women prisoners are raped & sexually molested by male guards. These corporations are demanding immunity for the raping guards.

      Firedoglake has an interesting article about prisons holding thousands of pot users. The pharmaceutical corporation are meanwhile working to produce drugs from pot — but they need to keep use of pot a crime.

      Now as one who has never sampled pot — I find it disgusting the we the tax payers are again providing welfare to mega corporations.

      BAR’s article might also explains why 0bama’s team has had ICE working over time to keep the corporate jails full of illegals caught up in raids. Oh don’t forget the rapist guards need a fresh supply. Keeping the jails 90% full for the corporations will be expensive & hard work. Of course the Supreme Court has given the cops & guards a green light to sexually molested & rape.