Posted on 08/19/2009 4:39:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
Editor's Note: This special feature on Robert Novak first appeared in the March 2009 issue of Townhall Magazine.
Robert David Sanders Novak has been called many names. His close friends call him Bob. Most people call him Novak. His wife calls him Robert.
Keith Olbermann has called him The Worst Person in the World. His more petulant critics have viler names for him. Many critics and admirers have called him The Prince of Darkness.
I have had the honor of calling him Boss. Since I went to work for him at the end of 2001, Novak has been a mentor and a friend. I learned a lot at his side, but all journalistsand all Americans, for that mattercould learn important lessons from this man, now retired and ill.
In these days of single-party rule and a media that fawns over the president, we can all stand a dose of his pervasive skepticism, distrust of those in power and doggedness to dig up the hard facts
A REPORTER ON THE OPINION PAGE
Many people know Novak primarily from his long stint on CNN, but I think it bothers Novakit always bothers mewhen people describe him as a television commentator instead of as a columnist.
To some extent its understandable: People watch television more than they read newspapers. Even when people read your work in print, they often dont bother checking the byline. On TV, they cant help but see your face.
So, while Novaks fame primarily resulted from his on-screen work, his real vocation was the written word. And although his work was found exclusively on the opinion pages for the last 45 years of his career, he was a political reporter more than anything else. Sure, he has always had his opinionsand over his life, he has become progressively more pro-life, more pro-market and more anti-interventionist but so do all reporters. Novak was different from the news-page reporters because he didnt hide his opinions.
But the commentary in his columns was usually secondary. His aim in each column was to include at least one previously unreported fact. Sometimes it was a trivial tidbit. Sometimes it was a major scoop.
What did this mean in practice? It meant burning up the phone lines and wearing out some shoe leather.
Novaks life as a columnist began in 1963 when he got a call from veteran journalist Rowland Evans. Evans was offered a six-times-a-week column by the New York Herald-Tribune, and as a condition for accepting it, Evans asked the paper to hire Novak as his partner. Evans strength was being an insider. He was a society man friendly with the Kennedys and from the same circles as those in power. Novak was something different. He had sleuthed the halls of the Capitol during his years with the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal, prying lawmakers and staff for intelligence and keeping his ears peeled. It wasnt too different 40 years later when I worked for him.
Novak kept an office half a block from the White House, with a staff of three. Kathleen, his assistant, spent most of her time as a scheduler. She was constantly getting congressmen, senators, White House staff, cabinet secretaries, agency heads and political operatives on the phone. At least a couple times a week, he had breakfast, lunch or a meeting with some politico or another. I almost never had the pleasure of sitting in on these meetingsNovaks aim was always to make the source as comfortable as possible so that the source would talk.
Making people talk, listening well, remembering everything and following up were Novaks real skills.
How did he do it? For one thing, he left the tape recorder in the office and the notepad in his back pocket. This sets your interlocutor at ease, making the meeting feel less like an interview and more like a conversation. For another thing, he operated, at almost all times, on background.
In journalism, theres on the record and off the record. If youre talking on the record, you can be named and quoted. Off the record information cannot be reported at all, unless the reporter gets an on-the-record source. On background is the large grey spectrum in between. Typically, Novak would talk to sources, promising only to vaguely identify them (such as a senior administration official) and often looking more for dirt than for quotes.
Most of the occasions during which I got to watch Novak work were in the Washington dinner-and-cocktail-party circuit. One educational moment came in a pre-dinner cocktail hour at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel in 2004. Ralph Reed approached us to talk to Novak. Reed was the former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and was planning a run in 2006 for lieutenant governor.
After they greeted one another, Novak introduced Reed to me, and the two men traded pleasantries about the wife and kids, and then Novak asked Reed about Georgia politics. Reed gave some details and background on congressional races and 2006 statewide contests. I had been following some of these contests closely, and so I piped up with some of my insights. Soon, Novak subtly but definitively changed the topic from my insights back to Reeds views on the political scene. I stood there blushing, but wiser.
As the conversation went on, I realized it was really an interview. Novak didnt come across as an interrogator, but just an interested partner in a cocktail-hour chat. But he was collecting political intelligenceagain, not for quotes or gotcha moments, but just intelligence. He simply wanted to understand better what was going on. While I was eager to share whatever wisdom I had collected, Novak gave his opinion only as much as he had to in order to extract more from the other person.
Its a funny thing to say about a man with such strong opinions and immense self-confidence who was paid to give his opinions on national television, but Novak has always been far more interested in hearing what others had to say than in chiming in himself.
PUT NOT YOUR TRUST IN PRINCES
Always love your country, Novak loved to tell students when he spoke to them, but never trust your government.
For saying this, critics would sometimes accuse Novak of being a conspiracy theorist or chastise him for sewing cynicism among the young. Certainly in these days of hope and change, when such skepticism is low supply on most news pages, Novaks words are needed direly.
Novaks exhortation to never trust your government is not just a free-market rallying cry or a libertarian mantra. Its also a pragmatic conclusion after years of witnessing in action the men and women who make our laws and regulations.
People who knew Novak in the 1960swhen he voted for Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater, fearing Goldwater would move the Republican Party too far to the rightpoint out that he hasnt always been as conservative as he is now. On the social issues, Novaks late-life conversion to Catholicism helps explain his rightward shift. On economic issues and the size of government, his increasing conservatism is partly the result of his having a front-row seat at the sausage factories that are Capitol Hill and the executive branch.
Recently, a student asked Novak which politicians he admires. Novak paused, and thoughtfor a while. Not very many at all, he finally responded. Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn has topped Novaks list for the past two decades, and Novak actually penned a forward to Coburns 2003 book, Breach of Trust. But one day, walking down Pennsylvania Avenue back to our office, Novak told me about his model politician, William Purdy.
When Novak met Purdy in 1957 in Omaha, Neb., the cub AP reporter had little regard for the retired farmer. Novak wrote a profile of the freshman in the unicameral Nebraska Legislature, and it was not a flattering picture. Purdy, after giving up farming, ran on a few promises: He would serve only one term, he would give no floor speeches, he would propose no legislation and he would vote against every item that would increase taxes or government spending. Novaks AP profile of Purdy was as snide and dismissive as AP style would allow, Novak wrote in his 2007 memoirs, The Prince of Darkness. Why was Novak so down on Purdy? It was symptomatic of a typical malady among legislative journalistsa malady Novak would, over the years, shake off entirely.
If your job is to cover what the legislature does, self-respect and ego compel you to believe that the legislature is very important. If a problem arises, the legislature should respond. You can see this bias in Novaks recap of the 1957 legislative session in Omaha in which he assailed the state Legislatures striking lack of important legislation.
This emphasis on accomplishments is a systemic bias among legislative or presidential correspondents. But when you stop covering just the debates and fights and start peeking behind the curtain, unearthing the intrigues and motivations behind the legislative process, its hard to maintain the romantic vision that republican lawmaking is a noble process. Thats why, today, Novak counts William Purdy as a hero and considers that unaccomplished 1957 unicameral session in which Purdy served a great success.
Novak shared with me the same disposition towards presidents. Most of the media judge presidents by some standard of greatness that amounts to: How much did the man change the country? Novak has a different standard, which involves living up to the oath of office and not messing up the country, which is why Calvin Coolidge is his favorite president.
One great president whom Novak dislikes immensely is Teddy Roosevelt. If you go into a Republican congressmans office, he told me once, youll probably see one of two portraits hanging on his wall: Thomas Jefferson or Teddy Roosevelt. One problem with the Republicans, Novak argued, was the pro-TR leanings. Roosevelt believed in using his White House perch to intervene both in the U.S. economy and abroad. Teddy Roosevelt believed in himself and was willing to wield whatever power he could get his hands on.
Weve seen plenty of Roosevelt Republicans in recent years trying to use Congress, the tax code and our military to craft a better world. The fruits of this have been ballooning deficits, spending increases under Republican government and, finally, Democratic control of all branches.
Remember, Novak was sure to remind me. Roosevelt coined the word muckraker as a term of derogation. Those in power, he said, really do resent as troublemakers those who critique, expose and question their grand plans.
THE PLAME AFFAIR
Its unfortunate that any account of Novaks career has to include Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, but its a fact. And I suppose I owe the reader my account of the whole affair because I was theresort of.
On the summer day when Novaks assistant Kathleen scheduled the interview with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, I was probably in the office. Around Novaks office, we used to get excited about talk of Armitage or when he appeared on our television sets, because he bore an uncanny resemblance to a CNN producer who was a favorite in the office, Bob Kovach. But aside from that, nothing about an Armitage-Novak meeting piqued my interest. (I didnt know that Armitage had been denying Novak interview requests for two-and-a-half years.)
Like Novak, I had opposed the Iraq invasion. But also like Novak, I suspected the late-arriving Democratic critics of the invasion of acting in bad faith for political gain alone. So when former Ambassador Joe Wilson penned an op-ed in the Sunday, July 6, 2003, New York Times titled What I Didnt Find in Africa, further hammering home the notion that the Bush administration was off-base to claim Saddam Hussein was on the verge of attaining nuclear weapons, his account seemed likely to mebut the liberal celebration of Wilson and his column made me wince.
The next day, when Novak actually went over to the State Department to sit down with Armitage, I was also in the office. But I didnt notice anything about itI didnt notice his calls with Ambassador Wilson or President George W. Bushs special assistant Karl Rove. I was busy writing two issues of the Evans- Novak Political Report so that things would be in place for my upcoming two-week trip to Irelandmy first and only true vacation during my three years in Novaks office.
I was there Tuesday, July 8, when Novak filed the first column to come out of the Armitage meeting, about appointee Frances Fragos Townsend. It was on this topic of Townsends liberal Democratic past that Novak called Karl Rovethe conversation in which Novak, as an aside, also asked for and received confirmation that a certain ambassadors CIA wife had secured the ambassador a mission to Niger.
But on Friday, July 11, when Novak wrote and filed the fateful column about Joe Wilson, mentioning Wilsons wife, I was in a pub in Dublin, Ireland, just off the cricket pitch on the campus of Trinity College. When the column ran on Monday, July 14, I was driving a left-hand-shifting manual-transmission car through the hilly and crowded streets of Tipperary. That columns sixth paragraph read:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilsons wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. I will not answer any question about my wife, Wilson told me.
Today, we know those two senior administration officials were Armitage and Rove. When Novak wrote, The CIA says, he was referring to his conversation with CIA spokesman Bill Harlow.
It was weeks before a real uproar ensued. That is when the Washington Post revealed that the FBI was investigating whether anyone broke the law in telling Novak the fact about Wilsons wife.
For months, the big question was Who told Bob Novak? Novak never told me, and I never asked. But I spent plenty of time speculating. From his Oct. 3 column, in which he wrote his source was no partisan gunslinger, I had two top suspects: Armitage and Secretary of State Colin Powell. But in late September, Armitage had spoken at an off-the-record Evans-Novak Political Forum hosted by Novak for paying attendees. I thought it was unlikely Armitage would have shown up had he been the cause of the whole uproar. So, until it all came out years later, I had thought Powell was the guy.
This story was overplayed in the mediaprobably because it fed the widespread Bush-and-Cheney-are-criminals mania, but also because it involved the media itselfso I wont rehash the well-worn details.
But being at the scene, I know there were some interesting details missed by the media swarm. First was the absurdity of the odd line that even if Novak found Wilsons wifes employment relevant enough to report, he shouldnt have reported her name. The irony is that he didnt really report her namehe reported her maiden name, which his staff researcher found in Wilsons entry in Whos Who in America. But Whos Who lists entrants wives by their maiden name (for example Elizabeth Dole is listed as Elizabeth Hanford). Valerie hadnt gone by Plame since her marriage, and many of her neighbors knew her only as Valerie Wilson.
So, writing Joe Wilsons wife would not only have obscured her identity from those without access to Whos Who, but also, Novak may have permanently changed this womans name from Wilson back to Plame.
Of course, the lasting impact on Novak of this incident was added vitriol from the Left. Liberal journalists and politicians unthinkingly or dishonestly advanced the idea that Novak had been an accomplice to the White House in outing Plame as revenge for Wilsons critiques of the Iraq War. Of course, both Novak and Armitage opposed the Iraq invasion and distrusted Bushs claims of Iraqi WMDs, taking most of the air out of that argument. But when it comes to maligning public figures whose views are at odds with your own, most commentators, bloggers and politicians have little room for details.
LEARNING A LESSON
In 2009, for the first time in decades, Novak didnt host an inauguration party. He was too ill. While the brain tumor with which he was diagnosed in July has been well-contained by surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatment, the whole process has left him utterly exhausted. At this writing, Novak is in physical therapy, gaining back his strength.
But I thought of Novak during President Barack Obamas inaugural address. Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, the president intoned, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Obama dismissed these doubters as cynics with short memories.
In these days of hope and change, you can get in trouble for doubting the wisdom of Big Government. Questioning the ability of bright, well-intentioned politicians and public servants to make our lives better is assailed as hoping for failure or, if the doubter is a Republican, as being a sore loser.
Our Hollywood celebrities are reciting pledges to serve our new president and enlisting the masses to follow. MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews has declared it his job to make sure the president succeeds. Leaders of the congressional majority are circulating a petition denouncing Rush Limbaugh because he said he hopes Obama fails. This same majority is agitating for a Fairness Doctrine regulation that would silence many critics.
In the minds of our elites, dissent, once patriotic, is now sedition.
At this time, more than ever, Novaks example is needed. Dogged contrarianism and skepticism is the needed attitude. Actual reporting is the needed work. And Novaks long career is the needed inspiration.
Novak cooperated with Fitz, hung his fellow journalists out to dry, and in one case hung her out in jail.
To say nothing of what he did to the Bush administration.
Prince of Darkness, he was!
A motto to live by.
A broken clock.
Like so many prominent conservatives he was a convert to Catholicism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.