What do you mean "what is suskind talking about"?
He's talking about what everybody knows to be true:
1) Bush is a dunce who can only do one thing at a time--has to spit out his gum whenever he wants to walk.
2) Bush is a puppet who says whatever his handlers tell him to say.
3) Bush is a nefarious devil who has planned all these complex conspiracies for decades.

I don't trust the intellectual or analytical skills of any writer who can't handle the simple act of properly maintaining tense in a single paragraph:

"A bit of context: In October 2001, Bush was about to meet with the chairmen of his Social Security Commission before it began public deliberations. In preparation, the president needed to be briefed by his advisers about various options for reforming Social Security. The Council of Economic Advisers, headed by R. Glenn Hubbard, and the National Economic Council, headed by Lindsey, prepared a 17-page PowerPoint presentation for the president. As is clear from his faxed cover sheet, Hubbard wants to talk to O'Neill about that package before it is sent to Bush. O'Neill, however, receives the proposed 17-page briefing for Bush beneath a cover memo from Kent Smetters, a senior Treasury official and a leading specialist in Social Security reform. Smetters' memo sounds the alarm about Lindsey's free-lunch plan ... "

It's really not so hard to start in the past tense and stay there. Lazy writing typically indicates a lazy mind. Ignore Suskind.

Isn't this the journalistic equivalent of "want to see my etchings?"

"Isn't this the journalistic equivalent of 'want to see my etchings?' "

Could you elaborate on this reference and explain its source? A Google search on the phrase "want to see my etchings" produces only 52 hits, so I don't think it's got any real rhetorical currency, and is thus likely flying over the heads of many readers here -- including mine.

Mae West to Cary Grant (?):

http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/bulletin_board/12/messages/1223.html

Try "come up and see my etchings."

Thanks for the link, Orrin Judd. That helps a little bit. But I'm still confused. The site to which you sent me purports to explain the origins of catchphrases, and that particular page is a response to this query: "How did the phrase 'Want to come up and see my etchings?' become the double entendre that people use today?"

Which leaves me with questions: Does anybody actually consider this a well-known catchphrase? If so, where in the world have you heard it? And what is the double entendre, exactly?

I'm 30something, single, quite active in fairly intelligent social circles, and I've never heard the phrase in my life, used ironically or otherwise.

Perhaps once I understand it, I can understand what the poster "jim hamlen" meant in his comment about Suskind's piece.

And just to make clear that I'm not being overly neurotic about this: Thanks to David Cohen's suggestion, I'm now finding plenty of places on the Web where others have asked precisely the kinds of questions I've posed here. The "sketchings" allusion seems to consistently produce more confusion than resonance.

tomcat:

Wait'll you're in your 40s, no one will have any idea what any of your allusions mean either. :)

When we were young everyone used it, with a Groucho leer or a Mae West come hither.

I don't know the origin of the phrase, but always thought the allusion was to risque or erotic art prints, the sort of thing a wealthy bachelor might show to a young lady, in hopes of getting her in the mood....

PapayaSF is right; at least, that's the way I've always understood it. Mind you, even in its heyday it was something of a joke phrase - I don't think I ever heard it actually _seriously_ used in a seduction scene.

I got the "etchings" part straight, and certainly can understand why young puppies like Tomcat might be confused, however since age has rusted out some of my synapses, would someone explain Jim Hamlen's use of the phrase as a description of the original article. Does he mean that Suskind is plugging his book? Bragging about having inside information? What will Suskind do to me if I go to see his etchings?

For cryin' out loud, it's just a way of getting a prospective sexual conquest to a secluded spot.

"For cryin' out loud ... "

Well, the "etchings" reference was obscure enough to be annoying -- and distracting. Now that we're all clear on its meaning (I think), perhaps Jim Hamlen can come back and tell us what in the world he intended by its use in his comment.

Personally, I find it more fun and interesting to talk about writing and allusions than to discuss the "substance" of Suskind's poorly executed essay.

Mr. Suskind is trying to lure you innocents into his den of iniquity.

The $ 1 trillion estimated cost of switching to a private system is an illusion.
The choice is not spend a trillion, or save it; The trillion, and far more, has already been promised, under the current SS benefit plans.
The only question is whether we acknowledge it, or not.

Safe to say this thread is done? No return visit from Jim Hamlen to explain his much-discussed sentence?

Oh well. Guess I'll go ahead and take it out of my bookmarks. Onward to other pedantic matters...