"Today we're back in the McCarthy era, happy to collude with partisan smear-artists who violate every norm of law and decency — just so long as they give us a good story."
-- Lars-Erik Nelson, Daily News (New York), March 16, 1998
The Ides of Pap
for Sunday, March 15th 1998
MONDAY MARCH 16th 1998 -- New York (APJP) -- The pap hit the fan for Clinton on the Ides of March. All of the major network chat shows made the salacious and intentionally embarrassing contents of Paula Jones' attorneys' reply to the President's motion for summary judgment the top item on their programs, with plenty of advance "publicity" for Kathleen Willey's appearance on 60 Minutes thrown in for good measure. Pleasantly, The McLaughlin Group chose to lead with a real issue: Kofi Annan's visit to Washington, D.C.
It was all, however, overshadowed by Willey's appearance on 60 Minutes. Our opinion is best worded by a note from our New York correspondent, Dave "Doctor" Gonzo:
Is it just me or was there something disingenuous about Willey on 60
Minutes? She wasn't believable: something about her voice and appearance
didn't sit right with me, and I noticed not so much discomfort but fear in
her face.
Something smells fishy with Willey -- we're talking mackerel here, not sushi.
Well, we agree. Something stinks to high heaven, and suspicions that someone in the Special Prosecutor's office has dirt on Kathleen Willey pertaining to financial misdeeds and is holding it over her like a sword of Damocles unless she "tailors" the story of her encounter with Clinton a certain way just might well be the case. We're not saying we know this for sure, and we're not denying we know this for sure, but you can be sure the President's attorneys are already on the case.
Fox News Sunday
"All the President's Women" -- does Paula Jones have a case? And is the President breaking the law by paying for private lawyers with public funds?
All you had to do was take one look at the grin on Tony Snow's face to know that he and the Fox gang were not going to go easy on Bill Clinton this week -- and were looking forward to little fun.
Fox News Sunday opened with a piece on the many women who have been called as deposition witnesses in or tied to the Paula Jones civil case: Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning, Monica Lewinsky. There was also mention of two other developments: a new name that emerged over the weekend in the New York Post (Sherry Denzug), and published reports that Linda Tripp may be in trouble for providing false information on a security clearance application.
Once again Tony Snow made a few headlines himself:
"I talked last night with Tripp about the matter in question, an arrest for allegedly stealing cash and a watch from a New York State inn in 1969... Her recollection -- quote -- 'I asked for my day in court. The judge and public defender said this is better. The arresting officer didn't even show up. He," meaning the public defender, "said there's not going to be a trial. It's the day before yesterday,' meaning it's like the whole thing never happened. I asked: 'Will it say I was arrested? Is this going to hang over my head forever?' They said, 'You can honestly say you have never been arrested.'
The problem is, she was supposed to indicate if she had ever been charged with any criminal activity on the security clearance application, whether or not the arrest is on her record. This seems not to be such an innocent omission, and we predict it will land Linda Tripp in major legal trouble -- on top of the strong possibility of being canned by the Defense Department.
Tony's first two guests were a Jones attorney, James Fisher, and Clinton adviser Lanny Davis. Fisher was spinning minutia from the Jones team response to Bennett's motion for summary judgment; Davis was not in quite the incisive form we've seen him in the past, but was on Fisher like white on rice point for point. In brief:
Tony: Was she demoted?
Fisher: Yes she was.
Tony: Pay cut?
Fisher: Not that I know of; the two points which Jones' attorneys are arguing are emotional distress and a failure to be given the benefit of pay increases. (Fisher uses a lot of "and, uhhh"s and "mmm errr"s in his answers.)
Davis: "Let's talk some facts here, Tony: the great part about where we are right now is that rhetoric is over. Facts are facts. Here's what Paula Jones did the day after this so-called 'emotionally distressful' [incident] -- to Cheryl Dockitt, her supervisor at the office, under oath says the following:
Fox News Sunday to the opportunity to "spin" a developing story the other chat shows ignored: a House of Representatives committee has begun hearings on White House legal expenditures. Their guest was representative Bob Livingston, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Juan Williams and Ruth Conniff of The Progressive (replacing Mara Liasson this week) joined questioning.
Livingston: I'm wondering why 10 percent of White House expenditures are being spent on counsel -- some of the people complaining are friends of the President like Dick Morris.
Juan: Is into the American people's business to [get this]?
Livingston: When 10 percent of White House expenditures are going toward legal counsel, there something wrong... and on top of that he's raising lots of money -- his staff is trying to undermine the investigation.
Juan: But is in this a case of his opponents "piling on?" It looks like you're using your powers to go after the President.
Livingston: I'm just asking questions -- they have been digging dirt, using private detectives and a detective firm named IGI.
Brit: Pay for by the taxpayers?
Livingston: Yes, that group was detailed to Haiti to do some lengthy investigation of the Haitians, specifically on taxpayers' payroll. (Huh???)
Brit: On the government payroll?
Livingston: You have government people: Sideman is, Howard Shapiro, Larry Potts, they're all affiliated with IGI.
Brit: You're saying this is now inappropriate?
Livingston: It smacks of a police state. (Not as much as Starr's McCarthyite tactics)
Ruth: Are you saying IGI is being funded by taxpayers?
Livingston: We don't know. (Our guess: probably not, and an attack on the President's lawers' right to hire private investigators to examine possible wrongdoing -- including but not limited to leaks --- on the part of Starr's staff and grand jury).
Ruth: Clinton is under fire -- where's the line where it's not proper for him to use investigators?
Livingston: It's vague; the President is responding to that charges.
Ruth: These charges are massively public and private.
Livingston: It's not part of his official duties. He's trying to plead executive privilege and attorney-client privilege to stonewall the investigations. But the fact is that these are his private personal acts that he's responding to. (But they're being used for clearly political purposes in a character assassination campaign to impact on his presidency. Do you think we're stupid?) If he's using taxpayer money to fund this then you have to say that maybe that's excessive. (Not in this case, Bob.)
Tony: Is this a vast left: wing conspiracy?
Livingston: It's possible. (You wish.)
Ruth: Why did you change the ethics rules so that citizens cannot file ethics charges and only members of Congress can now file ethics charges?
Livingston: Some characterize this is a vast improvement! We actually started throwing all the ethics investigations out into the street, it had gone in the wrong direction. (We feel your pain -- investigating Newt for actual wrongdoings must have hurt.)
Juan: Where will you get the money for problems that crop up -- Iraq?
Livingston: That's a big question, in the past, for the last three years, we've always had supplemental appropriations, and 1974 budget act provides for emergency relief, but we've been robbing the Defense Department, robbing the nondeployed forces to keep the forward-deployed forces going.
Tony: Quayle says as the President is in crisis.
Livingston: If the facts hold up, the President has real problems.
Tony: When will Kenneth Starr hand over what he has to Congress?
Livingston: He seems to be wrapping up the grand jury investigation now.
Brit: Are you a candidate for speaker of the house?
Livingston: There is no race until Newt announces he's running for President; at that time I'll make an announcement.
Brit: Are you seeking his blessing?
Livingston: I have no indication, but I'm going after votes vigorously.
In the Fox News Sunday's weekly "Can You Believe It?" segment: Congressman Jay Kim runs again for Congress! Tony ran the video piece, and included such "Lloyd's" as camera being the first congressman to wear a federally can tracking bracelet. Nice little feature -- we think Tony and his boys must have looked up our past coverage of Kim!
Tony began the weekly Roundtable segment with mention of Kathleen Willey's Sunday evening appearance on "60 Minutes."
Brit: her testimony puts the case in a whole new category -- a Clinton's supporter wants a job, then she says he made a crude pass.
Juan: "So he's a cad... What does this have to do with the Paula Jones case?"
Brit: There's a lot of more on the table; do you believe the President?
Juan: I tend to believe Willey, but she was reluctant to testify.
Ruth: I sort of agree with Juan that "if anybody who doubted whether or not the President had a creepy attitude about women, this sort of pushes things further in that direction." (It's still he said, she said, and we have reason to doubt what she said)
Brit: There's a law that says you're not supposed to lie under oath.
Ruth: They don't see this as an issue of great public import.
Juan: Willey's a loyal team player -- it adds credibility to her as opposed to what Jones, Tripp or any of these other people say.
Tony then presented Fox "Opinion Dynamics" poll numbers. Opinion dynamics? Does that mean they take opinions and make them with dynamically right: wing? And any rate, is Bill Clinton — did Clinton encourage Lewinsky to lie under oath? In January, 36 percent; now 44 percent of the public say yes.
Ruth: I think character matters a lot. "I think he led us in a rotten direction."
Tony: Is this media frenzy II?
Ruth: "Oh yeah."
Tony: Will it backfire?
Brit: No -- the story that Willey tells is so repellent and disgusting; the media frenzy is secondary to what the public thinks.
Juan: I thought this weekend could be explosive -- but the press has been restrained!
Ruth: There have been many false alarms.
Brit: There have been about two -- I don't think that the press really has at this point in his story in terms of getting things flat wrong much to apologize for. (Including Matt Drudge? David Brock?)
Juan: When you look at what Bob Bennett's done in the media, he's done a fairly effective job of making this a political case.
Brit: The conduct by Bob Bennett has been cited by Clinton's foes as the reason for their doing what they've done.
Ruth: I don't think that it's a big shock that the President is "this power-mad guy who takes advantage of women"... "there's something to be said for focusing on what is harmful to the public, not just to these individuals who have the misfortune to work for some powerful egomaniac."
Tony: Should we get rid of sexual harassment laws?
Ruth: No, but changing these ethics laws (so that the public effectively cannot get congresspersons investigated) was an important issue that is been obscured by the sex scandal.
Tony wrapped up with his parting comment on the other "media frenzy" of the week -- the alarm about an asteroid scientists thought might strike the earth 30 years from now. Tony showed a computer: rendered 3: D image of the mile: long galactic boulder, saying "it looks like a potato!" and referring to it as "Spudnik." It didn't have much to do with politics, but did say, perhaps intentionally, much about the press jumping on big stories too quickly. And we did get a chuckle out of it, wrapping up another action: packed week of the most entertaining spin on network television.
The McLaughlin Group
Issue one: Kofi in the Capital! The McLaughlin Group opened with video footage of Annan speaking at a news conference in Washington: Annan explicitly spelled out the U.N. policy of "diplomacy backed up by force." McLaughlin added a voice over: "everywhere else in the world Annan is hailed as a hero, but in Washington he was met with scorn and derision," followed by video footage of Trent Lott and John Ashcroft doing exactly that (Ashcroft ws seen hysterically denouncing "one world government"). Details on Annan's reforms -- many of which cut the UN's The panel: Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, Richard Lambert, and Morton Kondracke. Fred "the Weasel" Barnes was pleasantly absent this week.
John: "Why haven't those troglodyte Republicans wised up to the fact that Annan has revived the UN as a credible diplomatic instrument?"
Pat: [unable to restrain his anti-major nationalist tendencies] "Annan is head of a parasitic organization." (chuckling from John, followed by general laughter from all the panelists)
John: "Don't hold back!"
Eleanor: "Pat believes the 'black helicopter' crowd out to take over the world." [Good Lord, Eleanor, he is one of that crowd's founding fathers!]... Annan did a spectacular job... Lott is ignorant of the basic workings of the U.N., pandering to the most base jingoistic influences
John: Pat has overlooked Namibia, other U.N. successes
Richard: By and large Annan supports the U.S., while politician stick it to the U.N.
Pat: The U.S. tends to support its own sovreignty!
Morton: If Trent were President, his tune about the U.N. would change dramatically.
John: The peacekeeping the U.N. does, that I saw in Cyprus, is remarkable.
Pat: It's an insult to the U.S. Navy! If anyone on this panel thinks Annan charmed Hussein, it was because of our forces in the Gulf!
Morton: "Kofi was the instrument of our policy success!"
At this point McLaughlin played a video "resume" of Annan's career and experience.
Richard: They give us weapons inspections, we should lift the sanctions.
John: How about a U.N. resolution devoted to "no one-world government?"
Morton: Its way, way down the line.
Eleanor: An enraged minority in Congress is holding up dues paying to the U.N. over the abortion issue.
John: They'll pay up.
Item Two: MacDougal, Devils and Hollywood Tornados! John ran a short piece on Jim MacDougal. John: How big a setback is this to Kenneth Starr?
Eleanor: Not much - McDougal had no credibility anyway.
Pat: It hurts - they were using MacDougal to find holes in Bill Clinton's testimony.
John: It doesn't remove MacDougal's testimony, which will go to the House.
There was the short video piece on the movie "Primary Colors" and the issue of Hollywood softening Clinton's image.
John: Does the "softening" of President Clinton actually hurt him?
Morton: The Jack Stanton character in the film is human to the core.
Richard: The fair comparison is to an Italian film satire, not to reality.
Eleanor: The book is about a flawed man - Bill Clinton.
John then went into detail of Maureen Dowd's Saturday op-ed piece in the New York Times concerning Jack Stanton as Satan, titled Sympathy for the Devil. Among other excerpts, he quoted our favorite op-ed bite:
John then, for some reason, played a very telling clip from "Broadcast News," in which the conscientious Albert Brooks character tells the Holly Hunter character that the William Hurt character, a network anchorman, is the "devil." He acted as if he was making an analogy to Clinton, but we think he also had some members of the press in his sights! Only Eleanor picked up on this!!
John: Did this film foresee the corrosive effect of Clinton's popularity?
Morton: No - Brooks is envious of the other character.
Pat: American people have a lower estimation of media and politicians these days.
Eleanor: A sense of outrage is outweighed by our respect for success.
Richard: This is not a big issue outside of the U.S.
Pat: This is a corruption of our civilization, the decline of our civilization - things are going downhill, Bill Clinton is a snapshot of that decline. He's amoral
Eleanor: Clinton's a charming rogue, like Huck Finn.
Richard: This is a President of the U.S. who has acted very much like other Presidents.
John: A hero with a tragic flaw: his deceit.
Predictions!
Pat: Puerto Rican statehood dies in the Senate!
Eleanor: GOP Senate Candidate Didrickson loses because she's pro-choice!
Richard: Bipartison tobacco legislation collapses.
Morton: Christopher reeve & Mary Tyler Moore go to Washington to help boost the NIH budget!
John: Suharto goes the way of Marcos! Bye-bye!
Meet the Press
Meet the Press was particularly egregious this week, a veritable Clinton-bashers on parade. Tim Russert wasted practically no time at the top of the show and went directly to his first guest - bookish Paula Jones attorney Donovan Campbell.
Tim: What are Paula Jones' charges?
Campbell: The primary thrust of our legal case is on the basis of emotional strain and trauma; we're not pressing a Title 7 case but one based section 1983 [the sex harassment laws].
Tim (quoted Newsday article):
Russert's next guest was conservative poster-boy Dan Quayle, who seems to be laboring under the delusion that he actually has a realistic shot at the Republican Presidential nomination a few years down the line. One would laugh were it not for the spectacle of this intellectual midget doing his best Bill "King of Virtues" Bennett impersonation. Quayle was cloying beyond belief.
Russert's first question was on what the President should do.
Quayle: Get the facts before the American people (a familiar refrain, Dan, and our readers already know why the President is not doing something this stupid) - I don't know why they don't have him come around on, say, Meet the Press. (Then start reading American Politics Journal, Dan, we're sure you'll learn something!) Tell us about the allegations.
Russert: They say they can't, that Ken Starr is out of control.
Quayle "Well, OK, let me say a couple things about that. First of all, why can't they [tell what happened]? I mean, it's illegal for the President of the United States to tell us what happened? That's a bunch of baloney." (note to Dan: see above comment) "What you now see -- and this is, I think, unconscionable -- are White House aides deliberately trying to intimidate and to harass Ken Starr and his staff." (Go ahead and call reasoned criticism of Starr harrassment, you're just not intelligent enough to respond to reasoned criticism of Starr's excesses and possible extra-Constitutional breaches of people's first, fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendment rights, but then it's probably above your grade level). "When I was in the White House for four years, we had a guy around named Lawrence, Lawrence Walsh. And we didn't think too highly of him, but I tell you, we never even thought about unleashing White House aides to attack him or his people." (Oh yes you did, and you know it, you little hypocrite! And some of us at American Politics Journal feel that while Walsh did a good job in general he should have looked into the leakers in his office, and we're sure you feel the same way about Starr... don't you?). "We answered questions. And this shows the arrogance of the White House." (This shows your arrogance and lack of critical thinking).
Russert: Do you believe Bill Clinton?
Quayle: No, I think something happened.
Russert: The believe he should stay?
Quayle: Let's step back. Most people do not believe Bill Clinton. Our allies don't believe Bill Clinton. That's why we had a problem putting together a coalition against Saddam Hussein. (WHAT?? Ha, ha, haha, haaaaa! Most European democracies show far more maturity and discretion with regard to the personal lives of their leaders! Do you were really think we're fools on your level, Danny? Don't make us laugh: the primary reason there was no coalition this time around was, in a word, oil. Remember what Abe Lincoln once said? Something about fooling all of the people some of the time? You can't even fool some of the people some of the time!) Starr will conclude his investigation - when you see a pattern of obstructing justice and perjury, you'll see an effect on Clinton's poll results. (That's right, Dan-boy, America will realize it's a smear and a sleazy perjury trap by Starr and his bedsheet sniffers and Clinton's polls will reach nearly 100 percent, idiot.)
Russert: What about impeachment?
Quayle: There is talked that some Republicans are whispering "let's keep Bill Clinton in there." (Because they don't want their dirty laundry spilled across the front cover of Time magazine, Dan. You probably don't realize payback isn't a bitch - it'll be dozens of them. And for our readers - if you know about any philandering congresspeople or jurists, regardless of party affiliation, contact us at American Politics Journal). I say nonsense, we have to do what's right for the country (the problem is that you don't think the right thing is firing conflicted, perjury-hiding witch-hunter Ken Starr) - if Ken Starr submits a statement believing that there was obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury, than the Congress will go forward with impeachment.
Russert (setting up Quayle for another easy shot at the President): What if Clinton refuses to go before the Grand Jury?
Quayle: It's one more indication they have something to hide. He should come clean - there is no law I know of keeping him from speaking.
Broder: "If you run for President in 2000, would you expect to be asked whether you've ever had an extramarital affair?"
Quayle (going in for another cheap shot): "I presume that that question's going to come up now because of Bill Clinton." (Not to mention the fact that your former boss was rumored to have had an affair while in the White House. Funny how you avoid discussing that.)
Broder: "Do you think it's a proper question to ask of a candidate?"
Quayle: "No, I don't." (Got something to hide, Danny? See how easy it is now to question the fidelity of a political candidate?) "But it's going to come up and I expect it to come up and the people will have to deal with it accordingly." (Cover up your peccadilloes?)
Broder: "Why do you think it's not a proper question?"
Quayle: "Are you going ask that of every vice Presidential candidate, every congressman, every senator?" (It's going to happen a lot more often. Get used to it.) " I just do not believe that that is an appropriate question that you ask a Presidential candidate." (Funny how you were reportedly giggling with colleagues about Clinton's situation when Flowers-gate broke. If that's true, it only goes to show that you're nothing but an empty-headed hypocrite.)
Broder: "Do you think marital fidelity has anything to do with qualifications of high office?"
Quayle: "Yes, to some extent, I do." (And you'll make an exception for Bush's rumored affairs, but not Clinton's alleged affairs.) "But if you had an affair 20 years ago, does that disqualify someone for running for President?" (See what Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson think.) "If somebody has a pattern, I think that's an entirely different situation." (We think it's none of our business.) "But, no, I'm going to get the question, everyone's going to get the question, the press is going to ask that question and I intend to - I'll address it right here. The answer in my case is no." (Are you implying you were a bad boy, Danny?)
Russert: Should Puerto Rico be a state?
Quayle: Let the people decide.
Russert: And if they say yes?
Quayle: If two-thirds say yes then yes.
Russert: Abortion - are you still anti-abortion even in the case of rape and incest?
Quayle: I have not changed my views; rape and incest should be an exception. Republicans are a pro-life party; I support a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Russert: You were criticized for supporting Christie Whitman.
Quayle: I was elected twice to Congress with pro-choicers voting for me. America is divided on this issue - and Whitman has a very good record. Do we disagree on this? So what? She's been a good governor. (Ooooh - better be careful, Dan, or Falwell, Bauer, and Robertson might get upset about you supporting pro-choice Republicans!)
Broder: What are your views on immigration?
Quayle: I agree with Governor Wilson. We have to be firm; no social services for illegal immigrants or their families; it serves as a deterrent.
Broder: Your views on the U.S. paying its U.N. dues and a new round of funding for the IMF?
Quayle: we will eventually pay the U.N., but we want reforms, the bureaucracy is unbelievable. (Jeepers, Dan, you must not the reading the papers: Kofi Annan is the most reform-minded Secretary-General in U.N. history - he's already going after their bureaucratic structure like Freddie Krueger with a freshly gassed-up chainsaw!) On IMF I'm with Schultz, it has outlived its useful existence, we need to look at alternative, it's time to think about replacing it.
Broder: Your views on adding more nations to NATO?
Quayle: It will add to overall security in Europe. "We have the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and I believe Romania and Slovenia have also been told that they will be next." (Five for five - not bad - you've been boning up on foreign affairs!) I support the next five nations; I am concerned about secondary consultancy with Russia, we'd have to defend Russia! (Betcha wouldn't have a big problem with that if it was Saddam Hussein knocking on Yeltsin's door!)
Broder: Free TV network time for Presidential candidates?
Quayle: Tempting, but it's not a good idea, I'd prefer a less regulation.
Russeret: Gore has proposed sending up a satellite that would beam backed 24-hour "Earth TV." Thoughts?
Quayle: Let's wait and see. Normally, what Gore says is not a good idea, but this may be worthwhile.
Russert: Would you watch?
Quayle: Maybe!
Russert: Are you considering our Presidential run in the year 2000?
Quayle: I'm considering it.
Russert: How do you overcome your cliché caricature?
Quayle: I'd ask them to look at my record. Job Training Partnership Act. The Patriot Missile. The lone voice for GPS. Desert Storm. I welcome this opportunity. (1 word: potato)
Russert: Why do you think 60 percent of the people say they won't consider you?
Quayle: I discount these polls. The American people are fair. Our vision for America is straightforward: smaller, more responsive government; dramatic tax cuts; strengthen families; reinvest in national defense. Foreign policy is important. What about Kosovo? Iraq? (Well, Dam, we know you'll play up the downside of any foreign policy decision Clinton makes.) If we had to do Desert Storm again today, it would take 100 percent of the Marines, two-thirds of the Army, 1/2 of Navy, about 1/2 of the Air Force. (Fact: we don't need to do Desert Storm again today!)
Russert: Will some of Clinton's character allegations rub off on Al Gore?
Quayle: Al Gore is connected to Clinton. What Clinton suffers, Gore suffers. Gore has a reasonable chance of getting elected in 2000, but that will not happen. And you heard here first. (You'll never get the nomination, Dan and you read it here first.)
The Roundtable was also a pretty maudlin affair, with Russert and Broder joined by Spin Cycle author Howard Kurtz, Newsweek's Evan Thomas and David Brock. Russert kicked off by asking Kurtz what the White House strategy is.
Kurtz: Attack the messenger, pre-leak information, stonewalling, the extraordinary situation of Mike McCurry not asking the President questions so he won't be subpoenaed. The press is fixated on [get this], and they're wondering why they don't happen in fact.
Russert (2 Brock): why did you apologize?
Brock: Journalists do not often come on TV to apologize, but I now feel the Arkansas state troopers (including Danny Ferguson and Larry Patterson) lied. I cannot say everything they said was true, and I question their credibility. This is not about my political views - I no longer find the troopers a reliable source - and if Jones goes to trial, we'll find out.
Russert: What about your book on Anita Hill?
Brock: Everything in the book stands.
Russert: Susan Carpenter McMillan says you were in love with a former press person for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Brock: There is a deep irony in me discussing personal destruction, and Susan Carpenter McMillan using personal attacks. I know this press person, but we have not dated, there is no affair.
Russert: Is there are right-wing conspiracy?
Brock: A lot of people laughed when Hillary said that, but nobody else here today has been in the right wing (I wouldn't be so sure about Howard Kurtz, David): Cliff Jackson stage managing stories against Clinton; me working at The American Spectator and being paid by a Scaife; the Arkansas Project paid in Arkansas state trooper for dirt on Clinton. I can tell you that there were political forces, there was money behind this!
Russert: You say Newsweek has become The American Spectator?
Brock: I'm making a general point that the stories we're seeing in the mainstream press today would not necessarily have been done, they were confined toThe American Spectator or to the tabloids. The culture's changed, and I've had second thoughts about that.
Russert (to Thomas): Are you reporting things that you wouldn't have gone near a year or two ago?
Thomas (note that this is an exact quote): "Maybe. I think the culture has changed somewhat. But Newsweek is interested in sex." (And circulation. As opposed to news.) These are legitimate stories, we're going to pursue them.
Russert (exact quote again): "Why are you guys down in the gutter talking about sex, sex, sex?" (It's about time, Tim -- even if it is a rhetorical question!)
Thomas: People are ambivalent, there's immense about it, but at the same times people are squeamish. It's a difficult subject to get right.
Russert David, what you make it all this?
Broder: I think Evan is right, these allegations are legitimate news stories. I think Howard's basic point is right. The press has taken it on the chin on this story because there are a lot of other things which affect their lives to hell of a lot more than this stuff.
Kurtz: the biggest spin problem for the White House right now is that it has plotted out their agenda from the public radar screen.
Russert: is the President of fixed them of his own success?
Kurtz: The people who work in White House are very upset. Things they've worked so hard for they now see threatened by seamy allegations. They are not celebrating, though the polls remain good.
Russert: How will history remember Clinton?
Brock: The scandal fever we've seen for the past five years will affect him. Nothing's been proving yet. If it is it will hurt him, if it isn't it won't.
Russert might as well have closed with "And if it's and opportunity to bash Clinton, its Meet the Press."
None of the pap programming we covered this week made mention of a bit of sad news we caught on CNN's web site: Former Senator William Proxmire, the outspoken and highly respected politician who created the "Golden Fleece" awards to "honor" government waste, has Alzheimer's disease, according to a report in the Sunday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The former Democratic senator, who turns 83 in April, was diagnosed about three years ago and said that while he follows the newspapers, he is no longer able to lecture or write his newspaper column. Truly sad news. Our thoughts are with him and his family.
- The Editors
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot | Searchfor |
Copyright©AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL INC 1996-1998 Reader Services Post Office Box 0409, Navesink, NJ 07716 FAX: 908.872.7604