FEATURE
Pundit Pap
for Sunday April 12th 1998
Part 2 of 2
TUESDAY, APRIL 14th, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- If you wondered whether you were Lost in Space this Sunday, you weren't the only one. The pundits were anything but out in force this week and frankly bored us to death with their Easter/Passover hype and preaching. Tony Snow opened Fox News Sunday with a rousing Happy Easter and Passover! The rest did about the same.
Without Paula Jones -- who we predict will make her comeback this week -- at least for a few moments -- the pundits had little to talk about. But oh! how they tried...
FOX NEWS SUNDAY
Snow opened with a particularly dreary segment on the Irish Peace Accord which most academics are giving a zero to one percent chance of working. After we saw the details we realized why US participants were taking a back seat on credit for this one. The President tried his best, but this one is just another step toward what the Irish Catholics in the North truly want -- independence from Britain. As Republican Congressman Peter King pointed out that Catholics will be a majority in that part of the world soon, and only then can they count on having the votes to pull themselves away from Mother England -- a smothering mother.
King was good to give President Clinton credit for pulling the agreement out of the fire late Thursday. Gerry Adams, of Sinn Fein, would have walked away from the talks had not Clinton taken the time to call him and others in a last ditch effort to save the pact.
The discussion on Ireland was boring - and full of holes. Little time was spent on the real issues -- that some Irish Catholics and Protestants as well are furious over the settlement and won't rest 'til it's ruined. Congressman King said he felt the President should go to Ireland just before the elections, confirming or denying the deal. We think he should not. Why put the Presidential seal on a treaty that won't or may not stand?
King was terrific, telling Snow that he doesn't trust the Unionists (Protestants) nor does he trust the entire government of England! King, like us, expects a new round of atrocities in the North --- from both sides -- in an effort to disturb the current status quo. Mr. Adams still sleeps in a different house every night, King told us.
We know.
Snow then turned to Big Tobacco, inviting J. Philip Carlton, an amusing tobacco representative, to do batter with Mara Liasson, Brit Hume and Juan Williams. Carlton? Isn't that a cigarette brand -- how charming!
Basically Carlton said what we think. The Republican Congress abandoned the cigarette makers when they saw BIG MONEY and a way to pay for their highway bills, tax cuts and save the kids programs at the same time. Democrats had already abandoned big tobacco because they gave so much money to the GOP. Both parties were wrong.
For one thing, most everything you hear about smoking is hogwash. Sidestream smoke "damage" -- now claiming fees and fines from people smoking on the sidewalks of California -- is a total fabrication, mostly planted by airlines and their unions so they would be able to replace cabin interiors less frequently.
Ask yourself this: in 1946 -- the beginning of the baby boom, all our parents smoked liked chimneys. Yet the rate of lung cancer has not increased drastically and air pollution in our cities from car exhaust is way up. Epidemiology our butts (and yes, that's a pun.)
Carlton pointed out that what started as a drive to stop kids from smoking has now transmutated into a half trillion tax on smokers. He said, "I think every businessman in American should be shaking in their boots." We agree. We're writers AND smokers of course.
Carlton plans to take his case to the people and pressure the Congress where they feel it most -- in the vote pocket. 40 million voters is a lot of power if Carlton can ring them in.
Hume put out a figure -- a paltry $50 million for this campaign, but we at American Politics think the Tobacco Boys are willing to spend a billion to make smokers of all of us.
Carlton also told the panel that cigarettes wouldn't go up a mere $1.50 a pack under the McCain bill, but soar to $5.00 a pack which will open a black market for cigarettes in America. What he forgot to mention is that kids, who now pay $60 a lid for marijuana won't be stopped even by the $5.00 price tag. They love to do what we tell them not to. Remember?
Mr. Carlton also reminded the panel that tobacco companies could just pull up stakes and move to El Salvador or some such place to do business. It would cost America 2 million jobs and the states about $100 million in day in tobacco tax revenues.
Snow next turned to his favorite subject -- "Morality." If you listen to all the pundits, save Geraldo Rivera, you would get the distinct impression that Snow, Donaldson, Roberts, McLaughlin and Russert are either in the clergy or heading there. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth -- except perhaps in McLaughlin's case!
So who does Snow invite on to discuss Morality? None other than slime bucket billionaire televangelist Jerry Falwell, ex-house member turned preacher Floyd Flake, and new-wave Christian Governor Mike Huckabee from Arkansas. A better pair couldn't have been picked by Satan himself. We'll leave Huckabee alone in that no Governor of Arkansas will ever again have the chance to rise above his current level. But let's see what Falwell -- the angel -- had to say:
Falwell -- "I think we are on a moral toboggan slide. Homosexuals ..., a 50% divorce rate, 50% of all black kids are illegitimate, the curve means that all Black families will disappear and 70% of white kids will be illegitimate in the future.
Ha, ha, hahaa! Typical Falwell. Here's a guy that virtually steals millions from old ladies and nuts who actually believe he's an avenue to God. In one hateful sentence he crucifies homosexuals, single-parent families, blacks and even whites who dare to divorce. It's simply the cat’s meow. And you wonder why Falwell is one of the most hated men in America?
Falwell -- "We are not preaching a Christ gospel -- born again -- no life change occurs. We don't talk about the social needs in America, we talk about the gospel. If 600,000 preachers were preaching the gospel it would be okay."
Sure. If anyone was listening and if they believed in their preachers.
It was hilarious.
Snow next asked, "Is Ken Starr's investigation running in place?"
Of course Snow started with one of Fox News' loaded poll questions -- something about which is more likely the easter bunny with eggs or the president telling all? The Bunny and Egg got 71% and the President 10%.
Hume then chimed in with another question -- which supposedly showed that 75% of Americans said Clinton was not justified to lie about Lewinsky et al. We don't know who they interview, but Fox poll results seem to vary widely with mainstream polls. Juan Williams, in a daring attempt (for him) to set the record straight, asked Hume whether he thought people answered such questions honestly. Of course Hume didn't answer him.
The panel discussion boiled down to Hume taking hits at the White House with Liasson and Williams arguing weakly that the President was trying to concentrate on Social Security and Ireland. Hume's snotty response?:
"A kind of new theory [on the presidency] -- all he has to do is work on the problem. The presidency in the 21st century will be 'I can't propose anything so I will just hold talkfests.'" Very tricky, moron. What Hume was trying to say was that Clinton is not showing leadership by having a round of public forums on changing the Social Security laws. Hume would have him change it unilaterally without hearing from the people. That's his and every other right-wing neurotic's answer to democracy: just do it and pay the consequences later. A Dick Nixon epitaph.
Another Hume jerkoff comment had to do with the idiot majority leader Dick Armey saying he would resign if he were Clinton. Hume says, "Whoaaaaaaaa! he said He would resign, he didn't ask the President to resign!" Ha, ha, haha. What a jerk, we're sorry that's al we can say. Armey himself has now been accused of making sexual advances to a female masters candidate he was supervising while a college professor.
Why, we ask, hasn't he resigned?
Hume also suggested that the President was shameless BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY MADE HIS STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS. Hume thinks he should have opted out in shame. Ha, ha, haha, haa. Unbelievable!
Hume also defended convicted felon David Hale, soon-to-be-convicted felon Dick Scaife, and Ken Starr for accepting an invitation from Janet Reno to "investigate himself" on the Scaife-Hale payoff rumors. Hume tells the audience that just because Hale denies it and the go-between denies it, it can't possibly be true. He lies by omitting the fact that two people inside the Scaife-funded American Spectator Magazine -- which is merely a propaganda tool for the ultra-right -- also have told reporters that Scaife was paying off Hale to turn on the White House as part of his tax-exempt foundation's illegal funding of the so-called "Arkansas Project," which spent over $2 million to "Get Clinton" during the past few years. The man put in charge of the Spectator investigation is a friend of Hale. Hume also said that the woman who reported the pay-offs is a nut fortune teller, but we've seen her interviewed and she seems perfectly sane to us. Hume would have all fortune tellers, witch-doctors, rabbis, priests and astrologers burned at the stake.
MEET THE PRESS
Stuart Taylor uncaged!! 
Tim Russert decided to treat Sinn Fein Pap, Big Tobacco and the usual hit on the President this week -- the weapon? Odious Odie Colognie look-alike Stuart Taylor -- the lawyer that brought back Paula Jones, kissed Starr’s butt and continued to do so, until he was fingered by the media as a poseur after "interviewing" for a job with Starr directly. The position, according to Odie? Writing the Starr Report to Congress. Only Russert would have the gall to bring Taylor back in national television in order to save him.
But first, Russert featured a show down with HHS Secretary Donna Shalala and Senator Bill Frist (an MD) against a Big Tobacco spokesman. It was the usual bore. Shalala pointing out the dangers of smoking with Frist and the Tobacco Man defending using the constitution as cover. While we agree with Big Tobacco on the issues and the epidemiology, we think they should launch their offensive and appear on television less.
For us its about public health and reducing smoking among teens. With or without them we will get comp legislation. We think it can be successful.
Some comic relief was offered by the latest ADM commercial -- yes, they've bought and paid for Russert too! This time, they use a line which had us rolling on the floor:
"Farmers are the most indispensible people on this planet!"
Need we say more?
As a matter of fact we invite you to e-mail us at farmers@americanpolitics.com and insert your own word -- instead of "farmers" in the ADM ad line. For instance we came up with these:
"Virgins are the most indispensible people on this planet!"
"8' 6" Basketball stars are the most indispensible people on this planet!"
"Doctors are the most indispensible people on this planet!"
"Clergyman are the most indispensible people on this planet!"
Try your luck. The prize? Tim Russert's phone number.
John Kasich visited Russert as well. He's one of our favorite Reeps. He talked tobacco and his own presidential aspirations, which are not exactly a big secret. He took his own party to task on the Highway Bill and gave us this great line:
"Ohh c'mon, the Congressional Budget Office hasn't been right about a thousands of things over the years."
Russert went out of his way to get Kasich to insult the President.
Kasich didn't.
Russert next moved the most hilarious and ludicrous part of the hour the NBC offers him each Sunday -- he invited Stuart Taylor, Bill Safire and David Mariniss to talk "Clinton Scandals" with him in a weak effort to mess up the President for just another week.
A little background: this week it was revealed that while Taylor was writing for American Lawyer he was also considering taking a job with Ken Starr! Now this may not seem like such a big deal to you, but when a journalist, which Taylor is supposed to be, writes puff pieces for his potential boss, it's called HIGHLY UNETHICAL. So unethical in fact that Taylor has become an overnight joke among serious journalists and was asked to step aside by his own publisher!
Taylor, you might remember, was the lunatic who used his geeky academic demeanor to convince America that Paula Jones was not a trailer-park slut and that she was probably telling the truth. He did this first and extensively on Jim Lehrer's News Hour, which made us scream and squirm when we first saw it last year. The rest of the world had written off Jones as what she is, but Taylor, because of his fine education and supposedly squeaky clean background, breathed new life into Jones and Susan Carpenter McMillan just as the two were about to depart the map of American consciousness.
Then Taylor engaged in several million interviews in which he pummeled Clinton and his lawyers and made Ken Starr out to be Christ reborn. Now we discover that Taylor probably knew Starr all along and was eager to work for him -- in fact, to draft the impeachment documents on Clinton and to etch his name in history. Only moments after penning his name to the most ridiculous discussion of Starr's wunderbar-ness, Taylor was in Starr's office telling him he'd consider joining "The Firm" -- Starr's Not-So-Independent Counsel office.
So here is Tim Russert bringing the tainted Stuart Taylor on as an EXPERT on the LAW, along with chief Clinton basher Bill Safire, a pitiful excuse for a writer and a certified has-been since his bosom pal Dick Nixon stepped aside before he would have been impeached. Nixon is still a Safire hero. Need we say more about him?
"What's going to happen to Bill Clinton?," asked Russert with an invisible evil grin. Russert did breeze over Taylor's ethics problems:
"Stuart Taylor -- You were in the news this week. Kenneth Starr offered you a job to help work with him, write a report which he would or would not deliver to Congress. You thought about it for some time, then turned it down, but were criticized because you were a journalist and you should have been more open about all that. What's your view?"
Classic Russert. He ignores or twists the facts:
· first of all, Taylor was engaged in discussion with Starr over several weeks
· he did not turn him down -- as a matter of fact he said yes to Starr
· then, when he told others about his decision, it was pointed out to him that he was an idiot and that such a move would destroy his potential career as a pundit
· Taylor then hastily called Starr and backed away from him
Here's how Taylor responded to Russert:
"Well I've learned a lot in the last week and the criticism I think was valid. I should have been more public about it, I would've been if I had sense to talk to my editor Steve Smith said to me 'You've gotta shut this down or expose something, ' not learned what Bill Safire taught me for the first time when I was thinking of popping him in some unrelated controversy. I've learned that if you're gonna dish it out in this business, and forgive me if I imitate your voice, you gotta learn how to take it -- so got ahead and take your pops Stuart. So, I've had a few pops, and probably the better for it. I hope"
Ha, ha, ha. Kissing Safire's patootie while pretending to be humble. Taylor doing Clinton?
Russert: "So, what do you believe Kenneth Starr will do -- BASED ON YOUR REPORTING, NOT ANY SECRET CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM."
Taylor: "Based on my reporting, BEFORE I EVER HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM, [ha, haha, ha] I think he will submit a report probably to Congress. I don't think the decision has been made whether it will go to Congress or the Court, but I think there's serious thought that they're giving and should give or mandated by law to give to whether to invoke section 595 C of the independent council statute which REQUIRES him, if he finds evidence that may constitute grounds for impeachment -- substantial and credible evidence to refer to the House of Representatives. Uh, My guess is that he will find that he has that obligation and that he will submit that report to the House of Representatives within, by the end of May, certainly by sometime in June. And one thing that fortifies me in that opinion, uh, when he and I were talking he knew perfectly well that that was my view and he also knew perfectly well that if I went to work for him and didn't think he made the right decision I was gonna quit and publicly announce why immediately.
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!! Here Taylor really shows his nasty cards. First he says he will base his discussion on his "reporting" done BEFORE he spoke to Starr. Then he goes right into a discussion of evidence that he should know absolutely nothing about! He also says he has already drawn HIS conclusion that Starr has impeachable evidence under 595 C. But how? Where and how did he see Starr's evidence? He goes on to worsen his position by saying that if Starr did not choose to submit the report to Congress ( to Taylor -- "The RIGHT Decision") that he, Taylor, would QUIT and basically "turn Starr" in immediately for not doing his duty. --- Ha, ha, haha. What a moron! He must have been taking Prozac.
Russert: "What high crimes and misdemeanors would have been committed? "
Taylor: "That is a very debatable issue and I think Starr's responsibility is not to sort of try and be the ultimate decision maker on what's a high crime and misdemeanor but sort of throw it to Congress if it's in the neighborhood. If you have multiple . . I think if you have, for example one perjury 'Did you have sex with Monica Lewinsky' No. And that's it. That ain't a high crime. Maybe a little misdemeanor but it ain't a high crime. If you have lots and lots of perjuries, lots and lots of witness tampering and obstructions of justice then I think its at least in the territory where and Independent counsel's responsibility is to go to the Congress and say "Here's what I found -- You decide whether its high crimes and misdemeanors."
What!? First he says he is convinced Starr must report to Congress. Ergo, he thinks the President committed "lots of" high crimes and misdemeanors. What is this man talking about. And if Starr had such facts, why wouldn't he indict at least all those around the President -- even if he thought he no right to indict the President himself?
Lesson: Stuart Taylor is not up to what he pretends to be. He is the worst kind of poseur, a Judas for the Right Wing, and a disgrace to both the legal and journalistic profession in our opinion.
More from Taylor: "What the White House is really worried about here is not Republicans. They are worried that in the end Democrats with integrity, Democrats like Leon Panetta, former chief of staff, like Senators Pat Moynihan, Bob Kerrey, and Joe Lieberman, like Lloyd Cutler distinguished lawyer who's been defending the President. They're worried that when the evidence comes out and it's on the table, those people will walk away from Bill Clinton - AND I THINK THEY WILL. "
Ha, ha, hahaa. What evidence, Taylor? How dare you speak for those men! You truly are suicidal.
Then the High Priest of Hillary Hate -- William Safire -- stepped up to the plate with his own set of lies. He actually said that Starr had a "case" against Hillary Clinton in Little Rock. "He brings the case. If she wins she runs for the Senate in Illinois and we see her on this program. "
Tim, little vicious sniper that he is then asks, if you can believe it, "Why does she [Hillary Clinton] remain so loyal?"
Now we ask you: who the heck is Tim Russert, overweight puffy Catholic school boy with problems of his own, to inquire into the private relationships of any husband and wife, let alone the President and the First Lady? What is he hoping for? That Hillary will listen to him, wake up and walk out on Bill?
At least Stuart Taylor said to this "Some people think there is perjury for her but if I were Starr, I'd leave that alone and focus on the President. "
How nice.
The rest of Meet the Press was a pitiful examination of the murderer of Rev. Martin Luther King and whether Jesse Jackson thinks the investigation of James Earl Ray's "sole shooter" conviction is the truth about the way Dr. King was murdered.
Of course not, and we support the King's effort to reopen this investigation.
Jesse Jackson said the government was actively involved in destroying Martin Luther King -- whether they hired someone or were indirectly involved in the assassination remains to be seen.
Julian Bond focused on King's "real legacy" as he called it Sunday. "King was really a revolutionary figure, a critic of American capitalism, who was a critic of American foreign policy -- who wanted a fairly radical restructuring of the American social order. We don't remember that King. . . Instead we celebrate the 1963 March on Washington legacy -- this sort of cuddly figure, warm guy, black and white together -- We shall overcome. ... We wouldn't decide whether Bond loved the memory of King or was messing with it.
Russert: "... now 7 out of ten Blacks are born out of wedlock, one out of three Black men are in jail under the criminal justice system. What would Martin Luther King be saying...?
J.C. Watts, a black Republican oxymoronic idiot who is just smart enough to know where the gold is, actually began defending the end of affirmative action in colleges in California and focused on the preparatory educational system as the excuse.
Russert uncharacteristically but heroically countered that 800 Blacks scored over 1200 on the SAT in California and could still not enter. This after underscoring that Blacks are mostly illegitimate and thirty percent in jail.
The segment broke down into a fast-talk debate between Watts v. Jackson and Russert.
Unintelligible.
Meet the Press disappointed as it has for the past three months. What's happened to Russert? Whatever pressures or motives behind his new tabloid viciousness remains to be seen. We've called him to ask. But he refuses to talk.
-- The Editors
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot | Searchfor |
"JK, a client, a friend, and one of the keenest minds in American politics, told me one afternoon: 'A good place to begin thinking critically about American and Western European democracies to ask yourself: What kind of man or woman would choose to run for public office? Think about that.' - I did."
Copyright©AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL INC 1996-1998 Reader Services Post Office Box 0409, Navesink, NJ 07716 FAX: 908.872.7604