FEATURE
Pundit Pap
for Sunday April 19th 1998
Part 1 of 2
NEW YORK -- Monday, April 20, 1998 -- The Sunday pundits were not entirely focused on the Clinton brouha, ha this week, although they wasted plenty of time on the aftermath of the collapse of the Paula Jones suit, and, of course, the usual gang of Clinton-haters did turn out to strut their stuff this week. Once again, Fox News Sunday and the Tony Snow posse to top honors this week -- despite their own requisite Clinton-bashing and the presence of nauseating Paula Jones attorney Donovan Campbell and Stuart "Odie Colognie" Taylor.
Fox News Sunday
Campbell, still smarting from the dismissal of the Paula Jones lawsuit -- which has turned his Dallas law firm, Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke, into a laughingstock -- was Tony's first guest. No amount of spin on Campbell's part can undo the damage done by the bogus, innuendo-ridden reply to the brief for summary dismissal submitted by Clinton's lawyers -- an amateurish attempt to smear the President that contained little in the way of evidence to support Jones having even the most flimsy of cases and ended up getting the case tossed out of the judicial system for now. Campbell's pathetic attempt to appeal should provide even funnier material than Seinfeld now that it has emerged that the President's lawyers have witnesses to prove Jones was lying when she said she didn't receive flowers on Secretary's Day.
Tony quoted Clinton attorney Bob Bennett: "It is unfortunate that our legal system can... continue to be abused by Ms. Jones's political and financial supporters who wish to harm the president." In his reply, Campbell accused Bennett and Clinton of "abuse of the system" -- and his supporting arguments exposed him once again for the legal "genius" we now know him to be. Campbell said "We've got several replies." He they are -- along with our own summary judgments:
1) " We understand there are 42 lawyers on the White House Staff defending Clinton against claims..."
First off, we would like Campbell to show us where he got these numbers, along with definitive proof he has that these lawyers are working FULL TIME on "claims" against Clinton. We know that Campbell is prone to exaggeration and delusions, but this number is simply ridiculous.
Second, we do not have a problem with White House lawyers defending Clinton from what are turning out to be, time and time again, baseless charges of wrongdoing and so-called "high crimes and misdemeanors" with no supporting evidence -- or, worse yet, leaks which prove only to be half-truths if they contain any truth at all. Since these charges a part of an orchestrated campaign not only against Clinton but the presidency itself -- and that includes the orchestrated attacks between the attorneys for Paula Jones and the Independent Counsel's office -- we support Clinton in his obligation to defend himself and the Presidency.
2) "Clinton has claimed executive privilege... to try to cover up the truth..."
Again, Campbell, where is your proof? All you are asserting with this point is that you want to paint Clinton as a liar -- now that plaintiff Paula has been proven to be one herself on the issue of merit raises and flowers on president's Day. This is America, Campbell. The President has every right the claim executive privilege to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of the presidency. Truth be told, we are darned sure that if conversations between you and the Rutherford Institute were made public, you would be whining and screaming about your right to privacy.
3) "The White House has made up a claim of Secret Service privilege."
Do you think we are stupid, Campbell? Well, unlike you, we are not; it does not take someone with a doctorate in public policy to see how publicizing details of the President's security arrangements and creating a situation where the president cannot trust his closest security officers would endanger him -- and every president that would follow! Besides, there is plenty of precedent and policy to support keeping the Secret Service secret.
4) "In the Paula Jones case, Mr. Bennett and his camp wasted two years of judicial time asserting the baseless claim of presidential immunity."
Are you saying that you and your right-wing co-conspiritors were sitting on the fence doing nothing during all that time? Get over yourself, Campbell! Bennett argued the case for presidential immunity eloquently, the Supreme Court made a stupid decision by rejecting the case -- and undermining the Presidency. Using this point to try to have it both ways only makes you look more shallow and partisan.
5) "When Campbell subpoenaed for Kathleen Willey documents, Clinton's attorneys claimed there were no such documents then after her appearance on 60 Minutes, 17 Willey documents were released..."
Well, no kidding, Sherlock! You wanted personal documents. Problem is, these were public documents! You're just upset that this "bimbo eruption" blew up in your face!
This litany of "replies" only goes to show how desperate Campbell and his confederates are. They know that the appeal is a very long long shot at best, so they are snatching up every bit of media time they can get to "try" the President in the press.
It will only drive the President's approval ratings up further.
Snow then asked Campbell if he "maintain[ed] that the president is a serial molester." Now, Tony, we know you don't like Bill Clinton, but this question only made both you and Campbell look bad. Or did you do this to make Campbell look bad?
Campbell's reply: " We are maintaining that there is a pattern or practice on the of Defendant Clinton with respect to his relationships with women, other women, particularly female employees, were he has abuse his position of power." Campbell and his amateur compatriots (including the staff of the Rutherford Institute) desperately continue to refer to the president as a "defendant" even though he isn't anymore!
Pathetic!
Go ahead and maintain that there is a pattern, Campbell; the only pattern that will emerge is of this ridiculous case getting kicked out of court time and time again! And don't be surprised if, at the end of it all, Clinton turns around and sues you, Rutherford and Jones to recover all of his legal costs. Betcha he wins!
Snow also asked about the implausible claims that Clinton had been involved in an "alleged rape" of a Jane Doe. Campbell's reply: "We're not going to go too much with that, Tony." Will the woman in question file charges? "I don't think so... when our case gets remanded for trial, certain issues and certain motions regarding that filing and that evidence are going to become ripe again." And, like everything else they've dredged up, will rot on the vine.
Line of the week was in response to Tony's asking if a settlement was still possible: "I think if we obtain a settlement during the dependency of this appeal, I'll fall over backwards, Tony!" Don't hold your breath, Don!
Campbell also mentioned that his term is recommended age "third party facilitator" come in. This looks to be nothing more than a new ploy to "sell" the public on the possibility that Clinton did something wrong. We say to Campbell go ahead and do it; seeing this ploy backfire should be plenty of fun.
Tony asked if the National Organization of Women would help. Campbell's reply: they would expect help, they have had contact with one or more women's groups. We say he's blowing smoke; within a couple of days of Jones' name becoming public, Patricia Ireland herself attempted to get in touch with Jones but was rebuffed by Jones' newfound "friends." About the only "women's" group Campbell has even a remote shot at is the anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum -- whose contributors include the biggest right-wing foundations in America! Independent... NOT!
Finally, Campbell "clarified" Susan Carpenter McBimbo's "official" role: "She has never been [Jones'] spokesperson for legal reasons except for a 30-day period during October." In other words, McBimbo is nothing more than a puffed-up publicist with delusions of some kind of importance... and the press has been shortsighted enough to take her seriously.
Well, at least Campbell makes sense on this point.
Tony then welcomed Fox News Sunday's second guest, prosecutor-wanna-be and Clinton-bashing "reporter" Stuart Taylor, along with the rest of the Fox News Sunday posse: Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, and Weekly Standard writer Fred "The Weasel" Barnes (filling in for Brit Hume).
Fred asked Stewart "If and when the trial takes place, in other words [Campbell's] expecting to win on appeal in the appeals court... is there really a chance that Paula Jones could have the President on trial during his term which ends of course in January 2001?"
You've just got to love these guys! They are so eager to tear down Clinton then they'll ask any specious, speculative question right up front to put the most foreboding, anti-Clinton spin possible on the subject!
Of course, Taylor answered in a manner to please his right-wing handlers: "I think it may be over 50-50."
Taylor is basing this assessment on a Justice Department ruling in a separate sexual-harassment case (Ellard v. Burlington Industries) which, in point of fact, has little if any bearing on the Paula Jones lawsuit. He's clearly blowing smoke with this answer.
Some of Taylor is other comments were equally ridiculous. With regard to the Supreme Court's foolish 9-0 ruling that the President was not immune to civil suits, Taylor said "I argued before the decision that they should defer trial but not discovery until after he left office, as had occurred before; they rejected my advice... you should not to take a 9-0 ruling lightly."
We don't -- especially one that is such an obvious mistake. And we know that you may have argued to "defer trial" but are hardly crying over the fact that the Court didn't buy the argument.
Hey, Stuart -- we hear that the Public Policy School deanship at Pepperdine is open! Maybe you should apply for the job -- although it would probably keep you too busy to be a DC pundit!
Less than a minute later, Taylor was asked about Arlen Specter's comments that Ken Starr would have to present "and open and shut case." Day or his response: "Depends on what [he] means by impeachment hearings and and open and shut case."
We think Senator Specter's definitions are the ones commonly used on planet Earth.
Juan asked Taylor about whether Ken Starr is telegenic enough to make a presentation to Congress on his findings. Taylor's reply "Maybe they ought to higher Jimmy Smits to do the presentation or something."
Now, Stuart, is the any way to treat a potential employer?
Tony then asked Taylor about his now-infamous comment on Imus last week that there may be 90 to 150 criminal counts brought against Clinton -- a bit of ludicrous speculation that had us rolling on the floor.
Taylor: "I hope I didn't put it that strongly... I don't think they [the witnesses who have testified before the grand juries so far] are all telling the truth... it's a little bit hard to believe that all of them are telling the lie, the whole lie, and nothing but a lie."
But therein lies the problem, Stuart. Starr's witness list is so full all the untrustworthy characters that he doesn't stand much of a chance of making any case.
One final sound bite from Stuart: "I told Starr in a letter I made public that I felt the Richard Mellon Scaife connection created a bad appearance problem, and that I would not be interested in continuing discussions until I was certain he was going to do something about it."
How many of you believe that this was the "sticking point" that kept Taylor from working for Starr? Write to us at "gullible@americanpolitics.com" and let us know!
On the one hand, Tony Snow and Roger Ailes use Fox News Sunday to give their conservative compatriots a forum to put forward their ideas -- anyone who is a fan of the Sunday punditfests is in on the little "secret." On the other hand, when such blindly partisan enemies of Clinton such as Stuart Taylor and Don Campbell "strut their stuff" on the show, making horses' asses of themselves in the process, we cannot but wonder if Tony and Roger actually have some sort of subversive agenda to expose the worst "conservatives" for the fools that they are!
If so, our hats are off to them.
The remainder of Fox News Sunday was pretty civilized: departing White House budget director Franklin Raines and Senate Budget Committee chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) debated spending issues, the budget surplus, tobacco taxes and the highway bill. The best quotes opened and closed the segment:
Raines: "We need to continue doing what we're doing, and that is not to spend the good news [meaning the budget surplus]."
Domenici: "We pay for the investments that the President wants but through different programs than he wants.... We don't need the cigarette tax in the United States Senate's package. We put all of our extra money from tobacco on Medicare... I think [a tobacco deal is] not as easy as some think, merely because Americans want cigarettes taxed. There is a wish lists so long about what people want to use it for that it may kill it!"
This segued neatly into the following segment in which Senate Commerce Committee chairman John McCain (R-AR) and Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) discussed the now-foundering tobacco deal.
The best moment came when Juan Williams "told" McCain that "Newt Gingrich dubbed your bill a bad bill... Republicans are not together and attacking your bill!" McCain's reply: "We're being attacked by Sen. Kennedy and Congressman Waxman and others for not being tough enough... On the other side, the bill's being attacked for being a big government solution." This is the public side of the "crisis" over tobacco legislation; you can bet your bottom dollar that the real action is happening between lobbyists and lawyers on both sides and members of Congress and their staffs.
McCain also mocked Tony Snow's teenage Congressional Budget Office statistic stating that two percent of cigarettes were being smoked by teenagers: "Two present is very disingenuous.. Youth smoking is on the increase."
Conrad had fun lighting into "how contradictory the [tobacco] industry position is; they say the McCain bill or anything like it will bankrupt them, and the same time they say, 'Oh, it's all going to be passed on' and therefore regressive to their customers... Costs are being imposed on all of us by those who smoke."
There wasn't much worth repeating from the final roundtable segment; Tony started the festivities by bashing Al Gore before indicating only a little over $300 in charitable deductions on his tax return this year.
Fred: "I gave more than Al Gore!" Lemme guess, Fred: to the Heritage Foundation?
Tony: "Al Gore's visit to Tennessee was a disaster." Huh? The few people I read and saw quoted seemed to have been mostr appreciative of his presence there, Tony. You've been watching too much of the Fox News Channel!
Mara: "Look at the President's high ratings [despite the current allegations]... Al Gore was accused of making a few calls from a wrong phone, so he looks terrible!"
From Gore-bashing the panel turned to Starr-bashing, much to our surprise and delight!
Juan: Starr admitting the PR problem is progress, but fast can this help?
Mara: It's too little on that front.
Fred: Maybe he should hire Susan Carpenter McMillan! [Great Nixon's Ghost -- that thought was going through our mind at exactly the same time!]
A little later...
Fred: "Ads aren't luring kids to tobacco."
WHAT??? Well, maybe since the Marlboro Man rode into the sunset and Joe Camel was given the heave-ho -- but now, they're luring teenagers with fashion-and-lifestyle-oriented advertising.
Fred: "I think Republicans will reconcile themselves to increased tobacco taxes." That is, if they don't kiss off the deals altogether.
Tony closed the program with a short commentary on the do so "Primary Colors" being a flop: "Debbie made more doing Dallas!... Americans are saying to a smug Beltway 'Shame on you and same to ya!' "
Not quite, Tony. They're saying "Boring! We've had enough of this crap! Besides, they couldn't get Leonardo di Caprio to play the 'Clinton' character!"
The McLaughlin Group
Leave it to John McLaughlin and the gang to combine Whateveritisgate with economy wonk-speak -- and not only keep it entertaining but almost make sense! The panel this week -- Eleanor Clift, Financial Times' Richard Lambert, Roll Call's Morton Kondracke and Reader's Digest's Michael Barone.
ISSUE 1 -- Will Rosy Scenario Give Good Cover to Bill Clinton? In the opening video segment, John cited IMF and OECB estimates which both predicted good growth in Gross Domestic Product for the United States (IMF projects 2.9 percent in 1998; OECD predicts 2.7 percent). John also mentioned prediction was of a drop in both inflation and unemployment. "Are these numbers cooked? Or will 'Rosy Scenario' give good cover to Bill Clinton?"
Michael: What has helped Bill Clinton is the rise in the stock market. [Not as much as Ken Starr's bungling, Michael.]
Eleanor: Who's cooking the numbers? Certainly not the White House!
Richard: The amazing thing is how little impact Asia has had on the U.S.
John: Asia will stabilize.
Morton: No! And to think how important Asia was supposed to be to the world economy!
John: The trade deficit is troublesome.
Eleanor: If Japan has a recession the entire world would get hit! [So Clinton's popularity hinges on Japan? Certainly not Japan, or the economy, alone -- don't underestimate the right wing mucking up every attempt to shaft Clinton.]
John: Stock Market Correction! The second video segment had John quoting IMF chief economist Michael Mussa adopt the possibility of a 20 percent correction in equity markets -- "I have no reason to fear in this point large adverse consequences" to the U.S. economy from such a correction.
Richard: It would have some impact -- more than Mussa implies.
Morton: The Economist [We laughed at Mort's shameless plug of the publication that owns Roll Call for which he writes] features an article on U.S. economy "in a bubble;" P-to-E ratios are way beyond what people have come to expect!
Michael: A correction would hurt Bill Clinton AND incumbent Republicans. [We have to agree with Barone for once -- the GOP would look pretty bad if all the budget balancing they fetishize coincided with a flat economy.]
Eleanor: Michael Barone has opened up Republicans for taking the blame if there's a correction!
John: Rosy Scenario covers Clinton's legal problems.
Morton: Not at all, but it affects whether the House moves for impeachment. [In other words, you're reluctant to admit that it DOES cover Bill's troubles. What's gotten you in such a Clinton-bashing mood this week, Mort?]
ISSUE 2 -- Starr Wars! This week, Kenneth Stark committed news! Besides canceling Pepperdine and announcing the end is nowhere in sight, what news did Starr commit?
Morton: The dust up with the Justice Department over David Hale -- now Ken Starr claims the Justice Department has a conflict of interest. [Over the FBI doing their job -- Starr is toast].
John then played a video clip from his other weekly program, McLaughlin one-on-one, featuring guest... Stuart Taylor?!? Not again!!!!!! We almost screamed! Where the heck does this legal and journalistic hack get the time to appear on all these punditfests?
Taylor: "Strained is a mild word, I think they're almost at war. I think that Starr's letter to Janet Reno, made public yesterday, suggests that Starr's office now thinks the Justice Department -- for political reasons, the people of the top, Janet Reno and Eric Holder -- are carrying the White House's water."
You have to laugh that this one. If anything, Starr's letter suggests that he's desperate to find a new tactic to drag out this investigation as long as he can. You get the impression Taylor thinks he knows which buttock to kiss and when.
John: Is the situation as serious as Stuart Taylor thinks?
Eleanor: We've seen a Ken Starr makeover -- he's feeling the heat!
Michael: Ken Starr said Eric Holder was non-political half a year ago -- now Ken Starr claims Holder's letter is political!
John: Both letters have been made public -- this is outside of tradition -- and Starr claims in his letter to Justice that "your FBI was involved in this and David Hale matter."
Morton: This all concerns the "great right-wing conspiracy... A woman who is a tarot card reader believes she knows where Jimmy Hoofa is buried, the son who is 17 years has criminal problems, claims to have seen money change hands between a bait shop dealer and David Hale."
Thanks for showing your real colors, Morton. You obviously chose to ignore Joe Conason's piece in the April 6 issue of the New York Observer that set the record straight about both of these witnesses. Instead, you've decided to show your real colors as a right-wing lemming, following the official party line of trashing this witness.
Michael: There is warfare at the top of the Justice Department; the merits of Holder's case are thin. [Thanks, Perry Mason.]
Eleanor: David Hale is a convicted criminal with little credibility.
John then ran a short video piece on Bob Mulholland, the Democrat who has threatened to "dig dirt" on Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, and who is now backing off.
Michael: Mulholland won't backfire -- but Carville's war backfired, it prompted Paula Jones to go forward.
Eleanor: If the GOP members sit as "moraler-than-thou" arbiters, the press will dig into their backgrounds!
Richard: I don't know, and I don't care! [We do -- but we suspect that Lambert's sentiment is shared by most of the people boosting the President's approval ratings]
ISSUE 3 -- Elephants Mating -- no, John is not talking about copulation in the GOP, but of four banks merging into two super banks. Effects?
Richard: Something is going to go wrong with some of these mergers -- and communities will suffer.
Eleanor: It's good for the officers and stockholders, bad for customers, communities.
Michael: It makes sense and not for banks to put their day is in one regional basket.
Morton: Mega-mergers are a sign that the boom is coming to an end.
John: Hey! The Economist owns Roll Call! [The panel got their laugh a full quarter hour after we got ours]
PREDICTIONS:
Michael: Al Gore gives more money to charity this year!
Eleanor: The Chinese will release Wong Don as a goodwill gesture. [... in fact, they did shortly after the program's taping]
Richard: Another $250 billion dollar in bank mergers next month. [By this time, over half of McLaughlin's viewership had probably called or logged onto their brokers.]
Morton: Kenneth Starr subpoenas Bill Clinton; Bill Clinton will testify! [We predict Ken Starr subpoenas Bill Clinton, Clinton's approval rating hits 90%]
John: The Irish peace agreement will pass in the North, and hold. [We hope so.] Bye-bye!
Tomorrow -- Linda Tripp's Lawyer: He's No William Ginsburg!
-- 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