FEATURE
Pundit Pap
for Sunday April 26th 1998
Part 2 of 3
NEW YORK -- Wednesday, April 29, 1998 -- Elizabeth Drew made plenty of headlines with her Twilight Zone "double impeachment" scenario on this past Sunday's Meet the Press -- news that became a prelude to Newt's GOPAC speech lighting into Clinton's ethics followed by a tirade against the President from the House floor. Gingrich has sworn to "bring up the President's ethics" in every speech he makes... so we at American Politics Journal will take every effort to remind you that Newt Gingrich was slapped with a de facto $300,000 fine for his unethical and illegal campaign behavior when he wasn't busy slapping divorce papers on his gravely ill wife's hospital bed while his chippie girlfriend looked on.
Meet the Press
With each passing week Meet the Press becomes more and more of a spectacle -- not quite of, say, the Jerry Springer variety, but certainly a depressing travesty of the excellent program it once was.
When Tim Russert opens with the comment "Republican Senator John McCain wants to raise cigarettes more than a dollar a pack to help curb teen-age smoking; Republican Senator Orrin Hatch calls the McCain legislation pitiful," one can only wonder whether Russert is trying to spice things up a bit too much at the outset by emphatically playing up Hatch’s characterization.
Russert also previewed an appearance by Colin Powell: "What has he accomplished? Could he do more as president?"
Well, he's repeatedly said he won't run, Tim -- that should give you a clue.
First off was the tobacco segment -- essentially the sleepiest segment of the program until the subject turned to Dan Burton's bout of verbal incontinence last week. Russert essentially let his guests, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and John McCain (R-AZ) do the tobacco bill rehash, but first he rushed headlong into the "pitiful" comment only to get a predictably diplomatic response from Hatch:
Tim: You called Senator McCain's bill -- his attempt to curtail teen-age smoking -- pitiful. Why?
Hatch: Well, keep in mind, I think Senator McCain deserves a lot of credit in getting a bill out of the Commerce Committee 19-to-1, but virtually everybody knows that that cannot be the final bill. It's going to have to be completely rewritten. And he's trying to do that. And to that...
Tim: But if it passed 19-to-1, that's pretty strong support.
Hatch: Not really. Everybody knew that we had to have a vehicle on the floor that we're going to have to correct, that we're going to have to work to get a correction bill that virtually both sides can agree with and, hopefully, the president will back.
Tim: But pitiful's a very strong word. What is pitiful about John McCain's legislation? [Hatch actually looked like he was losing patience with Russert's pressing the issue at this point]
Hatch: Well, I think -- well, number one, the price of the bill is very high. In other words, I think we'll have a witness this Wednesday who will indicate that Senator McCain's bill will ultimately push the price up somewhere over $5 per pack. If that's so, then it looks as though a contraband will start. And we already have contraband of $1 billion in this country today. And we'll have a black market.
Hatch also made points about tobacco companies possibly being forced into bankruptcy and constitutional issues which remain to be resolved. Then Tim turned to McCain, as if putting him on trial:
Tim: John McCain, you just heard Senator Hatch’s analysis of your bill. It will create a black market. It will put tobacco companies into bankruptcy. How do you plead?
McCain: Well, Timothy, the fact is that it was a 19-to-1 vote.
"Well, Timothy" -- nice touch! One wishes Hatch would also be a little tougher on Tim.
We honestly don't know what's gotten into Russert, but we suspect he actually believes the hype about himself. It's worth pointing out that whenever we catch him on NBC's Today or MSNBC's The News with Brian Williams, he will go on the attack if there's bad news regarding the trumped-up Presidential "scandals" and acquiesce somewhat if the news is going against Starr. And his lines of questioning have been more provocative of late than even Sam Donaldson on This Weak. Case in point:
Tim: Senator McCain, Newt Gingrich says that your bill is not a Republican bill, even though you're a Republican, and that teen-age smoking has nothing to do with Joe Camel. How do you respond?
Okay -- if McCain's not "pitiful" then he's making Newt Gingrich sore. At least Russert got in Newt's outrageous Joe Camel comment.
McCain's understandably impatient reply: I will let others respond to that. It's well known the effect that Joe Camel had on teen-age Americans.
A little later, Tim asked Hatch about the Hoosier Horror, Congressman Dan Burton --
Tim: One of your Republican colleagues, Dan Burton of Indiana, said the president was a scumbag. Is that appropriate language?
Hatch is an inveterate expert at taking a question of this nature and turning it to his complete advantage: Well, I would prefer that we not use language like that. But on the other hand, you know, some of the things that have been alleged here, if true, would indicate that there's a lot to be desired here. And, you know, we're just going to all have to sit back and wait for Ken Starr to complete his work. He's had every obstruction thrown up, he's had every delay, he's had refusal to abide by subpoenas, he's had frivolous motions, frivolous assertions of executive privilege, frivolous appeals.
Hatch is gently castigating the messenger while passing along the message -- and ignoring Starr's own abuse of office, delays, foot-dragging, frivolous subpoenaing, and evidence of leaking. We're not even going to mention the possibility that Starr suborned perjury from Susan McDougal.
More from Hatch [our analysis in brackets]: Now, Congressman Burton does have the obligation of looking into these matters. And the more he looks into them, the more he gets upset at what's happening [which is no surprise, since people of limited intelligence are so easily frustrated!]. And if you look at everything from Whitewater to Filegate to Travelgate to the problems that currently exist, to Lewinsky, et al, you really start saying to yourselves, ‘What in the world is going on? [Where's the beef?] What have we allowed to happen to our country? […letting an "Independent Counsel" run roughshod over the Constitution and the Executive Branch?] Really, the president's very gregarious, very likable person. On the other hand, is this what we want in the White House of the United States? [Compared to the alternatives foisted upon the American public by the GOP? You betcha!]’ I have sympathy for the president, but I have great concern for the presidency. [So do we, because of the damage Starr is doing to the office, Orrin.]
Russert, again positing assumption of guilt, followed up with: What would be the political fallout of an indictment of the first lady?
Hatch: Well, first of all, I don't think the first lady is going to be indicted, no matter how much her fingerprints are on almost everything from Whitewater up to now in the eyes of many who are looking at this objectively...
McCain was more to the point:
Tim: Senator McCain, your reaction to Congressman Burton calling the President of the United States a scumbag?
McCain: He shouldn't do that.
The segment with Powell covered much different ground than his appearance on Fox News Sunday, with the emphasis on volunteerism. Tim let Powell do most of the talking; here are some of Powell's key points:
"It's more than volunteerism, though. Sure, we want a lot more people to come forward and do things, but the real goal that we had in mind was to create alliances, alliances between corporate America and youngsters in need, between the government and youngsters in need. And that's why we created America's Promise, to make promises to our young people and to create alliances to make those promises come true…
"All of us are busy holding two jobs, perhaps being a very important correspondent on television [more like a pundit of doom, General Powell]… So what we have to do is convince people that they do have a couple hours a week where they can cross a class line, a racial line, a neighborhood line and insert themselves in the life of a child, who is desperately in need. And then we have to actually create the bridge for it to happen, introduce them to the local United Way effort or the Volunteer Centers of America and marry them up with the Boys and Girls Club or Big Brothers and Big Sisters program. Very often it's just the act of creating opportunity for a person to get involved that we have to concentrate on…
"The core problem is to restore the sense of structure and values throughout America in our inner city communities, in our rural areas. One of the core problems we have is to reinstitute the concept of marriage as a union between two people and it's out of that union that children come, not from promiscuous teen-age sex. We have got to bring structure and discipline back into our schools, back into our homes, back into our society. We've got to restore sense of shame and teach our children and all of our institutions the difference between right and wrong…
A little later, Tim turned to Gore bashing: Al Gore -- he's been criticized for only giving $353 to charity. Cheap shot or fair criticism?
Powell: Well, I think it's a cheap shot. I think each of us should give according to our means and a conscience and what we think is appropriate and what we can afford. I don't know what the vice president found he could afford this year. He has been known to be generous in the past. And it's one of those duties I think we all have as part of our American Christian Judaic ethic to give as much as we can, and I'm not about to criticize anyone else's giving.
On the subject of George Bush Jr., hyped by the punditocracy as the GOP's best hope for the White House --
Powell: I think Governor Bush would be a tremendous candidate for president, and I think he'd be a good president if he were elected…
Tim: Would you be hi...
Powell: I'm enjoying very much not having to make such choices, that I've elected to remain out of active political life and pursue my private interests.
Tim: Would you be his running mate?
Powell: I am not interested in a political life at any level at this point.
Tim: Period.
Powell: Period.
Tim: Colin Powell will not seek elective office in the year 2000? [ummm, Tim, he did say "Period. "]
Powell: Thus sayeth Tim Russert, and I agree.
Tim: Well, what does Colin Powell say?
Powell: I am not seeking elective office in the year 2000, and I am going to pursue my interests and service to the nation in private life.
I ask you: could the man have made it ANY clearer? It's not as if this were unknown, and while Powell took it with a real sense of humor, Tim's persistence was hardly amusing.
The roundtable produced the big headlines of the weekend in the form of Elizabeth Drew's X-Files scenario of double impeachment (about which we alerted our subscribers on Sunday), but there were other amusing moments:
Stuart "Odie Colognie" Taylor on Paula Jones attending the White House Correspondent's Dinner: If she thinks she wants to get to trial someday, she was handing them a stick to beat her with. You know, if you were so emotionally distressed, why did you go out of your way to go to a dinner in which the president was the primary figure?
Taylor looked as if he enjoyed saying it! A little later, Tim put Taylor on the spot: You wrote this article for The American Lawyer back in November of 1996, "Her case against Clinton, Paula Jones’ claims against President Clinton, far stronger than the media has let on, stronger than Anita Hill's against Clarence Thomas." What happened? The judge threw them out.
Taylor: Well, in fact, I don't think the judge's decision is inconsistent with the main thrust of that article, in this sense. The main thrust of that article was that her evidence that the president did what she says he did in that hotel room is far stronger than the media has let on.
Oh, c'mon, Taylor -- the subject of your article was the CASE, not the claims!!! Your attempt to look less wrong than you were was just plain lame.
Tim then turned to Jonathan Broder of Salon Magazine, who gave some background on two of their recent articles involving allegations against Whitewater figure David Hale, Clinton-hating billionaire Richard Scaife and one witness to alleged wrongdoing who continues to be bad-mouthed by the broadcast press with implications that she's somehow flaky. Witness Russert's question (obviously Tim hasn't fully absorbed Joe Conason's column from last week's New York Observer that pretty well set the record straight) --
Tim: The live-in girlfriend has been described as a fortune teller, who claimed she knows where Jimmy Hoffa's buried. Is she credible?
Why not mention the FACT that she's a devout Catholic like you are, Tim? Or would that be too unsensational for your show?
Broder's reply: She has denied that. I asked her about that. I spent 14 hours with her, along with my colleague, Murray Wass, and we found her journalistically credible.
Twice Russert asked questions that were clearly slanted toward making Salon seem biased -- "Now, there are criticisms of Salon, your magazine, that you are in the tank for the Clinton administration; that you were granted a meeting with Hillary Clinton and President Clinton at the White House; that you were leaked information by the White House. Is any of this true? " Then later, "Would you describe Salon as being anti-Ken Starr? "
Hey, Tim -- why don't you ask these sorts of questions when writers from the Weekly Standard or American Spectator are on your show? Or Newsweek, for that matter? Or would GE pull their advertising?
The pap really hit the fan when Tim turned to Elizabeth Drew: What is Speaker Gingrich saying to his closest intimates?
Drew: Speaker Gingrich has been talking to his closest associates about the idea of impeaching President Clinton and Vice President Gore. [You could practically hear Russert's jaw hit the desk] His thinking -- yes, you heard me.
Tim: Impeaching...
Drew: Both of them. His thinking goes that the Starr report will be very tough, and there will have to be proceeding to impeach Clinton. That leaves Gore in place as the incumbent vice president -- as incumbent president, rather. Then according to his thinking, Gore will pardon Clinton, and then the Congress will impeach Gore for pardoning Clinton for the things for which they impeached Clinton. This gives the idea -- deals with the problem that they have if they impeach Clinton, Gore is the incumbent president. As one of these associates said to me, "There's no point in having a Clinton strategy without a Gore strategy. "
Tim: I remember my civics lessons correctly. If the president and the vice president are removed from office...
Drew: Right.
Tim: ...next in line is the speaker of the House.
Drew: You got it. But when I asked one of these...
Taylor: Ooh, that's hot.
HAAAAAAHAha, haha, haha!!! I think ol' Liz was getting YOU hot, Stuart! We saw that look on your face! It's love! Of course, you'd have to fend off Newt Gingrich, Dan Burton and Bob "Impeach Now" Barr, all of whom must be vying for Ms. Drew's attentions!!
A little later, Tim: How serious is Newt Gingrich about this?
Drew: Apparently very. These have been ongoing conversations with serious people with whom he confides. And all I can say is, that's what he thinks.
We think Newt's now inhabiting the same section of the "Twilight Zone" as Bob Barr, Helen Chenoweth and the other crazed "Impeachmentistas" who are so removed from reality they’re a joke. Spy Magazine recently named Bob Barr "D.C. Eunuch -- America's Least Influential Politician." Obviously, Newt is eager to join him.
And we were rolling on the floor laughing so hard at Liz's Mad Hatter assertions that we completely missed the rest of the roundtable yakfest.
Tomorrow: Why This Week should be humanely put out of its misery.
-- 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