Search American Politics
FEATURE
Pundit Pap
for Sunday May 31st 1998
NEW YORK -- Monday, June 1, 1998 -- Nuclear proliferation, one-upmanship and on-the-brinksmanship in South Asia, easily the top news and political story of last week, received plenty of play this Sunday. The major shows also saw fit to give nearly equal coverage to Ken Starr's latest moves in his "investigation" of President Clinton. The so-called "independent" counsel's recently appointed "spokesman" Charles Bakaly made his first round of the Sunday pol-chat shows yesterday, and generated a few headlines in the process.
Fox News Sunday
Tony Snow and the FNS gang led the program with Bakaly as their first guest. The segment was the most important of the entire weekend of pap and a prime opportunity for the "Get Clinton" crowd to put their spin out.
Despite his upscale wardrobe, Bakaly comes across as crusty and disheveled -- the crooked glasses, bad hair and ghastly choice of tie distracted from the calculated low-key delivery and made each reply, delivered in requisite legalese, just plain irritating.
Ken Starr could not have found a better spokesperson -- to make one question his decision-making ability!
Bakaly let one fact "slip" early on in his appearance -- that Starr intends to issue a report of some kind in the near future, but "we may not have the whole story this summer, we possibly won't... we can't and won't commit to a time... " in that a determination as to whether testimony of Secret Service officials can be obtained has yet to be made.
Tony asked if Starr intends to subpoena Clinton. Bakaly entertained the possibility ended this part of his spiel with the words "The American people are entitled to all the information."
What he means is that Starr will go to any extreme to keep the investigation going for as long as possible in an effort to dig more dirt. We also think he wants every half-baked rumor, innuendo and untruth leaked to the press to "try" Clinton in the press.
Brit Hume jumped on the opportunity, as if on cue, to ask "So you believe it is possible that the President can be subpoenaed... can he be indicted?"
Bakaly said that it has yet to be determined whether the President could be indicted, but the message was quite clear -- after eleven court victories on a few significant but mostly minor points of law and privilege against Clinton, he is going to attempt to subpoena Clinton, a move which can only be interpreted as another cheap-shot tactic to make the President appear guilty of something, anything.
We predict it will backfire and just jack up Clinton's approval ratings even more. And should the subpoena be shot down, you can count on pressure to build for Starr to either end his investigation -- or possibly for Starr to be forced to step down.
Tony asked if it would be safe to assume that "a President" was a target if he was "invited" to testify, and despite the fact that Bakaly gave a glib "Not necessarily" it's clear that Tony and the boys want to get a presumptive "yes" out there.
Brit surprised us and asked about questions arising from allegations that David Hale may have been a beneficiary of anti-Clinton billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and a possible conflict of interest in Starr looking into this matter; rather than addressing the subject, Bakaly brought up the tired and flawed accusation that Eric Holder and the Justice Department have a conflict of interest.
Tony, Brit and Bakaly briefly on "Judge Starr [receiving] extra security measures" for Ken Starr; Tony said "I don't want you to give away how it's happening."
A shame that Tony and the president's enemies do not want to afford Clinton the same privilege.
Bakaly, in response to a question hissed by Brit that Starr "issss ssssex obssssesssed," brought up the standard spin line from the IC office yet again: "This is not about sex, this is about perjury, subornation of perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice."
This put half of the viewers to sleep and reminded the other half that Starr should be investigated for perjury, subornation of perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice with regard to his dealings with David Hale and Susan McDougal.
Bakaly ended by asking point-blank if Ken Starr asked Susan Mcdougal to lie. Bakaly gave a simple, dismissive "No."
All the more reason to appoint an IC to look into Starr, we say.
Bill Richardson, the guest for the second segment, announced that "through the Secretary of State's very, very effective efforts" the five permanent members of the UN Security Council would meet later this week to work on defusing nuclear proliferation in India and Pakistan. There were some weird questions from Tony, including "There is some question as to whether [the Pakistani tests] were really nuclear blasts" -- Richardson assured that they were -- and whether "sanctions [should also be imposed] on Russia and China" because of technology exports.
The undercurrent of the segment: Tony's questions were slanted to oversimplify the situation as a failure of US influence, power and intelligence. The fact: no amount of influence and power can stop religio-nationalist states from misbehaving, and no intelligence agency is perfect. Anyone here remember Iran? The crumbling of the Warsaw Pact, then the Soviet Union?
Pat Moynihan is a FNS favorite, and an outspoken, somewhat unpredictable "wild card" liberal. He's also the former ambassador to India. The first question, from Mort Kondracke ("subbing" for Juan Williams), spun a favored conservative spin point into reverse: Should Clinton cancel his Asia trip "or should he accelerate diplomacy?"
Moynihan's answer: "If he is going to go to China, he has to go to India… We're closer to nuclear war than we have been any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis… [and] not necessarily between India and Pakistan... This weapon is going to make its way into the Middle East, and you'll have the Islamic Bomb." He felt extraordinary measures must be taken immediately: "Put the Cold War standard stabilizing techniques: in place immediately.
On the US giving Pakistan or India a security guarantee: "They don't necessarily care -- what good is a security guarantee if you've just been blown up?"
Moynihan also warned that "sanctions don't work in this area… you think we're going to 'deny' them Mercedes-Benzes or something?"
And these were just the key points Moynihan and the FNS gang brought up. There is much to worry about in this region, and it only makes us wonder why FNS is so interested in playing politics with allegations against Clinton when there are more important issues.
The final guest was Dan Quayle, ostensibly paying "tribute" to Barry Goldwater with a personal reminiscence. It was the equivalent of getting Kellyanne Fitzpatrick to pay tribute to Lee Atwater, if you catch our drift. Of course, Tony couldn't resist giving the Potatoe Man an opening to bash Clinton.
Memorable moments from the roundtable: Brit Hume conceding "The trip [Clinton plans to China] might end up being a very good thing." WOW! If Moynihan hadn't already jolted you awake, this comment by Hume must have made your eyes pop!
And Mara Liasson dissed the week's Fox Opinion Dynamics Poll's typically anti-Clinton question big time: "When you phrase the question that way, it's no wonder you get the results that you did!"
You go, girl!
The McLaughlin Group
"Issue One: Jumping Into the Nuclear Fire" -- McLaughlin used nuclear proliferation between India and Pakistan to bring up broader regional issues, including China's contribution to nuclear proliferation, and showed the situation to be far more complicated than a mere India-Pakistan showdown, something that the print and broadcast news outlets have not addressed thoroughly enough.
The first question was how to handle China. Pat predictably said we should cut them off; Eleanor Clift acknowledged that they are approaching superpower status, then turned to Pakistan and sanctions: "[Pakistanis] were exchanging chocolates, they're gonna have bread lines next because the sanctions will really hurt.
Right-wing columnist Linda Chavez said "Friends do not aim nuclear-tipped missiles at us."
Where's the PROOF of this, Linda?
He also used it as a cover to discuss whether the President should go forward with his China trip. Predictably, isolationist Pat Buchanan and shrill Clinton critic Linda Chavez said "No." John and Eleanor Clift gave it a "Yes." Michael Barone, usually a strident Clinton critic, didn't quite say no but did put an interesting partisan spin on the question: "He's got two bad alternatives, go or not go. Either one of them is a loser, he should have done this back in October."
"Issue Two: Washington Weather -- Raining Money, Flooding Expected" John reviewed many of the issues surrounding the projected rising budget surplus: setting it aside until Social Security is secure, cutting taxes (but little mention of paying down the debt).
McLaughlin mentioned that Clinton managed to keep Lewinsky news below the fold by making the budget surplus an issue this week: "He showed some ankle!" This was Eleanor's week for great lines: "How DARE [Clinton] divert from the Monica Lewinsky scandal by turning to policy!"
Funny, you couldn't tell that from the other Sunday programs!
McLaughlin and the gang did a lot of hypothesizing about what Ken Starr and Bill Clinton would do in the wake of their Supreme Court showdown; Michael Barone's comment that he thought Starr would indict Lewinsky nearly set off a panel free-for-all, with John's "REEEEALLY?" drowning out the rest of the group -- letting even the not-so-sharp-eared know whose microphone is set to drown out the rest!
There was a short segment on an ignored and important story -- the economic boom in Ireland and its tie-in as an underlying catalyst for diplomatic initiatives to bring peace to Northern Ireland. This story has only been hinted at in the business section of a few major papers.
A second short-take issue: "Roto-Rudy," New York Mayor Giuliani's sweeping away of "squeegee men" and crackdowns on cab drivers, jaywalkers, littering and street vendors. Can Rudy make New York civil? McLaughlin quoted a New York Times editorial which made light of Rudy's battle to "civilize" New York: "New York has touted 'rude' the way California touts 'mellow.' "
Can Rudy civilize New York? Pat: "Rudy certainly ain't gonna do it... I'm on Rudy's side." Linda: "I was in New York the day of the cab strike; it was the best day in the city's history" because you could get around unimpeded. Michael: "The New York Times gets the stuffed shirt award." STUFFED SHIRT??? Fuhgeddaboudit!
Prediction to watch: John says the Supreme Court will strike down the Line Item Veto by the end of the year.
This Week
This Week opened with the "big spin" the press is putting on the Starr investigation as Sam Donaldson said "momentum" had shifted from the President to Starr. He had to get this in as a teaser for the appearance of Charles Bakaly, who didn't show until the second half of the program -- we suspect they wanted to lead with him but there may have been trouble getting from Fox News to ABC.
Instead, the first guest was Pakistan's ambassador to the UN, Riaz Khokar. In reply to almost every question, he sought to make Pakistan look like the victim of Indian hostility, but one now speaking from a position of strength. When Sam asked him to "explain" Pakistan's claim of 5 tests and then one more early in the day, Khokar said "The series of tests is over… we didn't start it, we didn't want it.… We got the results we wanted... we want deeds, not words [from India]."
George Will asked about the possibility of a US guarantee of security in exchange for Pakistani non-proliferation; Khokar replied that he did not see how Congress would have approved it.
It's interesting to us that Khokar joins a chorus of other ambassadors from around the world who have criticized Congress for being an obstacle to better relations and, therefore, greater US influence abroad. It strikes us as odd that Congress bashes the White House for ineffective foreign policy when they have done more than their share to undermine American prestige and influence.
Our prediction -- the White House will go on the attack, pointing out Congressional undermining of American power. The ammo is out there!
Commendably, This Week was the first program to address the largest and longest-running bone of contention between India and Pakistan -- the dispute over Kashmir. Pakistan supports independence, India opposes the same. Surprisingly, neither Sam nor George Will directly pursued the broader implications of this issue -- American and European opposition to an independent Kashmir due to concerns, now escalating even more rapidly, over Islamic nationalism in Western Asia.
Three comments from the end of the Khokar segment are worth noting:
"We have missiles -- we have tested missiles -- but what I want to emphasize here is no actual weaponization has taken place." Emphasis on has. The big question -- will it take place?
On sanctions: "Let me put it this way -- we thought over this thing very carefully. We were expecting this range of sanctions. We're not mad, but believe me, we genuinely felt very threatened because [we've] had three wars India and, in the process -- in 1971 -- we were dismembered. And we could not possibly ignore not only that India tested the devices but they held very serious threats to Pakistan from the date they tested these things [on] the 20th of May."
On signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: "We would welcome any nondiscriminatory measures that the international community would want to..."
Cokie: "Including signing the Test Ban Treaty?"
Khokar: "Of course we would consider these things. We would consider these proposals and we're at the moment engaged in reviewing our options."
Sounds to us like no guarantee they'd sign without concessions.
Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and John Kerry (D-MA) were guests for the next segment. No, the segment wasn't a slam-bang pin-'em-to-the-mat debate, but Sam, Cokie and George Will emulated Fox News Sunday for once, speeding up the pace and covering a lot of ground within the subject of the India and Pakistan nuclear tests. McCain and Kerry disagreed on sanctions (McCain supporting) but agreed that the US should lead and consolidate action to make both India and Pakistan stand down:
McCain: "The first thing is to make sure that all of our friends and allies join in the sanctions. The sanctions had to be imposed. The president shouldn't have let the G-8 conference without that agreement on the part of Europe, Russia and China. The Europeans are world power and they have an obligation to exercise international responsibilities, rather than be dictated by commercial interests."
Kerry: "We have to exert leadership. I think that this has served as a major wakeup call to some of our allies. I think the permanent five of the United Nations have to be deeply concerned about it. And I think China, France, Russia, Great Britain can come together. I'm not sure that the first move is to impose the sanctions. I think the first move is to invite them in the most forceful way possible with the immediate possibility of sanctions hanging there to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to join in the Non-Proliferation Treaty efforts, to absolutely guarantee they will not weaponize."
There was surprising agreement to Cokie's question "This whole question of legal imposition of the sanctions is getting us into some trouble here, that it takes away administration -- any administration's flexibility... Has there been too much congressional interference here?" Both Kerry and McCain said yes -- to a certain extent. McCain even said that resolving this situation "has to be of the highest priority -- far more serious than Miss Lewinsky, or far more serious than a lot of other issues that seem so absorb a lot of our time and attention."
George Will sounded simply loopy when he asked, with regard to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "What in the world does that treaty have to do with anything?"
Kerry: "It has everything to do with it. If in fact they had been members, we would have been able to have the intrusive verification capacity -- challenge inspections, seismic capacities -- beyond what we have today."
The big disappointment were the two (!) segments spent with Starr spokesman Charles Bakaly. Both segments failed to yield any revelations as Sam, Cokey and George mostly recycled the same lines of inquiry Tony Snow and Brit Hume pursued on Fox News Sunday, but in twice the time. Bakaly used some of the same lines he used on FNS: "The American people are entitled to the facts. The grand jury is entitled to the facts. That is our job to get the facts, and we are going to do everything we can to get the facts."
Gee -- I thought their job was to get the facts and leak only damaging, out-of-context stuff or outright lies (like the semen-stained dress). Thanks for the clarification!
Later, Sam: "Can you subpoena a sitting president?"
Bakaly: "There is no law that says -- legally -- there's no legal authority saying you cannot subpoena a sitting president."
"No legal authority"... sounds like something Al Gore might say!
Will got in his licks, droning another favorite spin point of the Clinton-bashers: "Since the president said more rather than less, sooner rather than later, he said nothing essentially on this."
Truth be told, taking into account the lugubrious speed with which Starr and his witch-hunters are working, it's not much later.
Another chunk'o'pap from Bakaly: "I've heard it said by some that that perhaps is the strategy that the president may want to do is try to delay our fact gathering process, not provide his information, and let it go to the Hill."
Sounds more like Starr's strategy -- drag out an investigation into a failed Arkansas land deal for years, try in vain to tie it to the President's personal life, drag a civil suit into the mix, and create a mess it will take years to resolve. If the President is dragging it out, he learned how to from Ken Starr himself.
Bakaly: "We do not have an unlimited amount of time. We are aware that the American people are sensitive to the time that these things take."
Our "spinterpretation": We shouldn't have dragged it out this long. We are aware the American public won't buy a politically motivated witch-hunt, so we'll have to punt and send something -- ANYTHING -- to Congress to "get Clinton," but we're going to have to hurry!
If Starr was hoping to gain some ground from Bakaly's appearances, it backfired big time. When he wasn't boring, he was plainly spinning the same tired lines.
What a waste. Fifteen minutes of Bakaly and a half hour of the India-Pakistan situation would've made sense -- but what do you expect from This Week, quality?
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