Search American Politics
FEATURE
Pundit Pap
for Sunday, July 5, 1998
Monday, June 29, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Clinton's China trip, Starr's Linda Tripp, the retraction by CNN (and Time) of their "Operation Tailwind" exposé and fires in Florida were the topics du jour this Sunday . Because of scheduling shuffles involving all of our local NBC affiliates' moving or pre-empting Meet the Press and The McLaugh-In Group for some silly tennis match in a London suburb, we covered a different mix of shows.
Fox News Sunday
FNS did a near-180-degree turn from last week's program. No, Tony Snow didn't suddenly transform into a Chomsky-quoting, pro-big-government Mondale liberal (it's sad to say), but the program covered far more territory than last week's and the tone was at least a tiny bit balanced. Mara Liasson and Brit Hume had the weekend off, so Mort Kondracke and Fred "The Weasel" Barnes filled in.
Topic one: believe it or not, Iraq! UN Ambassador Bill Richardson went one-on-one with Tony for an update on last week's missile attack on an Iraqi surface-to-air missile installation that had locked radar onto American and British jets. Richardson gave a pretty clear indication that there would be no immediate lifting of sanctions and that despite tactical differences there was unanimity in the UN Security Council in supporting UNSCOM in their continued inspections of Iraqi installations suspected of concealing programs to develop and build weapons of mass destruction.
Tony's question "Do you think Saddam Hussein is a pathological liar" was met by an emphatic "Yes" from Richardson, and the assertion that sanctions would continue as long as Saddam was in charge -- and that he might indeed make a prime candidate for trial before the international court for war crimes.
Tony moved on to an Iraqi neighbor with a provocative question: "Is Iran still the world's top exporter of terrorism?" Richardson responded with his characteristic combination of diplomatic courtesy and straightforwardness: while "we want better relations with them… we want Iran to stop exporting terrorism [and] military weapons." Richardson ruled out the possibility off an apology for the USS Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian passenger airline some ten years ago, saying that we have to move to "deal with issues of current mutual concern."
"The President in China -- Was his trip a success or a flop?" We know it was a solid success, but try telling that to Tony and the gang, especially when their guest is Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who said "No doubt the president's performance on style was excellent, on substance not so good."
He also commented on upcoming hearings into contributions tied to mainland Chinese businesspersons and "the influence of hundreds of thousands of dollars of soft money." Including money Ambrous Tong so generously gave to the GOP, we hope.
Mort asked McCain about "Kosovo turning into Bosnia" and McCain, as if on cue, replied "We have a posture, we need a strategy, I'd say a certain amount of autonomy" with a military backup strategy.
The fact that the situation in Kosovo is far more complex in some respects than that in Bosnia, and the resulting policy flexibility (as opposed to "posture") not only in the US but in the UN went undiscussed. But that should come as no surprise, since the president's critics find it so much easier to cudgel him for not letting America be policeman to the world -- even as they complain that America always seems to end up being just that! Once again, the GOP tries to have it both ways.
In response to a typically loaded question from Fred -- on the alleged "administration policy not supporting an independent Taiwan," McCain said Beijing "was the wrong place for him to discuss this policy at the behest of his Chinese hosts."
At the behest of his Chinese hosts? McCain almost sounds like the loonies in Internet chat rooms and bulletin boards who claim Clinton is an "agent" for the "Red Chinese." We lost a lot of respect for McCain for his answer.
Juan asked McCain for his thoughts on Trent Lott's letter to the president this week claiming the military was stressed out and overextended; McCain said there were "serious echoes of the '70s when we had a hollow army."
Of course there was no mention that the strategic picture has changed to a scenario unthinkable in the '70s and that the military is still retooling and adapting to a reality of faster, smaller-scale military actions.
Fred even got in a shot at McCain at the end of the segment, saying his campaign finance bill was a massive takeover, the tobacco bill a massive tax expansion -- "How are you conservative?"
McCain's response: "The Weekly Standard [for which Barnes has written since its inception] said it very cogently." We laughed at this -- McCain taking a swipe at the Standard while giving it a plug! Since it went into publication, Fred has always managed to get in a "good word" for the neo-troglo-conservative ragazine with practically every pundit appearance he has made!
The final segment, preceded by the results of a Fox Opinion Dynamics poll with a typically loaded question on the Clinton-Lewinsky "relationship," displayed on screen over the theme to "The Love Boat" -- no we are not making this up -- was introduced by Tony as "It's Law American Style!" We at APJ may not agree with Tony's politics, but their demented sense of humor is a major redeeming quality.
The guest -- Jonathan Turley, a law professor and stealth spokesperson for Ken Starr. he managed to steer Tony's question about Clinton's "more rather than less" comment into the following statement: "It's hard to see how Congress can avoid articles of impeachment." He went on to say Starr "must report to Congress… he clearly has evidence of perjury by the President."
Turley was careful to use the word "clearly" as a qualifier, supposedly to explain why Starr is doing what he is doing. One suspects it was supposed to also a shot across both the president's and Lewinsky's bow. But it's not much of a shot -- there are already questions about Tripp's tapes being leading, and evidence that the so-called "talking points" were not written by the White House but perhaps allies of Tripp. Turley would be a bit less assertive about Starr's position a bit later on This Week.
But Turley was really reaching in response to a question by Juan Williams regarding most Americans seeing this as an issue of "a consenting relationship" (that's alleged, Juan). Turley said he wouldn't be impeached for adultery but for perjury; "Perjury is a breach of the public trust… the most serious crime a President can commit. If [Clinton] perjures himself, all of his oath [of office] is in question."
Do you believe that one? We can think of plenty of more serious high crimes and misdemeanors a president can commit. But you can be sure to hear that line repeated on Rush, Liddy, North or your own local "get Clinton" talk show during the next few days. You can also be sure that Turley would never have said what he did had he been up against Jack Quinn or Lanny Davis.
Turley said in response to another question "The President is adopting a Susan McDougal defense." This line would be parroted by others on other Sunday programs. And it would backfire just as badly -- because if it's true that he's adopting a so-called Susan McDougal defense it's because he's being abused by an out-of-control CPAC-sponsored prosecutor that the Attorney General can't fire without accusations of a Saturday-Night-Style Massacre and that fellow traveler Judge David Sentelle refuses to rein in. On top of that, when you take into account that McDougal has become a sympathetic character in the eyes of many, this line looks even more foolish.
The only failing of FNS this week was a roundtable that didn't quite provide the Fourth of July fireworks we normally expect.
Face the Nation
Face the Nation
Bob Schieffer, as always, held an interesting and provocative half-hour session Sunday by hosting three Republican contenders for the presidency and a short discussion of Ken Starr's ills this past week. The first segment, titled "Three Men Who Would be President," revealed nothing newsworthy, however.
"There is no clear front runner, but no shortage of wanna-bes," said Bob Schieffer, but John Ashcroft, John Kasich and Lamar Alexander were on the show to begin to try to achieve front-runner status.
Schieffer asked John Ashcroft "Would you be comfortable being the candidate of the Christian Right?" Ashcroft stepped right in it by answering, "I'm pleased to have the support of Pat Robertson [who gave him $10,000]… We have a government that is attacking marriage with the marriage penalty… American values should be American policy."
We were surprised that Ashcroft would so quickly run to the Christian Right camp, especially since Pat Robertson has blamed various Florida weather phenomena on homosexuals. Schieffer reminded him of that.
John Kasich claimed that "you have to be yourself in this 'business.' I don't cater to anybody … I'm a man of faith… but I also concentrate on the economic side of this debate."
Lamar Alexander was concerned that "we are so politically correct that nothing is right and nobody is wrong" -- whatever that means. He says he would concentrate on parents being able to raise their children by increasing the child deduction to $8,000 and would use the current budget surplus to fund this program which would cost $12 billion annually. This, he says, would give parents more time with their children -- or more money for expensive child care, which seemed to negate his own point.
Schieffer asked how a Republican runs against this healthy economy? Ashcroft said "give the people back some of their money." Kasich says "Money can't buy you love," and that the people are hungering for "candidates of honor and responsibility" -- taking an obvious shot at Bill Clinton. "The fight will be about who has the power -- Washington or the people?"
Alexander said that Democrats have let our defenses run down and allowed the spread of nuclear weapons. Of course, he doesn't mention that the Republicans have controlled the House for quite a long time -- not the Democrats. Where were they?
Schieffer asked whether Trent Lott's remarks on homosexuality being a sin were well-advised. All three dodged the issue. Senator Ashcroft did say that he believes that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. "I don't believe they should have special rights here."
Ashcroft is digging himself an early -- and deep -- grave.
Schieffer then asks whether Al Gore should be held responsible for the Monica Lewinsky et al "scandals" of Bill Clinton. Ashcroft said, "No," but added that Gore should answer for other issues, such as environmental treaties, that he has pushed as Vice President and which have "damaged" America.
Alexander called Gore the president's "Chief cheerleader" and insinuated that Gore will have to pay for this.
None of them presented any coherent platform but all seemed eager to run for the Republican nomination.
Of the three, Kasich is clearly the man to watch. Ashcroft is already adhering to the ultra-right, and Alexander is trite and perceived as a loser. This is also the first time that we have seen Kasich openly vie for the presidential nomination.
The next segment was a quiet and well-defined discussion of the President's problems and Ken Starr's setbacks last week in the federal appeals court which dismissed all charges against Webster Hubbell, his wife and accountant.
George Terwilliger, former federal prosecutor, and Jack Quinn, former White House Counsel and (as Schieffer put it) a "Gore Man" were the guests on this issue. Both were thoughtful and respectful of each other. Schieffer asked whether Lamar Alexander was correct about Gore having to "pay the price" for defending the President. Quinn said, in essence, that this (cheerleading) is one responsibility of the vice presidency and that Gore should be congratulated on it and would not be hurt by it. He backtracked a bit, however, saying that Gore, like anyone else, will be held responsible for his actions.
On Starr's lackluster week, Terwilliger said that the bottom line is what facts Starr develops, and the judgment he exhibits based on these facts. Terwilliger, in line with every one of the President's critics, asks why Clinton does not come forward and testify. By our estimate, this is about the thousandth time we've heard this empty canard. Quinn reminded Terwilliger that the President has denied -- on the record -- the affair with Monica Lewinsky and did testify in the Paula Jones case. Quinn also said it is not fair to ask the President to testify without considering the constitutional principals involved.
Terwilliger agreed that there are definite constitutional issues regarding the testimony of the President -- any president.
Can't Ken Starr be criticized for dragging this out? asks Schieffer. Terwilliger says no one would like to have this over more quickly than Ken Starr. The new privileges raised have slowed the investigation.
Schieffer asks for predictions. Terwilliger says that Starr will send his report to Congress on Clinton before the end of this session and that some people will be indicted -- although he did not know who. Quinn thinks that the congress will be hard-pressed to impeach a President over the issue of whether some "touching" occurred in the White House.
In closing, Schieffer showed himself to be the gentleman he always is as he talked about the CNN Tailwind-sarin story and the heads that rolled over what appeared to be a false story broadcast during its premier news magazine show.
"It's always tempting to criticize a competitor… but people responsible resigned, CNN hired a legal expert to investigate itself and did not excuse its mistake. They strengthened the professional as a whole."
It is always refreshing to watch Schieffer's Face the Nation. Sam and Cokie could learn much from this man, one of the last electronic journalists who neither has to defend his reputation nor worry about public confidence in his work.
This Week
Sam Donaldson and George Will were absent; Charles Gibson, their replacement, was an unqualified improvement -- he's a sharp and balanced questioner, and the show's pace was considerably faster.
The first segment, dealing with the wildfires in Florida, spilled over into two segments, including backgrounder, correspondents, and an update from Senator Connie Mack (R-FL).
The best segment pitted former White House counsel Jane Sherbourne against (he's baaaaaaack!) Jonathan Turley. Turley may not have been as outrageous as he was on FNS, but he and Jane did generate some sparks in a decorous "debate" over l'affaire Starr.
Sherbourne came out swinging, saying the Hubbell decision confirms "Starr is an out of control prosecutor. He didn't follow the rules… that's pretty scary."
Turley then surprised us with his riposte: "If he's a runaway prosecutor, he's certainly not getting too far… I thought [the Hubbell] indictment was a mistake."
Holy cow -- Turley saying this not even two hours after claiming on FNS that Starr "clearly has evidence of perjury by the President." Talk about a polecat changing its stripe! Turley said in response to a later question that "Starr has credible evidence that the President committed crimes."
Sherbourne asked "How do we know?" All Turley could say was "Witnesses have come forward to contradict the President." Charles Gibson asked about criminal culpability in Whitewater; Turley replied "I don't think so [but] you never know until the fat lady sings." Cokie mentioned the end of Travelgate; Turley replied that Starr couldn't get Vince Foster's papers.
It was great -- Cokie and Charles taking Turley on a guided tour of Starr's "Sherman's March" of an investigation. Jane Sherbourne didn't need to say all that much during the segment. Something tells me that this never would have happened if Sam weren't taking the weekend off.
Cokie asked Sherbourne if she's tell the President to testify; she said that without knowing the facts, there was no use in rendering an opinion.
Turley said that a President not testifying was "something the drafters didn't anticipate." They surely didn't anticipate a press eager to fan any scandal into ratings points and profits, not to mention conservative pollsters and spin doctors like Frank Luntz who cook up sound bites like "a President not testifying is something the drafters didn't anticipate."
Shortly thereafter he again said that the President was adopting the Susan McDougal defense, which only prompted us to feel more sympathetic toward POTUS and McDougal.
A couple comments from the roundtable by George Stephanopoulos merit repeating: "If Starr indicts Monica it makes him look like he's out of control." The problem becomes that he has to cut an immunity deal with Monica -- who does not exactly come across as the most believable witness in the world. George also said "Starr has a remarkable record for redeeming the reputations of convicted felons." And we laughed in agreement.
Charles Gibson showed more mettle at the cross-table punditry than Cokie or William Kristol. We didn't agree with his comment "I don't think President Clinton was as strong on human rights as I though he should be" -- we thought he struck the right balance between diplomacy and frankness. When the talk turned to CNN's retracted Tailwind story, Gibson said in response to Kristol's put-down of CNN "Those two producers believed in the story" but that "if you're going after anyone, don't go after the US military -- they'll come at you with guns blazing." Gibson may not be as polished a wordsmith as George Will, but he spoke his mind as he kept the pace moving. His last comment critiquing press sensationalism -- "You have to be shriller, more sensational to stand out" -- had us cheering.
Note to ABC: please, please, PLEASE see to it that Sam meets with a "bizarre toupée accident" and get Gibson to move from New York to Washington.
CNN Reliable Sources
Imagine ABC dragging the head of their news division onto Nightline to answer unforgiving questions by, say, Ted Koppel and Joe Conason concerning Jackie Judd's reporting on a "semen-stained dress" that apparently does not exist after the network had hired, say, Floyd Abrams to investigate.
Yes, a familiar scenario. But ABC dare to do that? To quote my teenage niece, "as if!"
Well, this weekend, something pretty close actually did happen. It happened on CNN, and it was one of the finest programs on media integrity we have ever seen.
We have occasionally covered Reliable Sources -- and could not have picked a better week to look in on the show. Their topic one: CNN's retraction of their "Valley of Death" story broadcast on the debut of Cnn Newsstand. The guests: CNN US President Rick Kaplan and media attorney Floyd Abrams, who headed the investigation into the story's integrity.
Host Bernard Kalb and Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz put very tough questions to Kaplan. Some from Kalb were refreshingly blunt, especially the probing questions about the lack of professional standards applied to "Valley of Death" by the producers in developing, interviewing for, and editing the story. Kalb was clearly angered and disturbed by the serious problems with the story as it was broadcast, and Kaplan was clearly uncomfortable but very direct. Abrams received some pretty tough questioning from Kurtz, including a nearly hot exchange when Kurtz asserted that Abrams had "given a pass" to certain CNN executives.
But hats off to all parties for these candid, gloves-off exchanges which, sadly, were probably seen by only a handful of viewers, mostly media junkies.
There was a short segment at the end of the program concerning Keith Olbermann, the very talented, impressive and outspoken host of MSNBC's The Big Show (of which our American Affairs editor is a big fan). When The Big Show shifted in January from covering a variety of news stories and interviews to "All Lewinsky All the Time," Olbermann made no secret of his distaste for the story. Lately he has been making far more sardonic, sarcastic and inevitably side-splittingly funny comments on having to cover "White House in Crisis -- The Clinton-Lewinsky Investigation, Day One Hundred and Whatever."
Well, there's trouble in Big Show land. Olbermann wants out. He feels the network is overdosing on Monica, and he "…simply could not continue doing this show about the endless investigation… I had to choose what I felt in my heart was right over what I felt in my wallet was smart."
An MSNBC spokesman said "he's just being his provocative self." We say they'd be fools to lose him -- he's a gem. For now, he's still on The Big Show, so check him out while he's still there.
CNN Late Edition
Despite the misgivings (to put it very kindly) the editors have with Late Edition host Wolf Blitzer, the program is almost always worth a look. CNN expands the program to 90 minutes when circumstances warrant, and this week held more than enough circumstances.
The first half hour was entirely taken up with coverage of the wildfires in Florida, especially in Brevard County.
Wolf spoke with CNN reporters in Florida, then turned to meteorologist Orelon Sydney, who impressed us strongly with her background piece, update on the weather, and its past and predicted effect on the fire. She's no mere "weather lady," showing real journalistic bona fides in her back-and-forth with Wolf.
Wolf also spoke at length wioth Florida Governor Lawton Chiles about his personal reaction to the fires, the evacuation of Brevard County, and how collateral issues including looting are being handled. He talked about "the tremendous response from FEMA" in coordinating the firefight, evacuations and follow-up.
Ken Starr's spokesman Charles Bakaly joined Wolf to discuss topic two -- Linda Tripp's appearance before Ken Starr's DC grand jury.
Bakaly was evasive as to how much longer it would take for Starr to wrap up his investigation; Balaky was not in a position to answer a number of questions on how much longer Starr would need to wrap up his investigation. You think Wolf would be clear on this issue instead of pressing the point three times.
On the issue of whether Starr would report to Congress, Bakaly pointed out that "the statute provides that the Independent Counsel shall report to the House on impeachable offenses" -- corroborating the Starr spin team's other hints this weekend that Starr may well try to issue report at some time before elections against the objections of even the GOP.
Wolf asked Bakaly where negotiations between Lewinsky's attorneys and Starr stand; Bakaly said he could not comment but reiterated that an assurance of complete and truthful information as part of an immunity deal was a necessity -- clearly implying that if she does not reach a deal, Starr will paint her as a liar regardless of the truth.
On a report in the Sunday Washington Post that the President will refuse to testify, Wolf asked Bakaly if President Clinton can be subpoenaed; Bakaly stated that "legal thinking says you can" but" whether or not has not been determined." He went on to say that-- a stated pos not to testify is similar to what Susan McDougal did (the third time this comparison came up, and this time from Starr's mouthpiece - this is coordinated spin).
We've called Bakaly hapless in past columns, both for his look (he was a bit less disheveled on Late Edition than in past pundit appearances) and for his comments. And he lived up to his reputation today when he said that "We have not done a public relations effort -- if people could see Judge Starr in his element they'd see his command of the law."
Hold it right there, Charlie: what do you mean "no public relations?" You ARE the public relations effort! And no, we haven't seen EX-judge Starr in his element, getting his request for an "emergency" ruling and attempt at destruction of post-mortem attorney-client privilege laughed out of the Supreme Court, or being bitch-slapped in a ruling that clearly showed that Starr had both overstepped his mandate and abused Webster Hubbell's fifth amendment rights -- but we would have loved to have seen the look on his face on all three occasions.
Late Edition sometimes takes questions from phone callers, and Wolf and Bakaly fielded a few.
One caller asked how many US tax dollars had been spent and how many more would be "to find out if Clinton had an affair?" Bakaly weaseled out of addressing the dollars issue, slipping into wonkspeak to justify Starr's "mandate."
By Starr's own actions one can only conclude this "mandate" comes from conservative judicial activist David Sentelle, his American Spectator buddy Ted Olson, and his ex-patron Richard Scaife.
The following segment continued on the "Investigating the President" issue pitted former independent counsel Michael Zeldin against former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh.
Zeldin made two noteworthy observations: the dismissal of the Hubbell indictments might jeopardize Starr's investigation into Monica Lewinsky because Starr did not have a proper mandate in the Hubbell investigation, and there are legal issues with the Tripp tapings made prior to her getting permission. The other was Zeldin's recounting of being swatted down himself when it was determined he exceeded his mandate!
Wolf's roundtable segment is generally the least inspired of all the Sunday shows -- what do you expect when Steve Roberts and Tony "Jabba the Hutt" Blankley are regulars? But when talk turned to China, Susan Page did get a chuckle from us as she reminded us that Ronald Reagan himself, upon return from his trip to China, referred to the their leadership as "the so-called Communists."
And that's the way it was on a pap-enhanced Fourth of July weekend.
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot | Searchfor |
