Or was it just a slow news week for the story?

Or maybe there's a third factor -- now that the story is turning into "Tripp-gate" -- between Linda "Best Friend from Hell" Tripp being under investigation in Maryland and the origin and provenance of the so-called "talking points" now being seriously questioned -- maybe the press doesn't want to play up the story as strongly now that they realize they may have gotten it completely wrong!

Yes, it was still a significant topic, but didn't get played up much beyond the appearance of Linda Tripp's lawyers on various sunday political chatfests.

Whihc meant that other important issues that usually get swept under the rug -- the President's domestic agenda, IRS reform, HMO reform and even "Y2K" -- got the sort of coverage they should have been getting all along.

Fox News Sunday

With Tony Snow on vacation, the usually dour Brit Hume filled in as host. Surprise -- he was far less huffy and grumpy and far more animated than he is wont to be as a panelist-commentator. In addition, we observed him almost cracking a smile on a couple of occasions. Filling out the foursome with Mara Liasson and Juan Williams was one of our least favorite conservative pundits, Fred "The Weasel" Barnes.

Topic one -- The President goes on the offensive. The guest -- Paul Begala. The subject of questions went all over the political map, starting with Begala's reaction to Trent Lott's ridiculous assertion that "Clinton has chosen to become a bystander." Begala retorted that Lott took the fight from the war on drugs to politics, putting partisanship ahead of issues and killing bills which would lead to a tobacco settlement and strengthen the fight against drunk driving.

Begala did surprise us with his comments on the initiative to reform the IRS: "I'm not going to say they're a do-nothing Congress because they're not." What is clear is that Begala and other White House spokespeople are taking their political and policy battles to the individual powers-that-be in Congress -- especially Trent Lott -- to consolidate their base of Democrat support while garnering support from moderate Republicans.

When talk turned to health issues and the fight to rein in the abuses of managed care, Begala once again set his sights on Lott, focusing in on his "get off your butts, get off your wallets" comment, saying that lott was more interested in support from special interests, i.e. the insurance and HMO industries, than decent health care for Americans.

Barnes (predictably) turned the topic of conversation to Monica Lewinsky. In his appearances on other poli-talk programming, Barnes seems to be embarrassingly obsessed with playing up this story. He asked Begala if the President would "answer the questions" about Monica Lewinsky. He and all the other the other Clinton-bashing pundits keep asking this same question knowing full well what the answer from Begala and other White House spokespeople will say, but Begala put a humorous spin on it this time around: he said that David Kendall is the person to ask regarding the Lewinsky issue and that "he gets paid by the hour so I'm sure he'll have something to say."

We laughed -- not only at Begala's tart answer but at Barnes for showing himself once again a fool for scandal and a waster of pundit bandwidth. Begala went on to describe the continued flogging of the Lewinsky controversy as an attempt "to derail and distract him from his job."

But we really think Begala and his White House compatriots should more pointedly call the press on their gambit of taking Clinton's "more rather than less" comment consistently out of context in such a biased manner when he said Clinton has answered the allegations; if you look at the entire quote, you would realize that he said there would be no comment from him until the legal matters are settled and that his separate and emphatic denial of a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky stands. Period.

Barnes obviously didn't get the message -- he then asked "Will the scandal be an issue" come election time?

You bet it will, Weasel-boy -- when the GOP loses their majority in the House. Begala responded with what is emerging as a key Democratic hot-button sound bite: "[The GOP] want to investigate rather than legislate." This will of course become a key Democrat theme in the fall, and the handful so far of GOP replies to this assertion have done little to undercut the essential power of this White House argument.

The second segment featured Joe Murtha, one of the attorneys for Linda Tripp. There were few revelations -- Murtha did not answer or comment on many of the panel's questions citing attorney-client privilege and his client's now finding herself the target of a criminal investigation in Maryland. He repeated his assertion of earlier in the week that the Maryland investigation was politically motivated.

Of course, this being the Fox network, there was neither mention of the fact that the Maryland Attorney General, a Democrat, passed the investigation over to Maryland State Prosecutor Stephen Montanarelli to avoid the appearance of a partisan investigation, nor of her concern that letters from the Democrat members of the Maryland State Assembly made the situation appear all the more partisan.

But there was an interesting and cryptic exchange when the issue of who wrote the talking points; Murtha said "I'm not familiar with whether Lucianne Goldberg wrote the 'talking points'… I believe Kenneth Starr is investigating this." He also claimed "an aggressive and almost desperate attempt on [Monica Lewinsky's] behalf to have Linda not tell the truth."

But given the clear evidence that the 'points' appear to be penned by enemies of Clinton, we suspect this is one investigation Ken Starr wishes he didn't have to take on.

The best moments on FNS this week came in the "showdown" between former White House counsel Judge Abner Mikva and law professor Jonathan Turley (who seems to be the favored stealth Starr spokesman du jour). Part of the fun derive from the fact that Turley had actually worked for Mikva in Chicago.

Turley has start to make a huge point of his being a Democrat. In other venues he has claimed voting for Jerry Brown in 1996. He probably assumes all of this will add to his credibility as an "independent thinker," but his words and point of view will only end up being "used" by right-wingers: "Listen, the guy's a Democrat, and he feels there's wrongdoing, so there must be something to it." Specious logic at best -- especially given that despite his party affiliation the more important issue is Turley's history of siding with extreme judicial activists such as David Sentelle, Dick Thornburgh, Ed Meese, Tony Scalia -- and Ken Starr.

Mikva pointed out that the target of an investigation is generally not called before a grand jury; Turley argued that the President would not be indicted, but that Starr probably wants to gather evidence of perjury for an impeachment report.

Mikva put Turley on the spot, asking "What is the perjury?"

Turley: "The alleged perjury is that he committed perjury in the deposition in the Paula Jones case."

Mikva: "Of a civil case that has been dismissed about an irrelevant question."

Turley: "You know, Judge, we don't normally inquire as to the context or reason why the President is a perjurer. If the President's a perjurer he can no longer stay in office."

Mikva: "Mr. Turley, can I ask you a question? Let's pretend you believe in the Socratic method -- I understand you don't. Can I ask you a question? Do you know of any prosecutor anywhere who goes after perjury in civil cases as part of his criminal investigative process?"

Turley: "I know of perjury cases --"

Mikva [laughing]: "Why won't you answer that question?" Mikva was obviously relishing making Turley's arguments sound like the stretch they are.

Turley persisted in arguing that the President must be removed if he perjured himself -- without addressing Mikva's points.

And neither Mikva nor Turley addressed perhaps the most serious accusation against Starr in his perpetual investigation of Clinton -- that he and his cronies looking to have set a clear-cut perjury trap for Clinton.

It took a while before the topic turned to the actual issue the segment was supposed to have been about: an appeals court ruling that Secret Service agents do not have a protective privilege. Turley agreed with the ruling (as anyone who has been following his appearances on Pundit TV could have predicted). Turley concluded a tirade painting the Secret Service as a "cadre of individuals" who would be "above the law" were a determination of privilege to happen in appeal with the words "I'm astonished at how cavalier you are about this."

Mikva replied "I'm only astonished at how often I read your name in the newspapers about this. I thought you used to do environmental law!" Touché!

Come to think of it -- how does Turley get so many appearances and so much coverage?

The roundtable touched on a number of topics, but the first -- the continuing fallout over CNN's retraction of the Tailwind sarin story -- generated the most interesting banter and the strangest bedfellows I've seen on FNS. Fred and Mara went on the attack. Mara was without mercy in saying "[CNN correspondent Peter] Arnett chose between venality and incompetence." Ouch. Brit and Juan were heard defending CNN to a certain extent; Juan cited the "grudge conservatives have against Peter Arnett" from his 'Nam days in their criticism of him and CNN.

In continues to amaze us that despite the clear right-wing bias of Fox News, FNS remains the most provocative Sunday morning political chat show -- and even with Tony on vacation!

The McLaughlin Group

John McLaughlin opened yesterday's "Group" with an unusual topic -- the "Y2K" or 2001 computer problem that is plaguing US business and government.

Dire prediction? - That on January 1st, 2000 all the computers in the world will crash. Two schools of thought seem to exist here: the first, that the US is far ahead of other nations in solving this problem which will tell computers that 2000 is really 1900; the second, that although we are ahead in the solution, we are quickly falling behind and the result will be mayhem in just about a year a half.

McLaughlin asked, " Is there hope, or is this a time bomb?" His
panelists, including Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page felt that the encoding and chip problems would be solved, but ex-Gingrich aide Tony Blankley warned that this is a real problem and that it may be impossible to get things straight by New Years Eve 1999. Blankley and McLaughlin himself also pointed out the connectivity problem between nations will be the real stress test. "What about Burma, Japan…" -- what if they cannot repair their potential damage? The interesting thing about this topic was that no one on the panel could be considered a computer expert, but all voiced opinions on what is a highly technical problem.

The problem is now politicized because the Republicans can't wait to hang the anguish of "Y2K" on Al Gore -- "Mr. PC" at the White House. A lot of talk about people withdrawing their money from banks and liquidating their stock portfolios before January 1, 2000 ensued. McLaughlin even suggested that people do this! All agreed the problem might be annoying at best at the turn of the century and could even cause a "global slow down." But Blankley -- who may know more than the others -- offered a scenario "close to a depression." Call Tony for his recommendations on your assets!

Our solution? Roll the calendar back to 1900. The PC didn't exist!

McLaughlin went on to a second, and also very interesting and unique topic. "Sanction Mania." He pointed out that the United States now has economic sanctions in place against more than 40 nations -- two-thirds of the world's land mass! He offered that the US was suffering from "compulsive" sanctioning, brought about by Congress's need to make foreign policy. Page said Congress should ease off this activity and let the President address sanctions "nation by nation." Blankley, unsurprisingly, blamed the Administration's poor foreign policy efforts and offered that Congress was engaged in economic blackmail "out of frustration." Eleanor Clift, like the true Democratic Mama she is, mewed "….rewards are better." Pat Buchanan compared Congressionally imposed economic sanctions with a "Christmas Tree." Most felt them counterproductive and nearly all thought such sanctions should be removed from Cuba -- a surprise to us!

The third McLaughlin topic was a simple puff piece for the GOP claiming that they have seized the only issue in government today -- patients' rights against managed care -- from the Democrats by offering up the "Patients' Bill of Rights."

Have the Republicans out-strategized the Democrats? Everyone but McLaughlin thought not.

Predictions were a yawn yesterday with the panel agreeing with each other -- more or less -- that Democrats have little chance of taking control of the House and possibly losing one of two Senate seats.

Kudos to McLaughlin for two interesting topics not discussed on the big pundit shows.

Meet The Press

Tim Russert, eager as always to continue slapping the White House, began with an interview of one of Linda Tripp's attorneys -- Anthony Zaccagnini, who began by answering most of Russert's questions with " I cannot comment on that." Russert's first questions, of course, concerned the tapes Tripp made of Monica Lewinsky with neither her knowledge nor consent.

But Russert was fairer yesterday than we'd seen him in a long while.

He asked tough questions of Zaccagnini:

(1) "If she was so concerned why did she talk to Newsweek?"
(2) "Wasn't her motive to write a book?"
(3) "Why was she using the pseudonym 'Joan Dean?' "

But "Zac" then went into the Twilight Zone -- claiming that Linda didn't "seek" the information she got from Monica, but inadequately answering Russert's followup -- "Why didn't she just stop taping?"

Good question.

Zaccagnini launched into a tear-rending account of Linda's c"ommitment to the presidency" and stated that she began taping only because Monica had all but ordered her to lie about what she knew.

Yes, a fine American.

Of course, Tripp knew only that which Lewinsky told her -- hearsay at best! Zaccagninni claimed that Tripp went to Ken Starr because she knew she had evidence of criminal activity.

Russert then attacked again: "The Independent Counsel wires Tripp -- and then she goes and sits down with Paula Jones' lawyers?" Again the lawyer offered that Tripp did not want to be subpoenaed and so went to them to avoid it. "She did not want to be deposed by Bob Bennett," Zaccagnini said.

We ask -- why not? Something Russert did not ask.

Russert did a good job of presenting a more realistic picture rather than the Norman Rockwell altruism Tripp's lawyer tried hard to paint.

On the Maryland prosecutors look at the illegal taping by Tripp, Zaccagninni said only, " Well, the timing is purely political." One interesting item we had not heard before was that Tripp's people had asked the Maryland prosecutor to examine the tapes for possible perjury by Lewinsky, and that they had heard this request has been refused.

Well, of course. That is not the subject of the Maryland state prosecutor's efforts before his own grand jury.

Russert then pitted Senator Orrin Hatch against House Democrat Barney Frank in a discussion that was supposed to center on the recent denial of immunity from testimony for the Secret Service but largely focused on Ken Starr and the continuing saga of Monica Lewinsky. There was little banter with Hatch being 'always the gentleman' and Frank succeeding in controlling a sometimes abrupt temper. Hatch took the position that neither the Secret Service nor the Attorney General should take an appeal on the judges ruling ordering the Secret Service to talk to Starr's grand jury. He felt that some remedy was needed, however, but that such remediation was indeed a subject for the legislature, not the courts. Hatch went as far as stating the obvious when he opined that the Secret Service have a duty to report crime and what's more, to intervene if witnessing such. Of course, this is not the issue, but rather whether a President can trust the men who are there to protect him and not instead, keep what could be a very dangerous distance from them for fear the Secret Service would be called to testify about this or that "private moment" -- especially for purely political reasons based in vendetta.

Frank made one memorable comment about Starr: "He has become Captain Ahab trying to catch the White Whale," the implication being that Starr will end lashed to that Whale as it submerges dragging Ken Starr with it in the end.

Hatch did stick to his "perjury is a serious crime" shtick and seemed to think that Starr had a duty to indict Monica Lewinsky and name the President as an unindicted co-conspirator in order to gain Clinton's testimony.

Russert tried to embarrass Frank by quoting an interview he did where he said Clinton was history, "literally and figuratively." But Frank defended his comments saying they alluded to his position vis a vis his myriad legal problems. Hatch retrenched, saying that he hoped Starr had nothing on the President and that Bill Clinton "…has the capacity to be a leader." This, as he continued to skewer him over "girl-talk" between Linda Tripp and Monica L.

Rep. Frank wants Starr to report his lack of evidence on Whitewater, Filegate and Travelgate as soon as possible. However, such will not be the case. The last thing the GOP wants or needs is for their chief accuser to wipe two-thirds of the Clinton slate clean and then remain caught up only in the Lewinsky matter for several months longer. America will tire of that quickly.

Frank, in an aside, pointed out that when Starr made his report on the Vince Foster suicide, clearing the President, the GOP handed him his head and that he "just got yelled at" by Republican leaders who were hoping for more dirt -- the clear implication again being that Starr was not eager to come in with a set of additional reports exonerating the President.

One of our readers emailed us about this very segment -- we laughed so hard in agreement we had to include it:

> I almost choked on my Ovaltine when
> Orrin Hatch used the phrase "split
> the baby" whilst fumble-mumbling
> through the discussion of Secret
> Service immunity with ol' Barney.
> I was prepared to gut my way through
> another recitation of the Partial-
> Birth-Abortion-Litany-of-Horror that
> so many have come to know and love
> and can chant in unison with Rush,
> like vouchered Republican first
> graders reciting the Pledge Of
> Allegiance as they gaze fondly at
> a picture of Newtie with his arm
> around Mother Shaft-ley.
>
> I have a clearer understanding now
> as to why Republican conswervatives
> have such difficulty with the sexual
> propensities of homosexuals after
> this morning's logic-reaming that
> ol' Barney gave Orrin and Tim.
>
> I wish I'd taped the show so's I
> could send copies to Mr. Gary "Prissy
> Pinchmouth" Bauer and his buddies
> Falwell and Robertson.

Russert then moved to his panel which we were pleased to see included one of our unsung heroes -- Jack Germond of the Baltimore Sun. A double treat was the wise-with-age Mary McGrory, who always has something quotable to say. She did not disappoint. As the panel droned on about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, McGrory offered - "We're supposed to talk about news," and on Trent Lott she offered, "Oh, Lott… children are dying in school yards and he wants to pass a flag-burning bill. What about gun control?"

Bob Novak, a welcome addition to any panel this past few months, laughingly answered "I hope not!" to Russerts opening lament to the panel: "Is this ever going to end?" But in all, the panel was poor, trying to focus on several stories of late where women journalists are examining Bill Clinton's "power" with women. Yet another boring gender gap re-hash ensued.

The only interesting remark -- other than for humor -- came from Germond who quite eloquently and truthfully stated that the only man who has to worry about Starr and the congressional timetable surrounding his "report" is Al Gore. Gwen Ifill, also on the panel, agreed -- and sadly, so do we, at least for now. The GOP, she explained, is in great shape to keep the House and Senate and field a strong candidate against Al Gore.

The obvious play for Republicans is to hold off a Starr report until later in 1998, after the November elections -- or even early in 1999 when the presidential race in more well developed. It will increasingly fall to Gore to defend his President, and in doing so perhaps sink himself in electorate esteem. Whatever the case, save for managed care and other health care repair, no major issues seem to loom for November. The GOP knows this and knows the power of incumbency in good times is on their side. So, like some pundits alluded to, don't expect much from Ken Starr until after November 3rd.

Then you can expect all hell to break loose!

It will be an interesting Holiday Season.

This Week

The two Georges, Will and Stephanopoulos, were nowhere to be seen this week on This Week -- and that was only the first good thing about the program! The first three segments of the show had Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts asking some of the best and fairest lines of questioning we have heard from them in a long time.

It only goes to show you -- get the pundit press's noses out of the Ken Starr bedsheets and they begin to act a little like journalists!

Topic one -- HMO reform! Sam and Cokie welcomed Donna Shalala as their first guest, with the primary focus on HMOs and legislative remedies for the shortcomings -- to put it mildly -- of so-called "managed care."

Shalala, an outspoken advocate of reform, touched on a number of topics which she and the Clinton Administration are pushing for -- the right to sue your HMO, easier access to specialists and specialized tests and therapeutic procedures, and proven remedies still labeled "experimental," many due to high cost.

Shalala's most memorable sound bite (which she would repeat almost verbatim on CNN Late Edition): "Why are the Republicans so reluctant to give [better health care access] to every other American, something that's present in the Medicare plan?"

Cokie asked a question of concern to people with difficult-to-cure chronic conditions and diseases: "There are reports now that their critics are saying that it’s approving drugs too quickly. A few years ago all the reports were that it was taking too long to approve drugs -- has the pendulum swung too far?

Shalala's reply: "It has not --we still hold every drug company to very high scientific standards. That’s the point --we have streamlined the process. We have gotten good reform legislation working with Republicans, an example of good bipartisan legislation -- industry, Republicans, Democrats working together. We have not lowered our scientific standards."

The second segment continued the debate over health in America, with Senators Bill Frist (R-TN) and Bob Kerrey (D-NE). Frist discussed the Republican "alternative" to what he labelled the "Kennedy bill of rights" -- his code word for "more big libb'rul guv'mint." He touted the four "points" of the Republican bill -- "rights… choice… quality … and research" -- with vague descriptions.

Kerrey immediately went on the offensive: "Republicans now see this as a campaign issue, so they’re going to put a very weak proposal on the table and try using insurance company language to describe it as something, in fact, that it’s not." He essentially accused Republicans of trashing a bipartisan reform effort to give a legislative payback to large corporate insurance patrons of the GOP. Kerry was able to manoeuver discussion to accessibility and affordability of insurance; Frist relied on arguing "Republican principles" but was vague on specifics of what the GOP vwants to do to "reform" health care in America.

You don't suppose he doesn't want the details to get too much scrutiny now, do you?

The third segment featured IRS Commissioner Louis Rossetti in a discussion of IRS reform. Unbelievable -- This Week sticking to real issues! Along with discussion of the IRS reform bill and attempts to address previous abuses and prevent them in the future, Rossetti went over some statistics and policy which every interested taxpayer should know:

"Of the $1.7 trillion that the IRS brings in [annually], a lot of money -- somewhere between 97 and 98 percent of that money -- comes in from taxpayers without any direct intervention by the IRS other than to provide information and maybe some assistance. What we want to do is to make that process as painless as possible, as helpful as possible, and reserve our enforcement powers for that really small percentage of people who really are unwilling to comply. And it is important to use those powers on those people, because there is a tax gap out there that amounts to about $1,600 a year per every compliant taxpayer. So we do need to have those powers, but we need to use them very appropriately, and only where it’s necessary."

Pretty staggering numbers. Rossetti stated his full support for reforms while clearly defending the need for the IRS to pursue tax scofflaws.

The final roundtable segment was a huge letdown, featuring presidential historian Michael Beschloss and This Week regular William Kristol. There was the predictable pap on Linda Tripp and the ridiculous New York Times op-ed piece comparing Tripp to John Dean -- a pretty big stretch by any measure, although Tripp does look a little like an overweight version of Dean in drag, come to think of it.

Boring.

But when talk turned to the continuing brouha, ha over CNN's retraction of the "Valley of Death" Operation Tailwind story, Sam chimed in with:

"Jack Smith and April Oliver, the two fired producers, [are] sort of sticking by their story, and say 'We should continue to investigate.' I think they’re right for the following reason: if there is something to this story -- if it is a monstrous cover-up -- that should come out. On the other hand, if there is nothing to this story, as it appears at this moment, they shouldn’t be able to get away with going on, saying 'Ah, but we were right all along, it’s being covered up.' They should be nailed, if, in fact, that’s the case."

We think Jackie "Semen-Stained Dress" Judd and her producers should be held to the same standard, Sam. Whaddya think?

CNN Inside Politics

Again, one of our readers has hit the pundit nail on the head:

> Wolf's constant promises that the segment
> "Linda T's Lawyers Tell All" was "coming
> up" sounded a touch too much like some old
> dude promisin' the wife he was "comin' up"
> to bed just as soon as the Viagra kicked
> in. But I wasn't surpised when the segment
> finally "came off" like a guy who'd mistaken
> his Prozac for his Viagra.
>
> I found the "roundtable" rather amusing with
> that cutely coiffed lil' devil in the bow
> tie, Tucker Carlson, implyng that the act of
> screwing a friend and committing a felony by
> taping twenty hours of private conversations
> was no more serious then double-parking.
> CNN ought to fire some "pundit bookers"
> before there's another sarin spill!

And that's the way it was this pundit Sunday!