Summer Smorgasbord Time!
Public Citizen Exposes Oil Price Scam...
Scranton Antis: Pro-Life or Just Pro-Republican?...
Why the Beltway Press Hates Clinton, Chapter XVIII
by Tamara Baker

Friday, June 16, 2000 -- SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA -- I got an interesting article in the e-mail the other day.

The article, dated June 14, 2000, states the following:

High prices at the gas pump have translated to windfalls for oil companies, which saw first-quarter profits in 2000 rise nearly 500 percent over the same period in 1999, a Public Citizen report shows.

Texaco's first-quarter profits jumped 473 percent over 1999, while Conoco's profits skyrocketed 371 percent and Phillips saw its rise 257 percent. The numbers, which were compiled for 10 major oil companies, were based on company data. ExxonMobil, Conoco, BP Amoco, Coastal and Shell saw record first-quarter profits, according to their own press releases.

Oil companies likely will continue to rake in high profits as oil prices that dipped in April begin to rise again.

"Oil companies are ripping off the public and picking consumers' pocketbooks clean," Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook said. "It's daylight robbery, and it's threatening the economy."

Imported crude oil cost just under $28 per barrel in March, dropped to $24 in April and is back to $28 barrel this month...

Sounds like the Petro Plotters are not only out to get their boy Dubya elected by tanking (pardon the pun) the economy, but are lining their pockets with our money while they're at it.

I like Paul Begala's take on the situation:

As a political issue, Americans should ask: who do we trust to stand up to OPEC and Big Oil?

George W. Bush, the Texas oil man?

Can a man who got bailed out by big money oil men, stand up to Big Oil?

Can a man who won a lucrative concession to drill for oil in the oil-rich Middle-Eastern sheikdom of Bahrain be trusted to stand up to OPEC?

Bush is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Oil and OPEC.

Methinks the next vehicle I buy may well be the 70 mpg Honda Insight.

Meanwhile, by now y'all have heard about how a Catholic bishop in Scranton, egged on by local right-to-life leaders, kept Al Gore from appearing at a Catholic-run hospital, Mercy Hospital, because of Gore's strong pro-choice stance.

Not only does this move have the unintended effect of strengthening Gore's position with American women, who are strongly pro-choice themselves, it also points out the sharp hypocrisy of at least the Scranton faction of the anti-choice movement -- and a possible violation of the law by a nonprofit religious-oriented anti-abortion group.

As the Scranton Times-Tribune for June 14, 2000 noted,

....The person who triggered the switch was Helen Gohsler, president of the Scranton chapter of Pennsylvanians for Human Life. She called the bishop earlier in the day to object to Mr. Gore's appearance, Bishop Timlin confirmed.

"He's not coming to Mercy as the vice president," Mrs. Gohsler said before the Mercy appearance was canceled. "He's coming because he is running for president of the United States and he is one of the most pro-abortion candidates.

"As bad as Clinton has been, I think this guy has taken the right to choose to greater heights." ...

After Bishop Timlin caved to her pressure, Mrs. Gohsler was pleased:

....Mrs. Gohsler praised the hospital's decision.

"This is going to send a strong message to the Gore campaign that they can't use the Catholic Church and this is exactly what they were doing," Mrs. Gohsler said.

Funny you should bring up the subject of the Catholic Church and its official stances being "used" for political gain, Mrs. Gohsler.

Because, as the Scranton Times-Tribune pointed out, even as your group was holding a candlelight harassment vigil near the hotel where Al Gore stayed that Tuesday night, and planned to protest wherever the vice president appeared in Scranton on Wednesday...

...Local anti-abortionists did not protest the appearance locally Tuesday of Gov. Tom Ridge, a Catholic who is also pro-choice on abortion.

Why not, Mrs. Gohsler?

... Mrs. Gohsler said Mr. Ridge, despite rumors that he might be the Republican vice presidential candidate, isn't a candidate so far.

No, he's only the guy who's had a near-lock on the job since before Karl Rove bought up the BushRidge.com domain name over a year ago. He's going to be the nominee, and you know it.

He also wouldn't be running for president...

Only a heartbeat away, Mrs. G.

... and his positions on abortion are more moderate than Mr. Gore's, she said....

Oh, really?

That's not how Pat Buchanan sees it!

He's praying that Bush selects Ridge, knowing that millions of disgruntled antis will leap into Pat's waiting arms on Election Day.

As if all this isn't enough, here's good stuff from Salon's "Table Talk" message boards. This message was posted in the context of a discussion of _On Bended Knee_, the excellent exposé of how the White House press corps fellated Reagan and Billy Dale all through the 1980s. It also provides a clue as to why the White House press corps detests Clinton today:

 Tresy Kilbourne - 09:02 am PDT - Jun 15, 2000 - #1079 of 1100

"In this town ruining people is considered sport." --Vince Foster

"On Bended Knee" was a very good book. To give you some idea how corrupted the press is/was, when it came out Mary McGrory wrote a column about it. Instead of writing, "finally a book has come out that knocks the crap out of the AIM lie about an adversarial, anti-Reagan press," she basically wrote, "here's an interesting thesis by a man who--get this--believes we are actually too SOFT on Reagan!" Now she did allow some quotes in that kept Hertsgaard from sounding like a lunatic, but the condescending treatment was the "liberal" contribution to ensuring that OBK died a quiet death.

I remember that, Tresy. The book may have "died a quiet death", but I've seen it on the bookshelves of many a thoughtful person.

Incidentally I thought of that book quite a lot back when Clinton first came to town. It's all distant history now, but many may recall an early, very vicious fight over an issue of searing importance to the national weal: press access to a certain hallway in the White House. 

To recap: prior to Clinton, it was custom for the press to be able to congregate in a certain high-traffic White House hallway, even though their official place was a press room in the building's basement. Being allowed in the hallway gave them access to overheard chitchat and ad libbed interviews, you see. It made them feel important. But the Clintonites, led by Stephanopoulos of all people, decided that was going to end during their term and they yanked the privilege (no doubt the constant shitty coverage of Whitewater and Gennifer Flowers had something to do with the ill-will).

Man, was there a shitstorm! (The travel office "scandal" was of a piece with this too, as the press had enjoyed a number of perks under the aegis of the folks the Clintonites sacked). Of course, the shitstorm was not played out mano a mano as would be the case with an antagonist who fights fair. Rather, the fight took place in the unrelentingly bad coverage the Clinton Administration got for the first few months in office. (I remember one early headline, a week into the Administration: "Clinton: A Failed President?")

Then, one day, Stephanopoulos relented, and the press got its precious hallway back.

And the next day, press coverage started to resemble something other than nonstop mud throwing. (Not that that lasted very long either.)

Coincidence? My imagination? I don't think so. To the credit of someone in Rolling Stone, they actually wrote a story a few months later about exactly how the press coverage of Clinton during that period tracked the war over their pet hallway. It confirmed my conviction that the press had been infliciting payback on Clinton. I never saw any other mention of the affair after that.

Very interesting! This is just what so many of us have been saying for years now.

The tie-in with Hertsgaard is that his book's thesis--indeed, Michael Deaver states as much in it--was that Reagan understood (that is, his handlers understood) that you keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. That is, instead of trying to shut down the press, as Nixon did to his detriment, you keep them well-fed and happy with its own catnip: access and a constant affirmation of its own narcissistic self-importance.

Yupper: The Billy Dale "iron fist in the velvet glove" treatment. Naughtly press folk got banished from the White House precincts, but tame ones got the red-carpet treatment.

Deprive the media of footage and soundbites to fill the bottomless news hole that contemporary technology has created, OTOH, and it gets very, very cranky. And it will bite you.

Clinton, for all his media savvy, didn't fully recognize this. That's why the press sneers at his "town meetings"--it cuts them out, erodes their sense of indispensability. (See, too, Leonardo diCaprio.) Gore seems not to get it, either. Shrub, by contrast, gets it. (McCain got it too.) And that's one reason why he's getting kid glove treatment. 

So Hertsgaard's book remains just as relevant today as it did 16 years ago. I just love the press' professionalism and dedication to its craft, don't you?

That's one reason why they're losing ground to the Internet, Tresy.