<........................................................................................EXPAND YOUR BROWSER FOR THE BEST READ........................................................................................>
FEATURE
Just Who's the "Secret Agenda Man" - - David Corn or Vernon Jordan?
David Corn - Ex Nader Raider Vernon Jordan - Civil Rights Leader and Corporate Honcho
FRIDAY MARCH 13TH 1998-NEW YORK -- Our sometime buddy David Corn recently had a piece published in "Salon" - the ridiculously effete webzine whose editors spurn submissions from our writers, belying a true 'salonesque' attitude - "Let's discuss the topics of the day - - with people of our kind."
Corn will tell you that "American Politics" often e-mails him, and has, more than once, taken him to task over his opinions and his magazine's - "The Nation" - almost somnambulistic character. Corn, its Washington based political editor, reserves his most biting, and entertaining stuff for Salon and other mags he writes for off and on.
We wish he'd insert some of this vigor in "Nation. "And Hey! What's with Nation publisher Katrina van "Whatsherwhoozes" who always looks semi-stoned when appearing on pundit television? No wonder "The Nation sleeps."
Like most writers and editors at "The Nation," Corn likes the President, but continues to take pot shots at him for profit. Unlike Christopher Hitchens, a sloppy liberal-notzy (spelling on purpose) , Corn can write and doesn't view himself as a foppish ladykiller. However, his latest Salon drivel is too much - but does fit into their invisible slogan -- to publish all the whining pap there is.
Here's what we think. Corn's piece on Jordan is a semi-stalker for old and tired friend Ralph Nader and his girlfriends who are busy making themselves feel important by pushing campaign finance reform on the Hill. Reform is going nowhere, and it's a shame that David smeared Jordan to make a point that Nader has no power to do much any longer.
But this time he took on a man we admire and have known for three decades - Vernon Jordan.
We've chosen to take Corn's words "as is" and comment below.
Take a look:
Corn's words are in "Fitting Red"
Secret Agenda Man
by David Corn
SALON | March 10, 1998
WHEN VERNON JORDAN SPEAKS, PEOPLE LISTEN. BUT WHO IS HE TALKING FOR? - - - - - - - - - - - - BY DAVID CORN
WASHINGTON -- When Vernon Jordan appeared at the federal courthouse in Washington last week, it looked as if he had first gone to his tailor and said, "One Washington power broker outfit, please." There he was, wearing a tan topcoat, an exquisitely cut dark suit and a felt hat adorned with a distinguished feather, walking in the footsteps of Clark Clifford, Thomas Corcoran and other legendary Washington influence masters.
Gee David. We thought he looked kind of geeky in that overcoat and hat. The coat was cloth - like Pat Nixon's - and that hat, well it harkened back to the 30's Walter Winchell or the 90's Matt Drudge. And hey! How could you tell his suit was "exquisitely cut" - you said he was wearing a topcoat? By the way, Jordan's tailor come to the house.
What you are really doing with this lead paragraph is setting readers up to dislike Jordan, aren't you? I mean most people don't have tailors and the money to pay them. They'd like one, but they can't have it. They don't have felt hats with feathers - distinguished or not - either , and they don't usually "appear" at federal courthouses in "Washington power broker outfit(s) " - do they? But the average Salon reader really can't stand successful people can they? So you use their bias and set them up from the start to begin to loathe Jordan - when in reality, most everyone coming in contact with him likes him immediately, and respects him even more over time. That's everyone, from his paper boy to the President of France.
By the way, Clark Clifford was a BCCI pimp, making it easy for him to be an "influence master" in the District and beyond. After all, a checkbook with no limit makes it fairly simple to command some kind of respect - some kind. He was nothing in later life but a man to be avoided. And, by the way, no one reading Salon ever heard of Tom Corcoran, but thanks for the historical perspective.
Of course, neither of those two behind-the-scenes operators had to testify before a grand jury because a White House intern was captured on tape boasting of sexually servicing the president of the United States. But even when thrust into such an unusual situation, the 62-year-old Jordan kept cool, affirmed his friendship with the president and smoothly defended his own integrity. It was almost as if the real secret to protect was not the true nature of the relationship between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, but Jordan's own kind of intimacy with the president.
More trashy words. "Behind the scenes," "Operators" -- sure, not aimed at Jordan, except indirectly huh David? "Smoothly defended" -- bringing to mind a sleazey back-court lawyer.
We're also not sure Jordan was "defending" his own integrity -- after all he need not.
With the exception of Hillary Clinton, it appears, no one spends more quality time with the president than Jordan. Numerous media reports identify Jordan with the sobriquet "presidential friend," as if that is his official position. But what precisely does FOB One do when he's not duffing with Clinton on the links?
Really? How about Bruce Lindsey? And what's that silly French word "sobriquet" doing in your piece? It means "nickname" and is inappropriate here inasmuch as Jordan really is Bill Clinton's friend. The problem here is your "District Myopia," narrow mindedness and old-fashioned cynicism. You know David, some politicians actually have friends, loyal friends, who don't have some 'secret agenda' hidden in the margin of their Gucci notebooks.
In his spare time, Jordan conducts business at the law and lobbying firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Field, pocketing $1 million a year. Yet Jordan maintains he neither practices law nor lobbies for the firm's clients, which represent a fair slice of corporate America. So how does he earn his keep? A little bit of this, a little bit of that. "He puts people together," says one former senior Clinton White House aide who used to interact with Jordan. Who does he put together? "I'm not really sure," the aide notes. And to achieve what? "Not sure about that, either. Deals, I suppose."
This takes the cake. "In his spare time..." what the heck does that mean? A cheap shot. In one sentence you claim Jordan doesn't really work hard to collect his income, which we assure you is far more than the paltry million you ascribe. Jordan's office at Akin, Gump is a convenience, that's all. He probably pays for it - one way or another and his friendship with Bob Strauss is legendary. What are you talking about?
Vernon Jordan doesn't have to "earn his keep" David. He's up there in the stratosphere where it becomes an honor to have him ensconced in your offices - not a liability that needs to be paid for. If he'd agree, we know some people who would build him a house just to have him live next door. Unusually wonderful people have unusually interesting opportunity. Or don't you know that yet?
Well, you are young.
As far as what Jordan DOES, it is perhaps what he's DONE that's more important. We don't have enough space to outline it all here, but one thing he's accomplished is to move up a ladder of barbed wire into the rarefied atmosphere of White Presbyterian power. And he did it on his own and without chicanery.
But you David, must think that no one arrives without trickery, save you, of course.
You're dead wrong. Jordan, most aware of "America's dirty little secret - racism" was able to twist this national sickness to his favor and to the favor of others who trusted him -and believed in him and his ability to take them with him. He didn't get where he is being an Uncle Tom, and he didn't get where he is crying in his soup.
In historical perspective, Jordan is a Titan among turkeys.
Jordan does not file any disclosure reports that reveal his sources of income or that indicate who pays for his unique services. He and his wife sit on 17 corporate boards, apparently a record for a husband-wife team. His roster includes Dow Jones, American Express and Bankers Trust. All told, he receives $500,000-plus a year from his directorships. If he's a man with an agenda, it's a hidden one. In Jordan's line of work, one shouldn't have to spell out quid pro quos -- it's in bad taste. But when a man has such access to the president -- and delivers important favors for the president and his staff -- it is fair to ask what he might wish in return, even if a payback isn't explicitly requested.
How 'bout phrasing it this way David: "Jordan is not required to file disclosure reports..." wouldn't that be more fair. And if he isn't, how do you know he sits on 17 boards. Maybe it's 14 or 27? We also doubt it's a "record" David. Have you ever looked at David Rockefeller or the DuPonts?
You also really have no idea how much he earns from the board positions -- do you?
And what's this "hidden agenda" crap. Nothing hidden about it. He's a friend of Bill Clinton - but has been for more than three decades - when Clinton was nothing much more than hopeful stuck in Podunk, Arkansas. Maybe it's Clinton that owes Jordan? Maybe it's Jordan who provided the knowledge and support to Bill? Ever thought of that? Your insipid innuendo that Jordan collects money to whisper in Bill Clinton's ear is beyond bad judgement and borders on superior "Drudgement." - and maybe exceeds it in unmitigated gall.
Your seemingly green eyes betray you David.
A recent Wall Street Journal article illustrated one way in which the former civil rights leader operates. When an acquaintance asked Jordan to help her 24-year-old son find a job, Jordan invited the young man to his office and called Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, who called Kurt Campbell, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, who referred the job seeker to a defense company, which hired him. This may be, as the Journal explained, standard operating procedure for Jordan. But it also shows how Washington operates on favor-trading. Now, does the deputy assistant secretary owe the defense firm a favor in return? Does Talbott hope to receive some assistance from Jordan down the line? This is what a fixer like Jordan does, he greases the wheels -- not necessarily out of public interest, but for his own purposes.
Oh please! Your adolescence is magnificent. What sloppy logic do we witness? How 'bout Jordan just helped a chap get a job for his son? Would you hang a plumber for talking the local union boss into hiring his friend's kid on as a journeyman?
No. Your envy of power -- power divined from talent and intellect -- is overwhelming.
You're better than that Corn. Way better.
And , by the way -- No, Strobe Talbott doesn't owe the defense firm a thing. No, Talbott doesn't need Jordan for anything related to his friendship with the President and nearly everyone else in Washington. These are just people - just like you and me - who do little favors for people without expecting some "pay off" in the end.
Of course, there is a reward. Everyone who does for others benefits. That just happens. Like the Church volunteer who waxes the pews every week for 35 years -- Jordan gets a high mass when he passes.
That's just life, David, not some conspiracy as you posit.
One of the more stunning aspects of the Lewinsky affair is how gracefully Jordan has managed to skate through it, so far. For weeks after the initial scandal broke, he kept out of the media line of fire, and even during his grand jury appearances he was handled with the utmost gentility. How did he arrange that? "That's just Vernon," says a Clinton aide with a chuckle.
What's so "stunning" about it? Anyone who has come into contact with Jordan expected no less, probably more. He didn't "arrange" to be treated with respect -- he's simply respected.
Get it?
That is, Jordan is a favorite son of the Washington establishment, and that includes its media denizens. As the initial revelations poured out and White House correspondents were talking excitedly of a "White House meltdown," Chip Reid of MSNBC told viewers that he had spent the day canvassing the nation's capital and that he had found a consensus among the town's high and mighty: It's possible that President Clinton would have an affair with an underling and then suborn perjury, but Jordan would never do a thing like that. Not our Vernon, the town's ultimate gatekeeper.
David, did it ever occur to you that Jordan is a "favorite" son of most everyone who knows him -- not merely the Washington "establishment" - an undefinable term in itself. There is no Washington establishment, save for a few dowagers who've hung around far too long after their husband's deaths.
As far as being the "ultimate gatekeeper" we'd offer that he's the nation's "ultimate gentleman" - a rare thing in today's world. Chip Reid was canvassing the nation's capital for dirt on Jordan. He didn't find any that could be corroborated.
That must have been a rude surprise.
While Clinton has a well-known distaste for the Washington social establishment, the president's aides concede that Jordan has plenty of pull with him. After all, Clinton asked him to oversee the presidential transition after his 1992 victory. (And when Jordan was helping to select administration appointees who would have to deal with tobacco matters, he was sitting on the board of cigarette manufacturer RJR Nabisco.) But these aides routinely deny that Jordan does anything so brash as to lobby the president on behalf of a particular client.
We doubt your wiggles on Clinton's distaste for the "establishment" since it 's absolutely untrue. Sure, Bill Clinton hates some of the dour old fools that haunt dark niches at the Cosmos Club, but he doesn't write off all of them either and he has some smashing parties that reek of "establishment" tradition -- and enjoys them.
But worse, in the face of Clinton tobacco policy, how can you even suggest that Jordan might be leaning on him to go easy on his fellow RJR board members? It's the opposite isn't it? And RJR also makes cookies and crackers -- ones we consume with zeal and guess what? If you're really a writer, you ought to be drinking and smoking too while you're eating those Oreos!
Yet Jordan does exert influence on policy. A year ago, a White House aide who was handling the administration's brief on campaign finance reform informed me that White House staff members were concocting some hard-hitting initiatives on this front. To truly take on this matter, I replied, Clinton would have to be willing to alienate corporate contributors and close friends like -- I picked a name out of a fedora -- Vernon Jordan.
"Vernon," she said with a smile. "Yes."
"What about him?" I asked.
"He called me," she said. Now, this aide was no lowly intern, but she was not one of the heavier weights in the White House. Yet she was receiving a call from the First Friend, who wanted to talk about policy.
"And?"
"He told me he thought it was not a good idea." Not a good idea for the president to push campaign finance reform? "And," I asked, "he just assumed that because he's Vernon Jordan he could block a presidential initiative in this area?"
"Yes," she said, with a nervous laugh. But -- after a pause -- she assured me that Jordan would not be able to kill the initiative.
Maybe not. But a full-fledged campaign finance reform initiative never materialized, and though the president said he supported reform, he did very little to champion the cause in the past year. No arm-twisting, no campaign to pressure members of Congress. And on the day the McCain-Feingold reform bill -- a modest measure -- met its final death, the president was out of town.
Ha, ha, haha! This is the best. A conversation with some "leaving-here-soon" staffer who'll fenagle that first line on her resume reading "White House Staff" into a cushy Wall Street job, and she's claiming Jordan was trying to nix campaign finance reform? Why not? Why shouldn't he? It's a dumb idea.
"She said, he said." Great. Real Journalism at its best. Did you ever think that campaign finance reform, like prohibition, no-smoking in public buildings (we hope) , Jew hating and, Nigger lynching are public policies that sink because they fly in the face of constitutional and moral underpinnnings? Jordan is against campaign finance reform because the underlying legislative proposals to do it stink. They pretend to deliver the nation to beer-sucking trailer park denizens while in fact only drive the money -- a 5,000 year old wheel greaser which you can't change -- underground. Just where the Dwayne Andreas' of the world would like it.
Don't lecture us on campaign finance reform and all the do-gooders seeking to capitalize on its annoying name. They're a bunch of losers trying to compete in a winners game. We say, go out and raise the money if you want to play.
Emily's list is number one in bucksterism. They did it. So why can't goodie-two-shoes like McCain, Feingold and that sappy blonde Ann McBride do the same? We'll tell you why. Because they think a republic is run by the fools that populate it. Well, it isn't. And it's high time that people learned that. You know it, yet you continue to foist this holier-than-thou garbage on your readers. If ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX want to give away free air time to every Dick and Jane who wants to be loved, and elected, by the People -- then let them.
We think they don't. And we think the more money in politics the better. We only get a tenth of the story on these candidates now.
Why not get it all, or at least more, not less information as guaranteed under these moronic proposals?
As far as the President's being out of town at the time of the vote -- What the hell does that mean David? Does the President VOTE in the House or Senate? Does he wield a big stick with Republicans who control the agenda?
No. So what's the difference if he was IN town or OUT. They have picture phones on Air Force One. If he wanted to do something, if he could have done something, he might have tried. He didn't want to, and even if he did he had no power to change things. Clinton knew it was a loser. He knew it was wrong, and he knew the Supreme Court would, in the end, declare McCain and its cousins dead under the founding father's wisdom.
You can't legislate away the right to say what you will.
You ought to know that. You live by it, and even abuse it sometimes.
The lack of White House vigor on the reform front may not be directly attributable to Jordan. Nothing in Washington ever is. But he made a call, talked to the person in charge, made his views known. And the companies that sign up with Akin, Gump know that.
Wow! . . "May not be attributable to Jordan." Are you pulling our collective chains David? Lack of White House vigor MIGHT be attributable to most any elected official and constitutional scholar on earth.
Hey, maybe even the President himself, without paying a snip of attention to what anyone else thought, decided that campaign finance reform was a pipe dream -- like all reforms. And maybe, just maybe, Bill Clinton thought, without benefit of counsel, that stopping people from spending money to get out the word was just plain wrong.
Why single out Jordan? Because he's able, because he's Black in a White man's nation, because he really can impact on things and you can't?
How many similar calls has Jordan made since Clinton took office? We do not know. How else has he tried to influence administration policy? We do not know. We know more about what Monica Lewinsky did during high school than what Vernon Jordan does daily in Washington. But his affairs matter much more than hers.
We can hear the theme song from Twilight Zone playing over this last paragraph. "How many calls . . ." We do not know... Yes, only The Shadow knows for sure .
That's right David, you don't know, and you never will. You'll never be trusted like Jordan is. You don't have that certain something that elevates one so high. He does. A mistake of birth? A penchant for study and hard work?
Who knows. But he has it, and most of the rest of us don't.
You've become a character assassin, without credentials David.
You can do better . . even if Ralph Nader and his pals are passe' -- now and forever.
- The Editors
PS: Oh, don't fret. We still love ya.
HERE'S DAVID'S RESPONSE & OURS TO HIS (This Time we're in Ravishing Red)
Subject: Re: Good Morning From American Politics Journal - David Corn is on the HOT seat
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:05:05 EST
From: David Corn
To: editors@apj.us
To all my dear friends at the American Politics Journal:
Yes dear friend? Go on.
Thank you for that wonderful piece on my article in Salon.
Why, you're welcome, we think you're wonderful too!
It is always encouraging to have one work's recognized and widely disseminated. By sharing this article with your readers, you show that you are certainly not in the hip-pocket of the powerful influence-brokers of Washington like Vernon Jordan and prove that you are truly of the people.
We aren't, but we wish we were. Think of the money.
Congratulations.
I must, alas, take exception with one or two statements from your introduction. In comparing me to my colleague Christopher Hitchens, you wrote "Corn can write and doesn't view himself as a foppish ladykiller."
I appreciate the sentiment in the first half of the sentence, but I must confess that I disagree with the notion in the latter half. You see, I do view myself as a ladykiller, though not a particularly foppish one.
We agree. That's why we phrased it "foppish ladykiller" -- we knew you wouldn't go for foppish. But expanding on your admitted "ladykillerness" - we repeat: "HE LIKES BILL CLINTON!" You know, David, Birds of a feather ....
You also observed, "Corn likes the President, but continues to take pot shots at him for profit."
See above.
Permit to set matters straight. I am no fan on Bill of Arkansas, and my pieces in The Nation and elsewhere make that clear. I have popped him for many a policy move, including his posturings on welfare and the balanced budget and his do-nothing approach to campaign finance reform.
Yes, but alas so have we -- on those very issues, save campaign finance of course. We'll leave that to you, Ralph and Ms. McBride. But we do recall reading some of your words in praise of Arkansas Bill. Remember?
Perhaps the intern who did the research for your piece ought to be enrolled in a reading comprehension class. I am sure Vernon Jordan will spring for that.
Touche' But Jordon doesn't even know we exist. And we're sure he won't spring for Liz's reading lessons. After all, she was cum laude summa at Harvard - we know THEY can't read.
And for profit? Paging the fact checking department! The journalism I practice is not done out of love of money. Next time ask me for my accountant's number. Oh--sorry--I don't have one. I cannot afford it. I do my own taxes.
Ah. Yes. The journalism you practice. But what about the journalism you want to practice? Wouldn't your own television pundit show at $800 thousand a year be better than slaving away for The Nation? But no, you're in it for the love of truth. We respect that.
But, rest assured, I am the one of the poorest paid journalists you ever see on C-SPAN.<-------HIDDEN PLUG
I am not proud of that, but I live with it.
Oh. But you should be proud. Don't fall for that right-wing blubber about "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" or anything like that. You've done a lot to be proud of. Save this Jordan piece. Maybe you were ill or something you ate?
Finally, you stated, "And Hey! What's with Nation publisher Katrina van Whatsherwhoozes who always looks semi-stoned when appearing on pundit television? No wonder The Nation sleeps."
Oh Piffle! That was just for comic relief. You didn't want us to seriously DIS you did you? So we added the van Whatsherwhoozes for a laugh. Anyway, she DOES looked stoned. It's her mystery, her conundrumic presence. She's an enigma and frankly, we find it darned attractive!
Since I take it from reading your fine publication that you are against smearing people in public life, I assume that this sentence was rearranged by a G.O.P. computer hacker who gained unauthorized access to your system in a brazen attempt to discredit you.
C'mon, you can do that better than that. We wouldn't smear Katrina - she's a pussycat. Anyway, she has enough trouble with her circulation. We wouldn't want to add to her burden. Is she in public life?
I hope you catch the culprit.
We are the culprit. And we apologize to Whatsherwhoozes - I mean she is powerful ain't she?
Yours, in gratitude,
David Corn
P.S. And please do publish this.
Okay. We Will!
Gosh, isn't instant publishing wonderful!
 Provided by Hot Bot | Searchfor |
", 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."
- Eliot Janeway ,1991 New York
From an Introduction to JK's essay and speech, "Washington - The New American Babylon"
Copyright©AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL INC 1996-1998 Reader Services Post Office Box 0409, Navesink, NJ 07716 FAX: 908.872.7604
NEED HELP? E-MAIL: reader@americanpolitics.com
