FEATURE
Pundit Pap
for Sunday April 12th 1998
Part 1 of 2
MONDAY, APRIL 13th, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Northern Ireland and big tobacco dominated the political chatfests this weekend… with the exception of the McLaughlin Group, who (very) prematurely took on election prospects for this coming November and the year 2000.
THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP
The president's recent problems have gone so low on the radar screen that they merited only a few mentions on the McLaughlin Group. The big surprise: issue one was not the peace agreement for Northern Ireland or the tobacco deal problems! John was joined by Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, Morton Kondracke and Time magazine's Jay Carney (who looks strangely like "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" actor James Spader).
Issue one: would you believe Elections 1998? With more than half a year to go, John and his pick of the punditocracy spent most of the program making early prognostications about the 435 congressional seats and 34 Senate seats that will be up for grabs.
There was a quick overview of the current stats:
In the House --
GOP 227
Dem 205
Ind 1
vacant 2
In the Senate space --
GOP 55 (16 up for grabs)
Dem 45 (18 up for grabs)
Congressional approval rating: 57 percent
John's first question: assess the political landscape.
Pat: Right now the U.S. is in a state of satisfaction [Pat looked particularly cranky admitting that things were going so well -- we wonder if he's fantasizing about getting out his " pitchfork" and campaigning again]. If Kenneth Starr is no longer a problem for the President by September, Clinton could go far in reversing the natural tendency of the opposition party gaining in Congress.
Eleanor: The people have better things to do than pay attention to politics, but the Democrats have better issues while the GOP is still doing the same old "tax cut" song-and-dance. The common element with all of their different "scrap the tax code" plans is the rich pay less and the middle-class pay more.
Jay (in response to a question from the John): We are factoring in low voter turnout in our analysis; the Republicans should be positioned well, but even they have a voter turnout problem because their voter base is not agitated.
Mort: I don't think the GOP will lose the Senate, but it won't be a blowout.
John: Polls say people are happy and comfortable.
Next question: the GOP net gain or loss in the Senate --
Pat : +2; Ferraro-D'Amato too close to call.
Eleanor: +1; either way D'Amato loses, if he wins it's an upset, if she wins it's an upset!
Jay: +2
Mart: +3; Lauch Faircloth loses in an upset.
John: +2
Average +2 for 57 GOP, 43 Dem.
As for the House --
Pat: +5 as of now; watch what happens with the Asian economy.
Eleanor: We've never had a president with 67 percent popularity; -3.
Jay: Democrats are not as vulnerable; -2.
Mort: GOP has more money, complacency, the issue of "do you want Democrats at the helm with Clinton in the Oval Office;" +10
John: +4
Average: +3 " with Congress ushering in the millennium upon the back of an elephant!"
Issue two: Presidential Election 2000. The Republican field is wide open. Results of a poll by John Zoghby on the potential field:
Bush Jr. 31%
Forbes 11%
Quayle 10.3% (we knew a lot of Repubs were slow learners, but 10.3% for Quayle? Boggles the mind...)
Kemp 9.8%
Gingrich 4%
Alexander 3.5%
Ashcroft 3% (Ashcroft is the most strident Clinton attack poodle on the list; in fact, it may be the only reason his name comes up at all)
Kasich 2%
John also made passing reference to three names that keep cropping up: Colin Powell (although it's pretty clear he didn't want to run in '96 and probably doesn't want to in 2000), Fred Thompson (fat chance that this loser will ever have a shot at the nomination; he should go back to doing Clint Eastwood flicks, something he actually does well, and we predict he won't run for a second term because he screwed up so miserably on the campaign finance hearings), and "Elizabeth Hanford Dole" (John used all three names; we know for a fact that her GOP detractors call her "Elizabeth Rodham Dole" and that she doesn't stand a chance once more people become aware of the damage she has done at the American Red Cross). "Bob Dole fingered two pro-choice candidates: Governors Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania and George Pataki of New York."
Question: Pros and cons of each, and any additions --
Jay: Colin Powell is a dream candidate and will not run; George W. Bush has already assumed the front-runner status; Gingrich will be a stronger candidate than anyone realizes because he can raise money; I like John McCain and John Kasich.
Mort: Steve Forbes will be a very strong candidate, he'll spend freely, and he has as clear a message as anyone in this race (John interjected that "lovely family, no skeletons there" -- guess he doesn't know those "ugly rumors" about Steve's dad's sexual preferences); he is a personable candidate.
Pat: I think Quayle runs stronger than most people think (Quayle runs into the ground, Pat -- he's a one-issue candidate in our book, and that issue's "potatoe"); there are five or six front tier candidates.
Eleanor: I don't think Jack Kemp will do it; "he's the Hamlet of the Republican party;" Forbes has an unmuddled message but is pandering to the Christian right; he is in New Hampshire working to overturn a state Supreme Court ruling equalizing school district spending, "he's a buddinsky!"
Pat: "Fred's a populist candidate and he could do well... he missed an opportunity, people think, when he didn't do so well in that big investigation." [Didn't do so well? How about world-class screwup!!! When you make goofy claims about Chinese spys "infiltrating" the opposition is presidential campaign that cannot be substantiated -- claims which may have compromised our own intelligence asstes -- "didn't do so well" only begins to describe the foolishness!]
Jay (on a Thompson-McCain combination): They wouldn't have support from their colleagues in the GOP, whom they have angered. I don't think Thompson is a serious candidate.
Mort: Lamar is doing OK (John interjected "Bland ambition.")
John: What about Pataki? "He's got access to money, he's cut the state payroll [and state services -- he's NOT popular in the cities, John], he's brought back the death penalty [and its onerous baggage of moral issues and huge dollar costs], he's telegenic [HUH? Are you on Ketamine? He looks like a sad-sack version of Tom Arnold -- in fact, we think most upstate new York voters thought they WERE voting for Tom Arnold!], he is a fine family man, and I understand he wants to be vice president on a ticket with George W. Bush."
Mort: Pataki's too close to D'Amato.
Eleanor: The GOP will talk a lot about putting a woman on the ticket -- Elizabeth Dole will be at the top of the list -- but they won't, they just want the credit for talking about putting a woman on the ticket!
On to the Democrats: Gore holds a commanding lead.
Gore 49%
Jackson 9%
Gephardt 4.5%
Bradley 3.6%
John Kerry 2%
Bob Kerrey 1.6%
Wellstone 1%
Mort: Gore is the front-runner, Wellstone is chewing away at Gephardt's liberal constituency; if Clinton's survives his scandals and they don't touch Gore, Gore has it.
Jay: Bradley has not been doing anything; "what the scandals have done is that they've frozen the field." The only one doing any campaigning is Bob Kerrey.
Eleanor: If the economy holds up after 98, you will see the field dwindle.
Mort: Bob Kerrey has the clearest "new Democrat message."
Jay: John Kerry has the instant money, from his wife.
John: "He's got a fine mind and experience."
Eleanor: "And he's a war hero." [It's worth noting that Gore is also a veteran; imagine how a Gore/Kerry ticket would look against any GOP ticket not including Colin Powell]
Jay: How does he distinguish himself from Al Gore?
Mort: They could both be more centrist on the environment [Wishful thinking, Mort; the environment is not a hot-button issue, and it is doubtful that it will be in 2000, unless the GOP tries to paint Gore as a tree-hugger again, which will fail as a tactic].
John (to Eleanor): "What about your candidate, Paul Wellstone?"
Eleanor: He will run as the conscience of the Democratic Party, on a shoe string.
Pat: It's Gore.
John: Running mate?
Pat: Possibly Diane Feinstein.
Eleanor: I'll second Pat.
Check out this exchange about the GOP:
John: "Hey Pat, I hope you are not disappointed that your name was not up."
Pat: "I was delighted, John." [Ha, ha -- we don't think so]
John: "Did you want it up?"
Pat: "No."
Please, Pat -- we know you want to sharpen up the ol' pitchfork one more time -- we remember that gleam in his eye three years ago as he railed against the threats of globalism, rampant immorality and the "dismantling of our once mighty military" -- not that you don't always have fun on the McLaugh-In Group, but we know what you really want!
Pat (continuing): Steve Forbes is coming on strong [he reeks of his new ties to the Falwell cult].
Eleanor: So is John McCain.
John: The 2000 tickets?
Jay: Gore-Gephardt vs. Bush-Kasich.
Mort: Gore-Gephardt vs. McCain-Connie Mack [this would be the most interesting of all those mentioned -- although it runs the risk of being an actual issues-driven campaign].
John: Gore-Gephardt vs. Bush-Pataki.
Pat: If they pick Pataki, you'll see a third party; Pataki's pro-choice.
John: "Pat, are you announcing here?" [Cue the pitchfork!!]
Issue Three: The Clinton Factor -- you would think that the current scandals would be "hanging over the upcoming elections like a brooding incubus," which is what happened in 1974 when Nixon quit, but this may not be the case this year. John quoted columnist Jack Newfield (which we repeat below), who claims to be Clinton's toughest critic among liberal columnists. John got in a creative dig at Clinton by quoting a liberal on Clinton's alleged bad behavior:
"I have made it plain I don't believe his denials of sexual misconduct and that he is abusing executive privilege as a stalling tactic. Clinton is just lucky his enemies are such scary snipers from the fringe. Clinton is still high in the polls because there is not one credible person making the case against him on TV. Clinton's attackers on TV come across a shrill, partisan fanatics like Jerry Falwell, G. Gordon Liddy, Newt Gingrich, and nutty [Tom] DeLay, the Texas congressmen who attacked Clinton in ugly personal terms for his apology for slavery last week. DeLay came across as defensive of slavery. And as long as Gingrich and Falwell seem extreme and harsh, Bill Clinton
has a life preserver against drowning in the polls...
"[Mario Cuomo] does not believe that the robust economy deserves most of the credit for keeping the president afloat in the polls. The fear of the right-wing and Kenneth Starr is keeping Clinton buoyant in a sea of sleaze. There is a backlash against the harshness of Gingrich, Buchanan, and Rev. Falwell.
"The smart Republicans understand what's really going on. Al D'Amato is pretending to be a Democrat this year. The not-so-smart ones like Steve Forbes capitulate to the Christian Right.
"A lot of Americans come from vulnerability. We're the children of immigrants, recent immigrants, blacks, Jews. We instinctively recoil away from intolerance and insensitivity."
Newfield also quoted Bob Dole, from his March 29 New York Times interview:
"What do these guys want? We keep getting caught in these one issue things [like abortion]. They keep raising the bar. If you've got a 99 percent [conservative] rating, well, then, somehow your flawed. I don't understand it."
We do, Bob -- the wacko right hijacked the GOP and sandbagged any chance that you'd be elected with their extremist views.
John: "Does Republican intolerance repel voters more then does Clinton's sleaze?" [Guilty until proven innocent, John?]
Pat: No. Clinton stays high because "there's not some focus figure like Sam Ervin," except for Ken Starr, the Clinton was room has done the job on him.
John: What about the "fringe Left, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters?"
Pat: Right now it's Clinton vs. Newt.
John: Let's say Starr "makes his dump" soon with all its fallout, what does that do to Congress?
Eleanor: That will put Ken Starr's face out there for Democrats to run against. Al D'Amato is the object lesson here in the way he (mis)handled the Whitewater hearings.
Pat: Nonsense - it depends what Starr's reports contains.
John: 0 to 10 - how much damage does Starr do?
Pat: Horrendous damage.
Mort: If the evidence is compelling, they won't be able to dump it for three months.
John: If they don't settle the issue until November, it's a 9 in damage; if Congress tidies it up early on, a 1 or 2.
Predictions --
Pat: GOP take 10 out of 10 Gubernatorial seats in November
Eleanor: They won't get California; Phil Knight becomes the new face of corporate greed once Michael Moore's film "The Big One" opens.
Jay: The major piece of legislation out of Congress this year will be a full tobacco bill.
Mort: Ditto.
John: Health problems will force a Russian presidential succession before 2000 -- Happy Easter, bye-bye!
THIS WEEK WITHOUT SAM DONALDSON FOR ONCE!
Sam was "away on Easter vacation." Blessed relief indeed, but not good enough; Cokie was still there. He was replaced by ABC's Linda Douglass -- not exactly a dynamic light of DC journalism, but capable of asking half-decent questions, not to mention far less irritation than The Toupeed One.
It was a total snoozefest.
Guest one was Senator George Mitchell, who was congratulated by Cokie, then promptly put on the spot with a "Will the peace hold?" question -- a question Mitchell has been asked time and again since the agreement. Mitchell's reply was cautious: "…this agreement really doesn’t finalize peace. It creates the opportunity for peace and reconciliation. There’s a very long way to go, many, many steps yet to be taken. It’s a good first step, but there’s still a long way to go."
Cokie followed with another redundant question on the possibility of violence; Mitchell's reply: "There are people on both sides who want to disrupt this process, who are committed to the way of violence, and I expect they’ll step up their activity between now and the date of referendum and thereafter. But it’s been going on a long time and people recognize it for what it is. So my hope is that it won’t destabilize the process, although it’s, of course, tragic that it does occur in any event."
George Will showed surprising restraint, asking about details of the situation rather than the anticipated anti-globalist "why are we involved" line of questioning we usually expect from him. He must not have been having a migraine, for once. George asked if shrill unionist Ian Paisley's opposition and his party's likely opposition to the deal might be a setback. Mitchell: "It would be a setback, no doubt about it, but not decisive." Will British conservatives get behind it? "John Major made a very positive and generous statement immediately after the agreement was announced. And I think, really, he has not gotten the credit he’s deserved, especially here in the United States. He helped to get this process going, kept it going in difficult times. You may not agree with every decision he made -- but he had a lot of courage, with a lot of difficulty. He had constraints that Tony Blair doesn’t have."
An interesting point: one of our editorial staff was in London last week following this story, including some of the overnight news coverage on the BBC. Neither Major's nor Bill Clinton's participation in getting the agreement done merited nearly any mention!
Linda Douglass asked which side poses the biggest threat to the deal. Mitchell: "I think they’re both a serious threat, although their numbers are very small." He mentioned the opposition of not only Paisley but unionist Parliament member Robert McCartney, and on the other hand the fact that unionist David Trimble, is a "really courageous guy who has taken a big step forward here, and I hope very much that he’ll get a lot of support in this process."
Douglass also mentioned that there were death threats; Mitchell said they seemed to be directed at British officials. But he also described the need for a deadline: "I thought Easter made a good stopping point, sort of a wall against which to put it. I got the approval of both Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern—the Irish prime minister—and we stuck to it. And really, I think, forcing a decision was necessary in this process."
Cokie: "Operating out of old Senate habits there, were you?"
Mitchell" "Well, if you got a good thing going -- keep using it."
Cokie ended by asking about rumors that "Prime Minister Blair is recommending to the queen that she give you a knighthood. Would you like to be Sir George?"
Mitchell: "I hadn’t heard that. Listen, I’m just happy to be home. I hadn’t seen my family for weeks, and I haven’t been to my office for months. It’s great to be back home."
Cokie: "Is Sir George better than baseball commissioner?"
Mitchell: "Oh, I don’t know about that. You’ll have to ask George Will about that. He’s the baseball expert in this crowd (laughter)."
Mitchell looked a bit tired but relieved throughout his appearance, and a little embarrassed but flattered by the last line of questioning.
The second segment featured a lead lawyer for the tobacco industry, Philip Carlton. His entirely unenviable position provoked little pity from this writer. Some choice quotes:
"The process in Washington has gotten completely out of control. It’s gone from what once was a noble purpose of reducing youth smoking and use of other tobacco products to a process now that has only to do with big tax taxes, big government and Big Brother. And we’re not bluffing. We’re going to take that message to the American people."
They're not going to listen. This has never been primarily about "reducing youth smoking." This is about a threat to public health that costs individuals and companies billions of dollars and inflicts suffering and premature death on thousands and thousands of people.
"I don’t believe that at the end of the day, when it is really fully understood, that this Congress is going to pass that—especially since it’s not going to reduce youth smoking. What it is going to do is to create a black market, the worst kind of bootleg contraband in a product that we’ve had in this country since the days of Prohibition. And the sad thing is that at the end of the day, it’s not going to work."
First, we believe it will reduce youth smoking. Second, there's already a huge market for bootleg cigarettes! Comparing the tobacco deal to Prohibition is ridiculous, because the tobacco bill is nowhere near an outright ban!
"If anybody in the tobacco industry is guilty of any horrible act in the past, there’s nothing in the proposed resolution that was brought to this Congress that will prevent anybody from being indicted or prevent anybody or any company from being sued. This ought not to be about punishment."
So you don't think that your clients -- clients that lied to Congress, clients that knew their product killed people and secuced millions of them into using that product and slowly killing themselves -- deserve to be punished for visiting a holocaust on our country, let alone the world? The vast majority of people capable of rudimentary thinking disagree.
"I think that people that in this country are very sensitive when the government begins looking over their shoulder, when the government starts telling a company, for example, that it has to have all its packages of its product in black and white and not in color, and that it can’t be placed in certain places in a store, and all the myriad of provisions that are contained in this bill."
Oh, get over yourself! We're not talking Barney the Dinosaur or Vogue Magazine --- we're talking about a product that can KILL. Deglamorizing the product in the interest of public health is a good idea.
Carlton IS lowest -- Philip Carlton is lowest in the ability to fool the public with nonsensical rhetoric! Well, maybe not as much as Susan Carpenter McBimbo.
Franklin Raines, director of the Office of Management & Budget, provided a counterpoint to Carlton: "We think we can do a better job of reducing teen smoking if the companies cooperate. But we think we can still achieve the president’s five principles without their cooperation if that proves to be necessary. The companies should come back. We would welcome them back. But it’s not necessary... Within the bill, as well as within the settlement agreed to by the companies, there are very strong provisions for companies who don’t sign on. And the consequences of not signing on monetarily are quite severe. Indeed, these provisions were written by the companies. And so I think that there are strong incentives for them to come back to the table."
In other words, put up or shut up -- and run the risk of getting an even worse deal if you don't participate!
Will asked a typically slanted question, prefaced by "Congress is at this point grabbing for half a trillion dollars from this industry." Um, George, that money will find its way back into the economy in money that will be spent on health care -- and money that will never be spent on health and productivity problems when far less people smoke! "...Two percent of cigarettes are sold to teenagers." Doers this correlate with the overall percentage of cigarettes smoked by teenagers? it's nowhere close, George! "Isn’t there a more efficient way of doing this than this huge grab for money? What if, for example, you denied driver’s licenses to teenagers who are caught smoking?"
By trying to label this as a "grab for money" and by implication a "tax issue" Will deflects from the more important issue of health and well-being of not only kids but all Americans. Nice try, George.
Part of Raines' reply: "I think it’s a little ironic that people who believe in the market are now arguing for command and control, in this particular instance. The evidence is that increasing the cost of cigarettes is the best way to reduce teen smoking. And if we do increase the cost of cigarettes, we can have that reduction."
The following segment featured Senator Pat Moynihan, a frequent This Week guest, to discuss social security -- and possible privatization. It was a hardcore wonk segment, but with a few comments from Pat worth repeating here:
Pat: "A majority of nonretired adults do not think they’re going to get Social Security. If you don’t think you’re going to get it, you won’t miss it if it’s taken away. And there is in fact a strong movement to do just that by privatizing the entire system."
Cokie: "So your solution is, then, to privatize a little bit of the system?"
Pat: "Yes. Compromise, it’s called. It sometimes works! (laughter)"
Some details of the plan from Pat: "Senator Kerrey and I proposed a 2 percent, 2 full percentage points, cut in the payroll tax, a very regressive tax. You pay on the first dollar you earn. And you go back to pay as you go; 10.4 percent pays the bills you need indefinitely with a few other changes. Then the 2 percent you have an option of gutting into a thrift savings plan."
George: "You have that option. Henry Aaron, not the ballplayer, but the economist at Brookings (laughter) says the following as a criticism of your plan: 'Most low earners prefer to spend their money now. People can already save in tax—sheltered accounts, but few do. Social security was designed to correct this myopia, forcing people to set aside funds to protect themselves.' Do they need this forcing?"
Pat: "There was no myopia about stock markets and mutual funds in the New York City I was raised in, in the 1930s. Not one of us ever heard of one. A broker? No. Today, half of American households have some form of stock ownership."
A little later, Cokie got a bit loopy, maybe due to a sugar rush from too much Easter candy: "But Senator, you—some of your other provisions here—you talk about raising the retirement age. You talk about ..."
Pat: "Raising the retirement age to 70 in the year 2063."
Cokie: "year 2073. Yes. All right... So it’s not—it’s not going to affect us, right? "
Boy, that little detail has me soooo concerned, Cokie.
George back on the tax issue: "You inveigh against the regressive nature of the payroll tax. What do you think of a cigarette tax that falls disproportionately heavily on those with incomes under $50,000?"
Pat: "That is a very regressive tax. Tax on beer might be said to be the same. It’s a public health choice, not a taxation issue. I think Frank Raines was clear on that."
Thank God someone set George straight!
We tuned out for the roundtable, feeling the urge to celebrate Easter without the pompous prognostications of Spephanopoulos or Kristol.
-- The Editors
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