Search American Politics
FEATURE
Brill Cream!
Pundit Pap
for Sunday, June 14, 1998
Steve Brill's Content -- Picking Up On What American Politics Journal Began!
Monday, June 15, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- In about a week, the nation will be discussing Steve Brill's new magazine, Brill's Content, which focuses on how the media treats issues of public policy. Brill, on tour of pundit television shows this weekend pushing his new publication , opened his hand Friday by pre-releasing a lengthy piece on White House "scandal" and the manner in which the mainstream media has covered a variety of unproved allegations against Bill Clinton, from Whitewater to Monicagate.
Brill's most severe charges are aimed at Kenneth Starr and his own "use" of the media to push stories about Clinton -- perhaps in violation of federal law.
In fact, it probably won't surprise you that much of the Sunday spin happened after Steve Brill and the Papsters had their say, as Starr began a vain effort at damage control, going on the desperate defensive.
Starr and his team now find themselves vulnerable to the very damaging revelation in the Brill's Content article that Starr and his aide Jackie Bennett (who preceded the bumbling Charles Bakaly as a sort of "spokesman" for the Independent Counsel) spoke with New York Times reporters just before they ran a story claiming that Betty Currie, Clinton's personal secretary, had said to the DC grand jury that Clinton allegedly asked her a series of "leading questions" just prior to her appearance -- making this particular leak one intended to imply that Clinton "egged on" Currie to lie.
The leak smacks not only of impropriety but probable illegality.
This revelation alone may cost Starr his position as Special Prosecutor -- and could even leave him vulnerable to criminal charges.
Brill's article also reveals a litany of Starr's "pet" reporters, including Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, The New York Times' Jeff Gerth and Stephen Labaton, ABC's Jackie Judd, NBC's David Bloom, and The Washington Post's Susan Schmidt.
Keep in mind that the news media and self-anointed political pundits, not Ken Starr, are Brill's true target -- as they should be. These people have made hay -- and a lot of money -- on the backs of Bill Clinton and his family.
We applaud Brill and his effort. While both sides of these issues can be faulted, Brill correctly assumes, without saying it, that the basis for Bill Clinton's woes may be, in large part, just plain bad journalism with a little help from the ultra-right.
We advise you to read Brill's Content. It, as much as American Politics Journal, might just open your eyes.
Fox News Sunday
You have to hand it to Tony Snow and the FNS gang. Fox News and parent company News Organization have been Clinton's most conspicuous media enemies, unashamedly spewing some of the most venomous and biased coverage of Clinton's public and private life.
And you have to laugh at the recent Fox News Channel TV ad campaign with its slogan "We report. You decide."
We decided. You're biased.
But we know that. The entire world's in on it.
And that makes us marvel all the more at Fox News Sunday, not only for covering more ground and more issues than the competition -- even if from a clearly right-of-center slant -- but for their sheer chutzpah.
For example, leading off this weeks FNS with Steve Brill in his first high-profile appearance of the weekend -- paired up in the same segment with Lucianne Goldberg, the outspoken and quite entertaining super-conservative book agent. Tony Snow and Fox News high poobah Roger Ailes have cajones of pure brass!
Tony got the thrust of the article right in his intro to the segment, focusing on Brill's article being a clear critique of the press. He even gave Brill a massive berth to discuss why he feels Ken Starr violated the law with his question-comment "You've created a buzz."
Brit Hume was stupid enough to bring up Blalock v. US and Rule 6(e): "Is it not good law?" Brill set him straight on how the ruling had clearly and specifically been overruled by the DC Court of Appeals: "It is not good law." Brill castigated Hume for not having the facts and reiterated his point that if Starr is correct in his comments about all of these discussions with so many members of the press, why did he not put them on the record?
The thrust of Brill's argument is that these press contacts were leaks due to the twin factors of non-identification ("off-the-record secrecy") of the source plus the implication of impropriety on the part of an investigatee.
Where's Brill's evidence of such, asked Snow? "I have Ken Starr's own words!" replied an incredulous Brill.
Hume, one of the architects of Fox News, has over the last few weeks shown himself to be as big a chucklehead as ABC's Sam Donaldson. Where's Tucker Carlson when you need him?
Brit continued trying to make inroads as he struggled to find another foot to stick in his mouth, commenting on Brill's complaint that "journalist who you say purport to be objective or straightforward purveyors of fact by day and then go on television at night to express their opinions. And you cite as a prime example of that your former colleague Stuart Taylor."
Brill: "And my friend, still, I hope."
Hume: "But he is a columnist, is he not?"
Brill: "He is a columnist -- but I think Stuart thinks of himself as a journalist… he does purport to be someone who is objective."
In other words, Taylor is not entirely a columnist. Easy enough to understand, Brit.
Hume, wearing a pair of reading glasses and looking like an evil private school English teacher, insisted on harping on this point, exposing himself once again as another Starr partisan.
He went on to stick yet a third foot in his mouth: "You take some of your colleagues to task for being on television after their factual reporting. How many television appearances do you expect to make today?"
Brill: "I don't know."
Hume: "Well, more than one I presume, correct?"
Brill (smiling): "You invited me. In fact, your organization begged to squeeze me in today -- that's why I'm here!"
Hume: "We're delighted to have you. I just asked a simple question."
From a simple mind.
Tony moved on to his second guest Lucianne Goldberg, and was completely upfront in the interest of "full disclosure" about his knowing Lucianne and being involved in hooking up Goldberg with Divine look alike Linda Tripp.
Lucianne said that Brill's article "was not balanced journalism" and then talked about her dinner conversation with Brill, whom she claims had promised to look into the party or parties that leaked her ancient divorce records to the press. Nothing appeared in Brill's article with regard to this. but what Lucianne left unsaid is that it doesn't rule out the possibility Brill did just that and was unsuccessful.
In the process of discussing the Linda Tripp chronology, Lucianne continues to assert that she is not the source of the Drudge leak of the original Newsweek Lewinsky story despite his hearing it from three sources: "I had a client [Tripp] with a fascinating, earth-shattering story to tell." [Sounds like she's plugging a book!] "And we had worked on it for months and months and months. And the culmination of it was on, I guess you would say January 21st, whenever Drudge moved the first story was moved, which, incidentally, I was not the source for."
She went on to say that Brill "has misquoted my son more than he has misquoted me… If he had known that Steve Brill was going to take this tack, this spin, that he would just as soon talk to Paul Begala because this is a Begala-esque Lanny-esque treatment here. This is not balanced journalism here. And if Steve Brill, as brilliant as he is, is positioning himself as the new media watchdog, this dog won't hunt… This could have been written in the West Wing of the White House and we don't know that it wasn't."
The way Lucianne underlined all of her own spin points only went to show how she is both protecting herself in "distancing" herself from the action and taking every chance she can to attack the White House, especially with her specious claims about the West Wing.
But all this didn't stop Lucianne from going a little gossipy and admitting she was going to the launch party on Sunday Night for Brill's Content. She almost sounded like Liz Smith, dropping the names of the "scandal" glitterati she expected to encounter, ending with "I heard rumors that Clinton would be there! I hope not -- because that's a nightmare, to go to a party that has all that security there."
Believe me, she would have been the first to know if Clinton was going. But we can tell you that she's a charming and fun "party animal" and a shoo-in for Content Belle of the Ball.
The remaining segments were a snooze -- Orrin Hatch taking diplomatically worded pot-shots against Clinton in a segment that discussed Clinton's China trip. The high point -- Brit Hume taking Orrin to task over criticizing Clinton being in Tiananmen Square, since foreign leaders don't make demands as to where the US government can hold ceremonies. Hatch was huffy in his lame responses to Hume. For once, it didn't seem as if Hume was setting up a fellow conservative to bash the President.
Hatch also took a few moments to comment on the Brill story, saying "It's crazy to say prosecutors shouldn't give reporters background… I would believe Ken Starr over almost anybody else, because Starr has an impeccable reputation for honesty and decency."
After Meet the Press, we would also be reminded that Starr has a reputation for multiple conflicts of interest -- including a brand new one!
Hatch did discuss the McCain-Feingold tobacco bill; his assessment was a little more upbeat than Trent Lott's pre-mortem on This Week, but will need a lot of work: "We have the Hatch-Feinstein substitute amendment that we may bring up if the timing is right and if there is any possibility of moving it, which basically -- first of all, it is constitutional compared to the one that's on the floor that is unconstitutional. Secondly, it's an anti-tobacco bill. Thirdly, we provide for public health that really works where the one on the floor is starting to lose out on public health, in spite of some of the public health leaders who thought it was so wonderful to begin with. And fourthly, we have limited liability provisions that literally will bring the tobacco companies back to the table. And fifthly, we're going to hit them for $60 billion more and get them back to the table to boot."
Hume's comeback: "If you say sixthly, I'm leaving."
Even we laughed!
The other segment provided free (actually, ADM-subsidized) air time for the religious right, with Southern Baptist Convention chairman Paige Patterson ostensibly discussing such issues as women submitting "graciously" to their husbands and "character does count" in public office. He soft-pedaled it with the same "The man is the responsible spiritual head of the house" spiel he's given elsewhere in the media.
Patterson also took some direct pot-shots at the Mormon Church, usually an ally of Baptist and Evangelical organizations on social and political issues, calling them a "cult." Judging from Patterson's carefully chosen wording, could develop into a low-key but long-term ugly situation.
Patterson also took a moment to comment on the murder of James Byrd, taking a moment to say "It is unspeakable and unthinkable what happened there. And it just is one other area to which we have to address ourselves in the days ahead, to rid ourselves of all kinds of racism and hate crimes of that nature. And I would like to say that you can't legislate that, unless you have a change in heart, that only Jesus can bring, you eventually will have worsening of conditions in society, not improvement."
Tony and Paige then took a swipe at the controversial new play "Corpus Christi," which Tony Snow incorrectly asserted "has Jesus as gay."
The play features a Messiah-like gay character similar in many ways to Jesus, but clearly NOT JESUS. Fox News Sunday frequently spins the facts, but seldom do they get them wrong as they did in this case.
The panel discussed the now-notorious Monica Lewinsky spread in Vanity Fair. Ruth Conniff: "Monica Lewinsky got bad advice." Juan Williams: "It seems to me that William Ginsburg thought this would be a good public relations gesture." Brit: "…actions of a client whose advice to herself is bad."
We think they're not thinking this through -- suppose Ginsburg was being "crazy like a fox" by letting Monica do the photo spread in order to make her even less of a credible or indictable party?
Naturally, there was plenty of discussion of the Brill brouha, ha. Juan: "I thought it was terrifically one-sided… the White House is spinning." Well, Juan, we think Fox News Sunday is terrifically one-sided and that you're spinning! Ruth: "The gist [is] what is the media doing?… There's definitely been bad reporting." We've been asking that question and pointing out the slop that passes for journalism since we went online, Ruth -- but we're glad to see you and The Progressive are finally catching up.
In fact, we have to applaud Ruth for going on at length about the shoddy journalistic standards, including one-sourced stories and leaks which have prevailed in the Lewinsky debacle -- and the fact that she was allowed to with nary an interruption from Tony or Brit! Is Fox News on to something here? Might they be preparing for meltdown in Starrville?
Hume: "…the linchpin of the entire case [are] the 'talking points" but "in this whole exposition on the press's behavior in all of this, that goes on for 20 pages or so, the talking points are not mentioned! How can this be?" He says Brill's article is a case for one side.
We think they're not germane to the specific topic in Brill's article, Brit.
We even think you may have gotten wind of why there's been little discussion of these talking points in any press outlets of late.
But if not, you'll have to wait for tomorrow's American Politics Journal to find out along with the rest of our readers.
The McLaughlin Group
John McLaughlin led off his panel discussion with talk of President Clinton's upcoming trip to China -- one which Republicans are making into a test of his "American Conscience." Of course, Republicans, are the first to step up to defend trade deals with China and were not only instrumental but leaders in the technology transfers to them.
Pat Buchanan said that Clinton was giving China a "benediction." Eleanor Clift pushed the fact the China was a superpower whether we like it or not. "Even the Dalai Lama wants him to go to China," she offered.
Lawrence Kudlow of The National Review used his new spot on the panel to underscore his disappointment with the shrinkage of the defense budget. "We need a missile defense system," he said. McLaughlin moved in bolstering that one, telling the audience that our military is now 40% reservists.
Of course Buchanan jumped on the anti-Clinton bandwagon and said the issue of Clinton going to China and "chatting" with them is "puerile." Clift defended by saying the cutbacks were begun by the Bush administration, and "this (our military preparedness) has nothing to do with Clinton going to China."
McLaughlin then moved to a Chinese-published book (the most concise translation of the title being "The Sensual President"), which he said was about the Clinton scandals, removed from the shelves.
While part of the book does highlight the scandal-plagued White House, the majority of it is a straight biography -- and laudatory, at that! For some reason McLaughlin didn't want you to know that.
"The President should not be in Tiananmen Square," snipped Buchanan.
McLaughlin: "On human rights President Clinton will get a Zero."
McLaughlin then turned his sights on the Monica Lewinsky spread in Vanity Fair. "Smart or Dumb?," he asked, and then went on to quote Maureen Dowd's scathing criticism of the photos. Pat Buchanan said Dowd's column was "a little unfair." Clift said she seems to be a "willing participant" (with Clinton we assume) in the photos. Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune said, "Nobody cares," and Kudlow agreed but added that he hoped Lewinsky would "get honest" with prosecutors.
McLaughlin, always loving to take an opposite view, said the layout was "shrewd and humanized her." He then argued the other side saying some might perceive that the Lewinsky photos pose her as a "Lolita." Clift said that it makes the whole thing look like a farce." Ludlow said the "sex kitten" image cast Clinton in a poorer light. Clift remarked that Pat Buchanan and his friends who paint Lewinsky as an innocent, are now upset. "What it may do is give her the psychological energy to go forward … ," (and turn on Clinton) added McLaughlin.
We think the photos were a testament to the true goal of Clinton tattlers -- fame for themselves, no matter how fleeting.
McLaughlin asked whether the Vanity Fair photo's were smart or dumb.
Pat Buchanan: Very smart for Monica.
Eleanor Clift : It's as dumb as it can get.
Clarence Page: It's a wash.
Kudlow: Very dumb.
McLaughlin: Very smart!
McLaughlin asked whether the photos made Lewinsky, more or less likable:
Buchanan: More likable.
Clift: Likable is not relevant.
Kudlow: Less likable.
Page: More likable.
McLaughlin: Clearly, more likable.
As he is apt to do, McLaughlin turned to a smaller story, with great importance -- Alan Greenspan's comments re a potential interest rate rise. Greenspan told Congress that the economy remains robust and that no interest hike is anticipated. "Is Greenspan going to rue those words?"
Everyone, but Buchanan agreed that Greenspan was right.
The closing question, the level of the Dow next year, got reactions from 7,000 to over 10,000 from the Panel. Buchanan and Mclaughlin were the only ones who thought the market would slip to 7,000.
Our own AMPOL pundits say 6,500 -- 7,500.
All in all McLaughlin made a comeback this week. The show was fast-paced and Kudlow was a good addition. Clarence Page is a good balance to the obvious partisanship of Clift and Buchanan.
A good job from The McLaughlin Group.
Meet the Press
Tim Russert unexplainably led with a ridiculous story and interview of the National Rifle Association's new President, Charlton Heston.
Russert must think that the NRA is some huge force in American society -- it isn't.
The NRA is simply a lobby for gun manufacturers who use sportsmen's fear of losing their rifles as a hook for fund raising and letter writing campaigns. As far as Heston goes… well, he's an old man and a once-great film star. Perhaps he wants to run for President? Sillier things have happened.
Rahm Emanuel was the first guest. Russert asked him about the big story of the weekend that Ken Starr admitted leaking grand jury information after having denied it. "Starr says he was 'backgrounding' -- what is the White House's response?," he asked.
Emanuel" "It is a bombshell and hangs over the office of the Independent Council… Anything short of a new independent investigation must be held on these charges. These charges are so serious… until this is cleared up a cloud will remain over Starr's office."
The word "bombshell" would be echoed in the Sunday afternoon and evening newscasts and the Monday morning papers, making it the Quote of the Week.
Russert followed up and asked Emanuel whether the President might now ask Janet Reno to fire Kenneth Starr. Emanuel, wisely, refused to discuss it (adding "unlike Ken Starr"). Russert tried to pin the Starr Tail on the White House Donkey by asking what Emanuel thought about the flood of letters and phone logs released by the White House on Kathleen Willey the day after her interview on CBS' 60 Minutes in which she claimed the President "groped" her.
He was trying to get Emanuel to admit that the White House engaged in leaking grand jury evidence just as Starr may have.
It didn't work.
"Why won't the President testify?" Emanuel parried: "I think this decision is handled by David Kendall -- the President's lawyer."
Russert then moved on to Charlton Heston, who said that he wanted to "return the NRA to the mainstream of American Life."
American Life in the 1950s we can only assume.
Russert asked about mandatory trigger locks on guns. "Will the NRA now support that?" Heston said he was in favor or them, save for the fact that they (trigger-lock manufacturers) warn the gun could go off, even with the lock, if the gun was loaded. What about the FBI check on people buying guns? asked Russert. Heston said the FBI plan to charge $30.00 fees and he didn't agree with that. Russert said it was $15.00. Heston said they should have done it 30 years ago. Heston also said he didn't like AK 47 assault rifles, but that didn't mean he would not defend any American's right to own one.
Russert asked Heston what he meant when he said that the President could not be trusted with anyone's 21 year old daughter. Heston dodged the question -- embarrassed -- and said he promised not to criticize the President again if he would make certain that criminals were prosecuted. He used Philadelphia's Judge Shapiro -- who released felons who then committed 73 crimes as an example. In short, he completely changed the subject and Russert fell for it.
Russert asked Heston what he meant when he said there were "as many gun users in Hollywood as homosexuals in the closet." Heston said that he meant just what he said. Russert then showed a clip where Heston attacks feminists, blacks and homosexuals and said America was in a "cultural war." Heston said he shared these feelings with Bill Bennett -- we wonder what Bennett would say to that?
Kudos to Russert for exposing Heston as a potential idiot -- or senile. Take your choice.
Will the President designate a city to act as a laboratory for Heston's "enforcement" call? Emanuel, as he has before, cited President Clinton's Boston model as an example in which not one single youth-involved murder was committed last year. "The NRA has opposed us every step of the way," he said, and invited Heston to support a juvenile Brady Bill. He said the President would push for an extension of the Brady Bill which expires soon, but will not push for a one-gun-a-month law. He added that the White House wants a parental responsibility law.
On Heston's remarks about Clinton , women, blacks, and homosexuals, Emanuel said that the President engages in programs, not insults.
Emanuel would not say he was confident about passage of the Tobacco bill, but said he had confidence in the Congress that they will pick "kids" over tobacco.
Russert then shows a clip of Clinton being critical of Bush on Bush's favorable Chinese trade policies despite Tiananmen Square during the 1992 campaign. This was a beautiful ambush, since Clinton is essentially adopting the same approach to China now as Bush did then.
Emanuel, not one easily ambushed, ignored the implication, and went on to say that this President was moving forward on engagement -- not rhetoric. Russert asked whether Clinton would meet with dissidents. Emanuel could or would not answer.
Gary Bauer (arch-fiend and self-appointed spokesman for the so-called Religious Right) went head-to-head with Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) in the following segment.
How Russert could concede any credibility at all to Bauer, let alone allow him to be a guest on Meet the Press, is beyond us. Bauer and Baucus continued the debate on the President's China trip. Bauer is against it , and Baucus is for it. Surprise, surprise! Bauer even criticized George Bush in order to hang Clinton.
Russert asked Baucus what the American people must think when they see Clinton taking Bush to task over the very same policies he himself has now adopted. Baucus was right on the money when he answered candidly that he thought President Clinton had learned a lesson and simply changed his mind.
Bauer said that Clinton's China policy is a disaster and claimed that the President has fallen under the influence of large American corporations who are influencing him in order to make "big bucks" in China. He cited China as a "rogue nation" because they check women every few months to see if they are pregnant as a prelude to abortion, and for nuclear proliferation to Pakistan. Of course, he never mentioned India! He added, laughably, that he would do everything he could to turn the American policy toward China around. Baucus agreed that any policy of "forced abortion" is intolerable but that the answer to changing these types of Chinese policies is to engage China in discussion -- not to punish her.
Bauer attempted some repairs to his reputation by saying he was NOT against engagement, just the means by which it is pursued -- at least a theory to be considered, even by us. Bauer, who was all over Iowa last week posing as -- get this -- a potential GOP presidential contender, is now appearing to soften his image as a right-wing hard-liner. Russert gave him an opportunity and he took it. However, trusting Bauer to disengage from the grip of ultra-right wing religious reactionaries is tantamount to trusting Satan as a gym teacher in an all-girls boarding school.
Russert showed a clip of Steve Brill talking about Starr's leaks to the press and then turned to Bob Woodward to pass judgment on Brill, who is taking on journalists like Woodward and their biased treatment of the White House.
How ridiculous can one get?
Woodward tried to resurrect himself and his flagging stardom with Clinton scandal reportage last year -- with little success! What position did Russert think he would take?
"Can Ken Starr talk to reporters without breaking the law?," Russert asks Woodward. "Yes, " responds Woodward -- right on cue. Woodword thinks that reporters are doing a "good job" on the White House. Al Hunt of The Wall Street Journal agreed. Lisa Myers, on Rahm Emanuel's call for a new investigation of Ken Starr, said that perhaps Mr. Shaheen -- already investigating Starr on charges of knowingly allowing witness tampering by Richard Mellon Scaife -- might expand his inquiry into Starr's leaks as reported by Brill.
The "journalists" were uncomfortable, to say the least.
Russert also had Michael Isikoff on as part of his wrap-up panel. Isikoff, supposedly on "vacation" this week -- and being sued for breaking a contract with Julie Hiatt Steele, a source used apparently without permission in his Newsweek reportage -- attacked Brill's characterizations of Starr, of course.
This was not the only example of the wagons of the fourth estate circling this Sunday -- defending themselves against Brill and his new magazine. So it's no surprise that the pundits focused on comments made to Brill by Ken Starr, downplaying the fact that Brill's Content is a watchdog publication focusing on the news media and its supposed objectiveness -- or actual lack thereof.
Isikoff said that the press is poised waiting to see if a deal between Lewinsky and Starr can be made. He suggested that Lewinsky was indeed infatuated with the President. Woodward asserted that she is a "damaged witness" because she has already said, under oath, that she did not have sexual relations with the President. Lisa Myers, the last member of the panel said Lewinsky must prove that her testimony will be truthful, and if so -- that she can make a deal not to be prosecuted herself for perjury.
We were amused that Russert never brought up the fact that he himself has also been widely criticized for his treatment of the White House -- especially by American Politics Journal.
This Week
This Week almost completely avoided the subject of the Brill's Content article.
Bad call -- we can only question This Week's commitment to deal with the issue of press culpability and complicity with Starr and the ultra-right, a bigger scandal than anything to have emerged from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in the last six years.
To their minor credit, however, This Week was the only one of the major talk shows to address at length the James Byrd murder in Jasper, Texas, a sad bellwether of the continuing American tragedy of racial hatred. The first guest was Reverend Jesse Jackson, at once somber and assertive.
The spin: Sam Donaldson's mention that on the first anniversary of President Clinton's initiative on "Race and Reconciliation," not a whole lot has happened -- or improved.
Of course, Sam ignores the obvious: racism has been a de facto part of American culture for three centuries, and progress should be measured in generations, not years.
Reverend Jackson's comment on the murders filled in a few poignant facts left unmentioned in most press reports: "This young man was walking down the street in his own neighborhood. He was apparently abducted, kidnapped, killed, ankles tied to a truck, dragged three miles down Martin Luther King Street past his house -- a very provocative act, a contemptuous act, a heinous, subhuman crime."
He also reviewed a litany of recent race crimes: "…last year, in Virginia, a young black man was beheaded and burned to death. [Abner] Louima in New York sodomized in the rectum, almost to the point of death, by police in the precinct station. Young Yusef Hawkins, Bensonhurst in New York, Rodney King in LA, two black people killed by soldiers, skinheads in Fayetteville, North Carolina -- so there is a pervasiveness here. And these are [white] supremacists, anti-black, anti-Semitic, homophobic, anti-government, armed, dangerous and known."
Jackson's take on the roots of the problem also bear repeating: "This gap between the stock wealth and the sweat poor -- a vast body of Americans who feel left behind and threatened and anxious -- they're the ones driving this anti-government, anti-black, anti-semitic [effort]."
This is a very telling comment from Jackson -- a surprising double acknowledgment acknowledgment that the wealth gap (as opposed to wealthy people) is the catalyst, and the violence is being committed by disenfranchised and disadvantaged individuals.
Cokie turned the spotlight on Clinton, asking about Jackson's role as a spiritual advisor to the President: "How would you say he's doing spiritually?"
Jackson: "In reference to?"
Cokie: "Your advice with him in reference to his troubles in the last few months."
Right, Cokie, slip Whateveritisgate into the interview, just as Sam and Jackson are addressing real and complex issues.
Jackson replied by commenting on the strength of the Clinton family, a clear shot at Clinton's cheap-shot enemies who claim the president is some sort of pervert.
Jackson also got in a comment at the expense of a decision by Southern Baptists to declare wives some sort of inferiors to their husbands: "In marriage, wives and husbands should submit to each other and be obedient to God. After all, theologically, a woman comes not from man's rib but from his side of the same fabric. Men and women are co-partners with each other and co-partners with God… Any notion of a woman have a lesser role, I think, would be ungodly; theologically unsound; and frankly, irrational."
Hey, Jesse -- you're not going to make any friends among the Gary Bauer-Pat Robertson crowd with words like that.
The second segment, featuring Starrweek's -- er, make that Newsweek's Evan Thomas, and John Coale, lawyer for Julie Hiatt Steele, who has filed a suit against Newsweek's Michael Isikoff claiming he violated an off-the-record agreement.
Coale: "Very briefly, everything was off the record. After she recanted, again it was agreed it was off the record. So, basically, we have what the Supreme Court said in Cohen v. Cowles in '91, an almost identical situation: a deal's a deal, nothing to do with the first amendment, and they upheld a Minnesota court verdict in that case."
Thomas' weak denial of wrongdoing: "I don't believe Isikoff violated anybody's confidence. I've worked with him a long time. He's been in Washington a long time, he knows the difference between on the record and off the record. I don't think he did anything wrong here."
We asked our expert translators to remove the spin from Thomas' answer, and here's what we got:
This comment touched off a little crosstalk between the panelists, Thomas and Coale.
This important point is bound to slip by most press outlets, so for those of you keeping track of Ken Starr's multiple conflicts of interest, add this one to the roster!
George Will actually pressed Evan Thomas on the "off-the-record issue: "Maybe I didn't hear your answer initially correctly: did Mr. Isikoff say this is 'off the record?' "
Thomas: "Yes. As far as I know, he did not violate any confidence about this."
DIDN'T VIOLATE ANY CONFIDENCE? What the heck planet (or Starr) is Newsweek on?
George to Coale: "Do you have a tape?"
Coale: "I won't say."
Sam asked some ridiculous questions trying to tie the verbal agreement issue to real estate law.
Enough, Sam.
Senator Trent Lott (R-MI) was the next guest in a double-length segment, in an effort, we can only suppose, to try to turn his image away from the centrist positions he has taken of late and shift it back to the hard right, no doubt to bolster his extreme long-shot hope of finding support for a Presidential run.
Too bad. He was mostly a bore.
The first segment concentrated on China, allowing Lott a wide berth to spout the usual pap on Clinton ("I think it is really going to look bad if he goes to Tiananmen Square and just allows them to use him… The list of things they do wrong is endless."), MFN ("I think Most Favored Nation status is something we should take off the books anyway."), Loral ("There's some fundamental questions here. Why was authority transferred from State to Commerce?")
His answer on trade was hilariously incoherent: "I think he should go over there and make it very clear that while we want to have a trade relationship with them, and we want to have a communications with them, and good relationships with them, if they don't change their policies and these -- uh, this whole number of areas, they don't stop selling weaponry to Pakistan and Iran and around the world."
Huh? You DON'T want them to stop selling weapons?
Sam fanned the nuke scare flames with a completely stupid question: "Do you think they'd actually use those ICBMs against the United States?"
Lott's lame and predictable reply: "You know, I hope not. But, you can't ever be assured."
Oh, please! What the heck reason would China have to even CONSIDER such an idea, gentlemen?
His comments on the pending Tobacco Bill generated Sunday and Monday morning headlines. There was a lot of back and forth on the bill "getting bigger" -- a spin Big Tobacco has also put on the situation with their recent blitz of TV commercials (which were in "hot rotation" on all of the Sunday morning shows except The McLaughlin Group). Lott parroted this position a number of times, for example: "It's become such a massive tax bill now, such a massive government program with incredible spending." And later: "The latest polls shows, as a matter of fact, the American people think this is a typical Washington solution, big money grab, greed has just completely taken over, government trying to dictate everything."
You don't suppose these talking points were penned by the same firm that wrote the anti-tobacco-legislation commercials, do you?
As for the bill passing: "I don't think the votes are there to pass it or end it… and I have this problem too as majority leader. I mean, I'm interested in higher education, and the reauthorization of the drug czar, the appropriations bills for everything in the government. Those are being delayed, held in abeyance. We spent three full weeks on this bill, we're entering almost a month. If, somewhere this week, we can't get it to conclusion, we've got to move on to other things."
The fact is, Lott has been a major architect of the stalling tactics to kill tobacco legislation, and his maneuvering held up all the "other things."
Lott also let it be known that they plan on causing procedural trouble at White house expense. In response to a set-up question by George Will containing the magic words "Bill Lan Lee" (Acting Asst. Attorney General for Civil Rights): "I believe clearly [Lee's holding the position] is a violation of the Vacancies Act. That point has been made by none other than Bob Byrd, a Democrat. But also one that helped write the Vacancies Act. It basically says that presidents can't do just what Bill Clinton is doing. It's not Bill Lan Lee. It is throughout the administration."
It's also a favorite target of conservatives -- attack anything to do with civil rights.
The roundtable wasted airtime on the tobacco bill, GOP strategy for the '98 and 2000 elections, the unctuous presence of Gary Bauer (in support of Reggie White's politically incorrect statements), and the Southern Baptist convention decision on the role of women and wives -- replete with Bible citations. For a minute, we thought the entire panel had been possessed by some kind of weird PTL Club mojo.
This Week's near-complete avoidance of the Brill's Content brouha, ha spoke volumes. Amen.
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot | Searchfor |
Copyright©AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL INC 1996-1998 Reader Services Post Office Box 0409, Navesink, NJ 07716 FAX: 908.872.7604