E-Mail Us! E-Mail Us!
William Safire: A Hen in the Fox House
Tuesday, October 21st 1997: Do you get the idea that William Safire, the rapidly aging New York Times syndicated columnist, is obsessed by Bill Clinton? You' d think he was trying to get a Nobel Prize -- since he can't get a Pulitzer (He sits on the Pulitzer board) -- for bringing down the White House.
No sooner do I answer his last diatribe than he insults us with another. I can't help but wonder whether my musings about Safire being an early victim of Alzheimers actually have a basis in fact.
The egotistic Safire assault us once again with his Sunday editorial -- titled "Clinton's Campaign Conspiracy" -- where he states unabashedly that "soft money" must not be used to "directly" assist the campaign of a candidate for federal office. That's not true, yet he snortingly tells us -- "That's the law." Then he rants on, only to demonstrate that soft money was not used directly to assist the President in his campaign.
Am I missing something? You be the judge.
Safire wants us to believe that it's illegal for political parties to use soft money for advocacy ads, even though it is perfectly legal and has been done for decades by both parties. The only thing to be guarded is the ban against directly naming the candidate -- in this case Bill Clinton -- or calling for his re-election in ads that are paid for with soft money. That's the way the Supreme Court sees it, and that's the way most legal scholars see it. So why should we believe a tired old hack like Safire? Well, we shouldn't, but let's give him a chance to impress us with his lack of logic which he avers will inevitably lead us to the truth -- that Bill Clinton hatched some impossibly intricate conspiracy to destroy Democracy and steal the election from the ever-popular Bob Dole -- who, just by chance, is one of Safire's buddies.
Safire tells us that recently released White House videotapes (He actually calls the videotapes an "indesputable source" yet he whispers they were "doctored.") shows (1) that a "conspiracy" was underway to raise soft money, and; (2) that the conspiracy was to do it for an "unlawful" purpose.
Raising soft money is legal, it's not a "conspiracy" Bill.
Who does he rely on for proof - why Dick Morris of course -- because Morris, wanting to compliment the President and show he was a hands-on kind of guy, claimed Clinton approved or re-wrote issue ads at weekly campaign sessions in the residence. Well, although the ads were written by Morris and campaign-guru Mark Penn, let's give Safire the benefit of the doubt that the President had veto and editorial power over the ads. So what? Can't a candidate suggest changes, refuse to run an ad or even contribute to its message? You bet they can. According to Safire -- and no one else -- the answer is no.
Therefore we now have two shaky foundations upon which silly Safire rests his case that Bill Clinton tied up his own felony prosecution by these words from a May 21, 1996 tape:
"The fact that we have been able to finance this long-running television campaign...where we have always been framing the issues... has been central to the position I now enjoy in the polls."
"That's the smoking gun," Safire harrumphly announces, as lawyers, judges and prosecutors simultaneously look at one another, roll their eyes, and shrug him off.
Here's the biggest Safire lie - and I choose the word "lie" for good reason. Safire claims that it's illegal for the President to boast that he has been using soft money to pay for ads that boosted his ratings in the race for president. That's a bald-faced and knowing lie on Safire's part. A lie for which he should be dismissed from the Times and more-importantly the Pulitzer Board on which he sits. The President, sitting at a DNC party fundraiser can boast all he wants about what the party has done for him -- directly or as in this case -- indirectly.
Safire shamefully asserts that the "we" in the President's remarks means "he and his White House staff," but the truth is that the "we" refers to Democrats and the Democratic National Committee of which Bill Clinton is the titular head and which can legally produce ads which feature the President as standing for its principals.
Thus, as usual, Safire misleads, confuses and outright lies about the facts to suit himself and his GOP puppeteers who put him, suitably, on the street -- much as a pimp markets a whore.
So much for that ,you say. Well not really, for Safire's too-feminine hysteria raves on as he makes one outlandish charge after another: Clinton used the Oval Office for fundraising - Unproven and untrue. Clinton secretly re-directed soft money to hard money accounts - Unproven and untrue. Clinton raised money illegally from foreign sources -- Unproven and untrue.
If it weren't so sad, it would be comical. But to watch a man of Safire's once impeccable reputation destroy himself to all but those with the most jaundiced eyes is quite remarkable. I'll give him this, he tries to cure his own irresponsible words with the following: "Of course there are some loose ends to tie up." Hah - "some" loose ends Bill? How about everything you've said? It's those "loose ends" that make you the laughing stock of your peers and the reason that Janet Reno won't take your unwise counsel -- there's not a scintilla of proof and even Safire, who'd gladly sacrifice constitutional protections of all kinds, must know that.
But wait, there's more. Here's Safire's bogus prescription for victory.
1. Get the original copy of the Clinton fundraiser with his "Asian connections" -- a copy of which Safire thinks "has some suspicious breaks in it." Safire's need to use the term "Asian connections" should tell you something about him. Most of the Asians in the film were second and third generation Americans.
2. Get the Senate to speed up "prosecution" of "the campaign conspiracy." I hate to tell ya Bill -- the Senate does not prosecute, nor does it "speed up" prosecutions. That's the Attorney General's job. Oh, I forgot, you think she prostituting herself for the White House. How silly of me.
3. Get the Senate to "round up" as many of the "fleeing fifty" as can be, and force them to take the fifth in person. Wow! That will really prove something Bill -- that they're afraid of the same Kangaroo Court you construct in your columns.
4. Make the Senate extend its investigations. Gee Bill, isn't the $100 million spent on special prosecutors that find nothing on the President just about enough money wasted on your witch hunt? A hundred million could feed 100,000 starving kids for God's sake.
"A widespread, criminal conspiracy to violate Federal election laws stares the nation in the face," shrieks Safire.
He's right. And Mr. Fireman, a highly placed Dole campaign official, has already served time and paid fines for laundering millions of dollars for Bob Dole in Hong Kong. Dan Burton (R-IN) and his pal, former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour are currently in front of a Grand Jury. Last week, House Speaker Newt Gingrich's money laundering through charitable corporations was referred directly to the Attorney General by Rep. John Conyers during a House Judiciary Committee meeting.
How much action do you need Bill?
Copyright© - UDR Inc