Monday, November 9th, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Pundits predicting gains for the Republican Party in last weeks elections got it wrong -- as usual. American Politics Journal has been predicting the demise of the GOP for 18 months, based solely on the mean-spirited witch hunt conducted by the otherwise moderate and financially effective Newt Gingrich.

This weekend, we looked for signs of apology from those America relies on for "guidance" -- the top Washington television pundits.

"We were all wrong, all the time," said George Stephanopoulos, the ABC commentator and former aide to Clinton. "It's true and we probably ought to admit it." He said the commentators consistently misread "the public feeling on the entire issue of Monica and impeachment." George told this to Janny Scott of The New York Times.

But it was a lie. Stephanopoulos knew -- or should have known all along -- that voters were sick of the pundit lynch mob paid millions by networks intent on getting Clinton out of the White House, and even more intent on stretching their newfound viewership as Americans struggled to make sense out of the circus that Gingrich provided in the House.

Tony Blankley
Tony Blankley, a former press secretary to Gingrich, told the Times, "The first thing that has to be understood is that pundits are remarkably better at autopsy than they are at prophecy."

What a laugh. Blankley, if anyone, should have known that Gingrich was in deep trouble. The Times claimed that "in interviews Wednesday and Thursday, before Gingrich announced that he would resign both the speaker's job and his seat in Congress, pundits and former pundits attributed the often startling degree of the miscalculations to a half-dozen factors including the genuinely surprising outcome of the election, the myopia of Washington insiders, and the vested interest of journalists in the story."

Well, Scott's interviewees lied again -- at least in two instances:

1) The only reason that pundits miscalculated was their own greedy vested interest in bringing down the President and the Democratic party. Why? For money, plain and simple.

2) No longer do networks support public opinion television programs. Each program stands on its own and must produce revenue enough to support the salaries of the hosts and panels, production costs and air time. If they don't, they are canceled. A show lauding the President would not, of course, bring in a new raft of voters -- or so they say. Yet Geraldo Rivera, the highest paid pundit on national television, proved networks and Beltway "experts" wrong and was the only commentator who got it at least partially right.

The Times also wrote that "Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report and a political analyst for CNN, said journalists also ignored polls showing no clear evidence that the public was turning on Clinton. They did so in part, he said, because some themselves felt betrayed and offended by the president's lying."

Yet it was Rothenberg and his pals that were themselves lying. Only in the last week did he -- and they -- begin paying attention to polls which all along had pointed to a big loss by the GOP. Historically, an election like this should yield 25-40 seats for the Republicans, and nothing could excuse the almost damning loss on Tuesday when Democrats captured five new seats from Republicans and made their majority in the House nearly impotent. It was, in fact, the greatest loss for the Republican Party since Nixon's resignation.

William Kristol, editor and publisher of The Weekly Standard -- and the "intellectual" guru of the New Right who pushes The New Moralism on the GOP, predicted in recent months that both Clinton and the Democrats were "doomed." And, of course, he was wrong and knew he was lying to the public -- lying with the goal of misleading them into voting Republican. Kristol told the Times, "I think I'm not as smart as I thought I was, or at least as I pretended to think I was." 'Pretended' is right. But the pretense was his intelligence and his bogus opinions spread over the airways as a political errand given him by men like Newt Gingrich. The old "if you say it long enough and loud enough" rule is what Kristol was engaged in -- not a "misreading" of the electorate.

The biggest jerk of them all, Sam Donaldson of ABC News, said that he thought that if Clinton was not telling the truth about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky his presidency would be "numbered in days." He has never recanted this testimony, even though he had access to polling information which showed the opposite.

As the President's polls rose, the pundits remained entrenched. Why? Because their paychecks depended on it. No matter how, they continued to insult the President, and in doing so the intelligence of the nation. And what should these pundits care about tears shed by innocent Chelsea Clinton, who has been nearly driven from Stanford by hateful, smarmy sons and daughters of wealthy Republican greedsters?

Only a month ago, Kristol wrote, "After the voting this Nov. 3, the Democrats are likely to be down to about 40 senators and fewer than 200 House members, their lowest total in 70 years. And the devastation will continue at the state and local levels."

What a visionary!

Did one pundit so much as say a word about their sorry predictions?

Read on, and you'll see.

Fox News Sunday

Talk about fun! Tony Snow and the gang invited an all-GOP roster to spin -- or a least attempt to spin -- the humiliating Election Day losses for their party and the resignation of Emperor Newt as a new cadre of Brutuses were sharpening their shivs and the jockeying for position over new GOP leadership in the House had begun.

To our delight, it was mostly GOP Moderates on Parade this Sunday -- calls for moderation, reconciliation, less shrillness, more inclusiveness, outreach to minorities -- everything short of the words "we had no agenda, we have no agenda," which was the stealth message of this week's program.

The topic: "The Speaker's Chair is Empty... The Rise and Fall of Gingrich." The public would have been better served by "The pundits have misspoken -- the rise and fall of our failed prognostications." Nothing was said about the humiliating failure of their "gang" to predict the outcome of the elections with anything approaching accuracy.

"Internal Republican tensions burst into public view!" Steve Largent (R-OK), former football player and self-announced candidate for Majority Leader taking on Dick Armey, was the first guest. Tony's first question: "How many votes have you got?" Largent didn't answer directly, talking instead about "working the phones." Tony then asked him about why a moderate like Connie Morella would vote for Largent; he replied about a need for strong leadership and "communicat[ing] our agenda" as he rattled off a few of the standard "issues" -- Social Security, lower taxes -- but never gave a good reason that fellow GOPers should vote for him over possible challengers, other than "we need a good communicator to bring our agenda to the American people."

What would he do? "Start working to build an agenda that will unify our party." A tall order, in that the moderate and ultra-right factions of the GOP are going through the most fractious period they have seen in recent history.

Tony then turned to a troika of Republicans -- and first asked them if they were running for GOP leadership posts. Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) gave Tony a "thumbs up" -- he is running for Republican Conference Chairman against John Boehner.

Is Tom DeLay the kingmaker? Vic Lazio said yes, claiming that the Whip is the one "safe" leader in the House -- something we do not buy completely, given questions surrounding allegations by a GOP contributor which recently surfaced concerning DeLay's participation in a "scampaign" cash diversion for another candidate.

Rep. David Dreier would not speculate on who would be on the new Speaker -- "It's premature to say." As for Lazio: "I'd like to see Dreier in the race." He also mentioned the need for a "positive message" from the party to bring in more members, citing the successes of high-profile GOP governors -- a hint that he wants to see the GOP moderate its message in the House.
Dreier specifically cited the suddenly high profile of the Bush brothers "an overwhelming number of our members understand the message." And Watts emphasized the need to "reach out to non-traditional" potential Republicans.

None of them explicitly mentioned a crucial fact -- GOP governors are far and away more moderate than those in the House, but the message was clear. Many Republicans are smarting from a disastrous midterm election, and want to jettison the hard right. If true, they'd be wise to replace DeLay.

Rep. Dreier had us laughing when he said "Democrats are visceral whereas Republicans are more cerebral." He must not have seen Newt and Dick Armey on TV during Election Night. This assertion also plays into the myth being circulated by Conservatives that "today's political intellectuals" have "abandoned" liberalism for conservatism.

Of course, on the right, spin passes for fact, idea and "intellectual" discourse.

And Watts fanned the "they eat their own" flames, a big theme this weekend: "An informed public will be an asset, but an uninformed public will be a liability... We're guilty of eating our wounded."

More pap from Dreier: "We're in touch with the American public." I'm sure there are a few "inner city" and rural poor constituents would disagree.

We loved Dreier's reaction to Minority Leader Gephardt's terse press statement on Newt's abdication: "I would have expected more magnanimity from Richard Gephardt." And we expect pigs to sprout wings. There's no love lost between Newt and Gephardt.

Tony asked if, in light of Pat Moynihan's departure, Lazio might run: "We're going to look at it, someone who is pro-environment and in favor of lower taxes." Get a feeling Vic wants to see the GOP seize a real opportunity for change? Good for him, we say -- mention of the environment also hints that GOPers in the Northeast are trying to push the party closer to the center -- a difficult task, but not impossible given the current GOP turmoil. His party and the nation would benefit.

Who's going to be speaker? Watts: "Everyone should keep their powder dry" -- a sort of "hindsight is 20-20" comment if we ever heard one.

And Dreier concluded the segment saying "Livingston would make a great Speaker... I'm looking forward to chairing the Rules Committee."

The guest in the second segment was Rep. Bill Paxon (R-NY). Tony opened the segment mentioning that Paxon "surrendered his leadership seat" after a coup attempt against Newt.

Morton Kondracke asked Paxon about the difference between Livingston and Gingrich. Paxon: "[Livingston] will rely more on the leadership chairs... a much more formal structure, a much more participatory structure." Less unified that way, asked Mort? "More unified message." Coming from a moderate Democrat, this is also a pretty solid indication that the GOP in the House has to get behind a moderated message if they stand any chance of holding the House in 2000. Paxon went on to describe a House with greater party compromise and "more opportunity to put together coalitions with Democrats... you will see Congress moving on the Republican agenda [including] Reaganesque tax cuts" Brit Hume devil-advocated, asking if they wouldn't be rich man's tax cuts? Paxon surprised us by changing direction -- "You do [the cuts] up front, away from elections..." rather than addressing Brit's question -- a mistake.

Mort asked about the impending impeachment hearings before the Judiciary Committee; Paxon mentioned the "shortened time period" speculating that impeachment articles either don't pass the committee or the House won't forward it to the Senate. "It is ultimately a political decision."

Brit asked about the abortion issue. Paxon: "The tone needs to be that we respect each other's views." Can pro-life measures pass? "It's a question of tone... the emphasis will be that we have to work these things out internally and respect each other at the end of the day" -- if you do that "you won't have the contentiousness."

Doesn't sound like Paxon is bullish on the prospects of pro-lifers.

Paxon was evasive about considering a run for the New York senate seat in 2000. As for his wife Susan Molinari running? "You'd have to ask her."

When Brit turned to the subject of possible winners in the new GOP leadership, and particularly the fate of Dick Armey, Paxon smiled and said "I don't know." Armey remained a longtime ally of Newt, fending off Paxon's challenge -- and looks to be going down with the S.S. Gingrich. No wonder Paxon was smiling!

"With House Republicans in turmoil, people are looking outside Washington for leadership." Tony welcomed New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Brit had the first question regarding turmoil in the House: "What happened?" Rudy: "The message is stick to the middle... To win an entire city or state, you have to appeal on the issues." Brit replied that the Bushes ran in Texas and Florida as conservatives. Rudy smiled and said "I don't know if that's right either!" and went on to mention "all the discussion is how Jeb Bush became more moderate... the Bushes are philosophically closer to Pataki, Celucci, Engler."

And Rudy's right. Lesson one that the GOP has taken away from this election is that the governors, not national legislators, are setting the agenda, broadening the party's base and reaching out to constituents previously ignored. And they need to. The white, male, affluent voter and his spouse are a shrinking percentage of the electorate, and the GOP needs new blood if it is not to fracture and self-destruct.

Tony said the GOP is "lousy" at getting minority votes. Rudy disagreed: "Republicans are good at getting minority vote" -- on the local level. But if they expect to succeed on the federal level they need to "focus on fiscal responsibility."

Does it make it easier with Newt out of the picture? "We're in a new age. We have to recognize the chance to bring the party together." Tony mentioned that Livingston called Rudy, and he smiled. "He wanted to find out how the Yankees won the World Series." He wouldn't go into details on the conversation.

Giuliani became the third New York pol asked about whether he'd take a Senate run in 2000: "I'm assessing possibilities [and] won't make a decision until after the first of the year."

And Giuliani could make a formidable candidate -- popular in the New York metro area, and his tough-on-crime, progressive-on-social-issues would play well upstate. When Brit asked "Aren't you a natural for Senate?" Rudy replied "There is no such thing as a natural candidate" citing the hard work and fundraising needed. Rudy did not discuss one thing that does not make him a "natural" -- his occasionally snippy, sometimes outright vindictive and almost Gingrichesque demeanor, something he will need to put into check to play on the statewide or national stage.

Tony asked about Rudy's "showing up all over the place... You didn't do it to test the waters?" Rudy: "I did it to broaden the base of the Rep party." He mentioned "30, 40, 50 Republicans who would make a better President than Al Gore (Newt)." And there is talk he considers himself one of them.. Time will tell where Rudy chooses to place his expanding ambitions.

Why did D'Amato lose? "This is a tough place to make it last three, four terms" Some say Al blew it. "When you win, the perception is that you made no mistakes, but even Chuck made mistakes."

Not one on the scale of the "putzhead" debacle or hiring Art Finkelstein as his campaign advisor, we'd add.

On impeachment, Rudy said it "should be considered carefully; the rush to impeachment has been very harmful to Republicans." As for Ken Starr, "I think people will be very impressed... he is one of the most intelligent people I have ever worked with." Rudy is an ex-prosecutor and colleague, so his boosterism comes as no surprise. we think he will be proven wrong.

Panel time! Tony poked fun at the punditocracy, saying "We should resolve not to use the word 'message' and never to use the word 'resonate.' "

We would add they shouldn't make as many forecasts and predictions so they can avoid looking like fools.

Question one: Is the departure of Newt a good thing?
Mort: Necessary
Mara Liasson: A very good thing
Brit: We will see [in other words no -- there goes the hard-right stance in the House!]

A very funny exchange between Mort and Brit ensued:
Mort: "Nobody else said he shut down the government just because he wasn't allowed onto the front section of a plane"
Brit: "That's not what he said."
Mort: "I was there when he 'didn't' say that."

We were rolling on the floor!

There was also some choice pap on the "new" direction the GOP needs to take:
Mort: "If George W. Bush becomes the new face of the GOP, it is a very attractive face."
Brit: "In the near term he will not be the new face of the GOP... Livingston looks like a New England lawyer and Largent is a male model type."

We think Brit wrong -- Bush's star is on the rise, and Livingston's looks won't cloak a conservative agenda if that is what he and his team undertake. In fact, it could set the GOP further back.

Tony induced a little dissonance when he asked about Jesse "The Governor" Ventura and "the most entertaining race -- why did he win?"
Brit: "Look what he ran on -- a very conservative agenda."
Mara: "It was a form of progressivism."
Talk about pundits tipping their biased hands!

What next for Newt?
Brit: No idea
Mara: Make a lot of money
Mort: He'll never run for office again... and forget the Senate, because "being a junior member of anything is not Newt."

We would add D: All of the above!

Brit: "They thought he was evil... suddenly the press has discovered all of his achievements."

Darn right -- at the end of it all, he may have managed to push the GOP toward the center!

Dumb and Dumber With Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts

In the world of Beltway pundits, friends don't let friends look bad on the tube. And the four DC insiders: Sam, Cokie, George Will and Bill Kristol -- seemed near-oblivious to the fact that their predictions about the election were so wrong, their "reading" of the public had no base in reality, and their continued New Moralist "scolding" of the average Joe for not embracing their puritan blather belies their self-important elitism.

Sam and Cokie welcomed speaker-to-be Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) "in a Sunday morning exclusive" to discuss "election fallout and the struggle for Republican leadership."

Why do you want to be speaker, he was asked. "I want to see the Congress continue to prosper for America." He expressed concern over lost seats when "we expected to pick up 15, 20 seats... [we want to be] majority party for the millennium."

Interesting answer: prosperity is issue one, the GOP was completely out of tune with the voting public and got hammered, and the goal is to keep both houses of Congress and snag the White House.

Is the problem that the GOP is not ideological enough, asked Sam? HUH? Don't you read the exit polling, Sam? What a stupid question! Livingston: "The problem is we're losing momentum." Losing? Try lost -- beginning in mid-January, when the Lewinsky scandal broke and the GOP and press began to show their real colors.

Do you have the temperament, asked Sam? They then played an hilarious C-SPAN clip that showed his [in-] famous, hilarious December 22, 1995 speech on the verge of government shutdown: "We will pass this continuing resolution and Merry Christmas!" He looked like a lunatic -- the panel was cracking up -- and so was Livingston! Livingston: "My Mom called me and told me I looked like a lunatic."

Look on the bright side: no matter how goofy you get, you'll never come across as whacked-out as Bob Barr, Dick Armey or Dan Burton -- no matter how hard you may try!

"Smaller government, lower taxes, more responsiveness to the American people."

George Will said "A lot of conservatives stayed home" because of the budget compromise; "why should we elect the man responsible for the train wreck?" Will oversimplifies the case, but Livingston played along, saying that if a conservative electorate is "sulking because they didn't get everything they wanted, they will get even less of what they want.... We took too many holidays and should have passed appropriations bills. If you saw my speech, I said this was ugly but we have to pass it and then go home to get reelected by the American people."

That last sentence sends a number of message -- that conservative voters have to be willing to compromise, and House committees had best get their appropriations acts together!

Sam asked about his pet topic: impeachment. Livingston: "I plan to rely heavily on Henry's recommendations... The President still has to answer to the American people to the charges... The American people have voted in the polls that they do no see this as an impeachable offense [but] we cannot overlook that there are those who have been likewise charged and lost their jobs (military, CEOs)."

The first ridiculous pap from Livingston: first, the military is subject to the Military Code of Justice; second, rarely is a CEO dismissed for bagging a babe -- usually it becomes a feather in his cap rather than grounds for dismissal.

Cokie said that Republican handling of Lewinsky killed them in the polls. Livingston: "I wasn't paying that much attention to what was going on... They have decided we did not do a good enough job." A lie. He was reading those poll numbers along with everyone else in Congress.

George Will called the billion-dollar Shuster highway bill a "world indoor record for pork." Livingston: "A lot of people are going to have highways because of that bill, a lot of people will have jobs because of that bill.... I think history will write that it's a good bill." And Livingston's right -- investments in infrastructure benefit commerce, individuals and economic security.

Talk turned to taxes and protecting Social Security: "Won't the Democrats trump you on that?" Livingston said he is "introducing a bill to change Social Security on budget." Will: "Which means you won't be balancing the budget." Livingston: "We will no longer use Social Security proceeds to mask the budget deficit."

Look for wrangling on the issue of taking Social Security off-budget. This could be a major issue in the next Congress.

Cokie was the first to mention the "C" word: "Are your colleagues engaging in cannibalism?" Livingston: "No... Newt is a revolutionary, I am a manager."

Finally, Sam asked the money question: Do you have the votes? "I will be the next speaker, I believe." As of Monday morning, with Cox out of the race, it looks like Livingston was right.

The subsequent segments weren't very informative; Rep. J.C. Watts, running for Republican Conference Chairman, echoed a need to broaden the GOP base: "We can be ideological while reaching out... to non-traditional communities... we can look to New York, California [and] Texas and Florida." The problem -- the Dems swept California. Perhaps they need a peek at the Bush Brothers Play Book and toss the old Lee Atwater edition.

But the segment with Conference Chairman John "Dead Meat" Boehner Had its moments! Sam: "Why shouldn't people say 'off with their heads?" " Boehner acknowledged "concern about the way we've run the House... we must regroup, get our message and agenda together. We'll clearly have a new speaker, I expect to have a successful reelection."

We expect pigs to sprout wings and fly, too.

Sam: "Looking back is there anything you think you should have done differently?" Boehner tried distancing himself from Newt: "The Speaker and I had a number of differences on the way we wanted to run things."

Not good -- at least Livingston acknowledged shortcomings more thoroughly. The irony -- the GOPers who adopt a sort of Moseley-Braun "we made mistakes" in the House may benefit most with their constituents and within the House.

Boehner was half right on the issue of whither the agenda as Cokie asked "abortion, school prayer, does it work?" Boehner: "Getting a consensus on agenda is like herding cats.... We've got 2/3 agenda. Look at the Contract with America -- 75% of Congress supported it." A lie -- only a few of the points in the Contract passed Congress, and they got 75% support because some of the points were on the Democrat agenda too!

Later, Will asked "Is it fair to say you have met the enemy and it is your Republican contingent in the Senate?" Boehner replied "We have Republican Governors who have been a huge success, we need to bring them together with those in the Senate." Hmmm -- Boehner moving toward more moderation? We don't think he'll survive in the leadership, but he looks to be trying to stay on the high-profile radar. He may yet have a chance.

The roundtable was hilarious. The whole crew was walking on eggshells so as not to look too stupid for their miscalculation of public resentment toward Congress or too overwhelmed over Newt's departure. Cokie started by saying "Newt's gone. It's almost unfathomable."

Hint to Cokie: read American Politics Journal. We've seen this coming for a while.

George Stephanopoulos said "There was a single event [that killed Newt]: the impeachment resolution." And George is right to a certain extent: he sealed his own doom by going against the will of the people and energizing Democrats and Dem-leaning voters.

Sam said: "The election is not a total vindication for Bill Clinton." Wrong interpretation, Sam -- it was a vilification of Congress, impeachment, investigations, Congressional gridlock, the whole enchilada. Read the polls!

"... Is the President home free?"

Sam later pointed out "I want to note that Cokie said on Monday night that the Dems might gain seats in the House." Too little, too late, Cokie -- and thank you, Sam, for pointing out how wrong and irrelevant you all are!

Kristol predicted that Republicans "could lose three Republicans" on the Judiciary Committee "and may not report out articles of impeachment to the House."

What does Kristol know about this? Or is this based on an assumption that Northeast GOPers on the committee have out their finger in the air, see which way the wind is blowing, and may "do a Kevorkian" on articles of impeachment?

Sam replied "And Democrats could join Republicans. They'll look at the evidence and see if the President commit felonies." Wrong -- they'll look at the evidence and determine if Starr or his cronies committed felonies, including 6(e) violations, criminal conspiracy to tamper with evidence, suborn perjury from the MacDougals and David Hale, and patterns of abuse of prosecutorial power. Sam, you must be living in a cave -- or hopelessly delude that a possibility of impeachment still exists.

Reliable Sources

We've occasionally mentioned Reliable Sources as a terrific show to catch up on the relationship between politics and the media. Co-hosted by Howard Kurtz and Bernard Kalb, this is becoming a weekly "must-see." If CNN were smart, they'd go to a full hour formal.

Reliable Sources gave extensive coverage this week to the media take on the fall of Newt, working back in time from Tim Russert's announcement. There was much about Newt's frequent attacks on the press -- and the press biting back (including the Daily News' famous "CRY BABY" cover).

There was an amazing and refreshing amount of discussion of Newt "getting in the press's face" and blaming them for his own problems -- considering the fact that Newt usually did a pretty solid job of using the press himself. And the show had some telling moments:

Bernard Kalb referred to the book "Nixon in Winter," in which Nixon still blamed the press for Watergate, but said at last that it was mostly he who had brought downfall upon himself.

Journalist Richard Reeves asked: "How long do you think it's going to be before Newt is sitting here as a television commentator?" Hoo boy, be careful what you wish for, Richard...

There was also discussion of the pundits and their "Dewey Beats Truman" political projections -- they reran Bill Kristol's prediction of a GOP gain of 15 seats.

It made our day.

James Lowry said, "If these pundits were brokers they would have lost their shirts."

Bernie Kalb: "What does this tell us about their shallowness?"

Journalist Richard Reeves: "It's a reflection on journalism, but not a repudiation." Reeves pointed to the "insider" culture of Beltway journalists and added "the news didn't get [to Washington] fast enough. Everybody in California knew Barbara Boxer [and Gray Davis] would win." Reeves made an interesting prediction regarding Governor-Elect Ventura of Minnesota: "The next chapter is going to be reporters checking out his Navy story." There have been rumors of "inconsistencies" between Ventura's discussions of his military career and his military record. Look for this to be a possible story in the next couple weeks.

CNN Late Edition

We missed Dick Gephardt and John Boehner, but tuned in in time to catch Jack Kemp -- always an interesting guest, usually ready with a fresh and surprising perspective from the right.

Wolf Blitzer started the segment with one question: What happened? Jack Kemp: "In large part we squandered the Reagan legacy, we stopped talking about growth and opportunity." And that message has to get out beyond the traditional upscale white suburban GOP constituency; what is needed is "an affirmative outreach to minority voters." Interesting -- and clever -- use of the word affirmative. Kemp is nobody's fool -- he is aligning himself with the GOP governors already, a sure sign that power within the GOP is shifting seismically.

Wolf asked Kemp about remaining silent on the sudden turn of events. Kemp's reply: it was "out of friendship with Newt, Trent. It wasn't until October that I unleashed a blast at what I thought would be a disaster." Which shows at least Kemp has the brains to read the poll numbers -- and is not afraid to make the "I told you so" point to Congress.

Should Trent also step down, asked Wolf? "By Trent coming out and saying that we will get a tax rate reduction... I am convinced that that is the kind of message we need on the brink of the century." He deftly avoided answering, but his "out of friendship to Newt, Trent" comment should give a hint as to the trouble Lott now faces.

What about presidential aspirations? "I've been thinking about it, talking to my family about it." He feels the front runner is Bush Jr.: "He's a great man [but] clearly it's going to be wide open."

And finally, on the Ventura victory in Minnesota: "We listened to too many polls, too many focus groups" in this race.

Fact is, everyone discounted the "celeb" factor which historically has drawn non-voters to the polls. Example: Reagan, whose message and celebrity status led him to the California state house and then the White House.

The McLaugh-In Group

John McLaugh-In
John McLaughlin's Issue One: "A House divided against itself cannot stand." McLaughlin opens with the announcement Friday that Newt was departing. We say Newt called his colleagues "cannibals" -- and was right. That's the image he nurtured.

"Did the Speaker do the right thing?," asked McLaughlin.

Pat Buchanan says yes, he gets in the way of the message. Pat also added he did it in the wrong way.

Eleanor Clift -- a sign
of intelligent life at
The Mc-Laugh-In Group!
Eleanor Clift told it like is was -- Newt was besieged and had no choice. He created them in his own image -- as a cannibal.

Former Newt spokesman Tony Blankley claims that Gingrich could have won -- but chose not to. A total lie. Let us explain: it took only 6 Republicans in the House to say they wouldn't vote for him and he was toast. There were far more than 6 ready to eat him for lunch -- in fact, a pack of them had been waiting for the chance to crucify him ever since his near-indictment on fraudulent money laundering through "charitable organizations" to fund GOP races in 1996.

McLaughlin then asked the moronic question "Is the White House a winner here?"

Of course the White House is the winner.

But McLaughlin tried to make the case that Democrats were better off with Gingrich because he was so easily hated. Of course, all the candidates for the Speakership that have raised their snaky heads so far are far more right wing than Newt and will make even better targets for public wrath -- except for Chris Cox of California, who as of Monday is unfortunately out of the running.

Eleanor said Newt should be teaching in some nice college somewhere. Tony said Newt would be pushing his themes and raising money for the GOP. McLaughlin asked whether the panel thought that Newt might have been trying to mute the Republican agenda in order to build his popularity for a possible presidential bid.

We were roaring with laughter - that was the biggest joke of Gasbag Sunday. Gingrich as President? Please!

Jennifer Dunn is safely on her way to a leadership position, said Eleanor, who added (stupidly) that Dunn would be Speaker some day.

The choice of the panel to succeed Gingrich was Livingston. But we think it's a bad move. The Louisianan has a rotten temper and is not a good Republican as far as agenda-backing goes. We think Christopher Cox would have been a better choice because he is from California and the Republicans lost every major race in that major state last week. Besides, Cox presents himself well, openly and thoughtfully. How in the world could you trust any Louisiana politician -- save John Breaux -- to do anything right, let alone legally?

Just ask Cokie Boggs Roberts. She knows.

American Politics Journal still endorses Cox and our writers -- the ones who contribute large sums to both parties -- back Cox as well.

After the break, McLaughlin points the finger at Hispanics and Blacks for the Democrat win. He is right -- and from now on they'll vote in ever-increasing numbers. But not for Republicans as George Bush, Jr. hopes.

Question: Do the Democrats deserve special recognition for mobilizing Hispanics? Then he follows with the fact that 49% of Hispanics voted for Bush. But 49% isn't enough. 50 plus 1 vote is enough George, Jr. You didn't get it.

Buchanan lies and says that Blacks and Hispanics vote for Republican Governors. Not true. Never was. But he rightly points out that the Hispanics will not vote for Bush for President. Why? Because they had no choice in Texas - they knew Bush would win, and so Texas Hispanic leaders told them to vote Republican so they could benefit from Bush political largesse later.

McLaughlin said the Democratic strategy -- "race-baiting" -- was magnificent.

McLaughlin showed his worst colors himself in saying so. To call it race-baiting is unethical and base. The Democrat move was merely a truth. Do minorities, save J.C. Watts, truly believe that Republicans represent them? No way, no how.

Issue Three: Is impeachment dead or does it still have a pulse? McLaughlin shows a tape of Henry Hyde moving forward with his lynch mob. Hyde thinks he will get away with merely calling Starr as a witness. This will never happen. What's Clinton's best move?

Buchanan: He should answer Hyde's 81 question.

Blankley: The President would be a fool to answer these questions: It's a "go to jail card."

Blankley was right. But we ask, just how stupid is Henry Hyde? Did he really think that Clinton would answer these so-called "questions" which are framed as a fairy-tale indictment? Hyde, who is supposed to be so smart, isn't. He himself is an admitted adulterer. His prima facie list of questions are nothing but a way to embarrass the President.

Blankley claims that Hillary Clinton will run for the Senate seat being vacated by Pat Moynihan in New York. All we have to say to that Tony is -- ha ha ha.

Meet the Press

Tim Russert...
he's no Karnak!
We wondered whether Tim Russert would address his lame analysis of the national elections for the past 9 months.

He didn't.

"Who will be the next Speaker," was the opening topic, "Is the Republican revolution over?" asked Russert.

"The most stunning upset..." claimed Russert -- stupidly -- about Jesse "The Body" Ventura. No one cares, Tim -- except Minnesotans, most of whom have more horse sense than you would ever give them credit for.

Russert started with Jennifer Dunn (R-WA), herself a candidate for Majority Leader or even Speaker. She told Russert that the GOP needs to focus on basic principals of "smaller government and lower taxes." She refused to say whether she would support Cox or Livingston. She admitted she might run for Majority Leader. We hope she will -- and beat ex-football player Steve Largent and "Uncle Tom" J.C. Watts.

American Politics Journal predicts she will win. She will beat the oily congressman Rep. J.C. Watts -- a Black man who is a Republican (which is an oxymoron about a moron.)

Steve Largent, another Majority Leader hopeful, will also not win. He's a redneck and a poor, adolescent choice. Only one of the panel, Rep. David McIntosh (R-IN) openly said he would support Cox. He said that Livingston the politician was an old-style, pork-barrel, reckless man looking for power for himself -- not the broad conference. He is right. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), another snake-oil salesman, credited Gingrich for getting out of the way. "The dam is leaking for us," he said. "We should elect a leadership team that knows we need to produce." He came out for HMO reform -- the Democrat plank! He wants to get the federal government out of the schools. He also wants to save social security for the long term. Graham wants Livingston because he had the courage to step up early -- even before Friday -- and criticize Gingrich's failed non-agenda.

Well, gee, so did we.

Largent was one of 17 idiot Republicans to vote to KEEP the government closed. That shows how bright he is (chuckle). If they had left the government shut down, they would have suffered even worse defeats. Russert asked Jennifer Dunn why Republicans had trouble with women, Black and Hispanic voters. She wisely said that outreach has to be beefed up.

We have to agree: reach out and listen to what people have to say. But we remind Dunn that if she does, she will become a New Democrat!

Dunn applauded herself and told the panel that she learned that women are of great value and are the economic engine of our nation! Really. When did you find that out?

Graham jumped on ERISA and its denial of rights to sue an HMO. This is a Democrat plank. We now guess Lindsey will switch parties as well! Perhaps that's what Dick Gephardt should focus on. He only needs to convince 5 House members to switch -- and that shouldn't be too tough once Livingston becomes Speaker.

Largent said his top legislative item would be acting as and seeking believable and likable messengers. The message: tax cuts, limited government, and smaller government. "We have to have confidence in our ideas." Deep.

McIntosh said we have to restore moral values in our country.

Oh, not that again. We have a clue for you -- Americans HAVE moral values. Americans DON'T need creepy, dishonest politicians to teach them to us. How politicians can think they might replace or augment the role of the Bible, priests and rabbis is beyond us. They should stop. Now.

Russert asked, "Did you ever think that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing would result in the demise of Newt Gingrich and not Bill Clinton?" With this question, Russert slams Clinton yet again. Why? Because the underlying but implicit statement in his question is that the President should have been the one to fall.

After the "mandatory" Archer Daniels Midland and GE commercials, Russert welcomed Jesse Ventura.

"What was Tuesday's election all about?" asked Russert.

"Running for Governor," answered Ventura -- making Russert look dumb.

Russert asked Ventura about the $4 billion surplus ($1,000 per person) in Minnesota and whether he would give it back as promised in his campaign. Of course, Ventura told Russert something he should already known -- that the legislature had already spent it. Ventura plans to make the return of future surpluses automatic. Of course, he won't be able to -- since the legislature is in traditional Republican and Democrat hands.

"Should conventional politicians fear you?," asks Russert.

"Fear me? No, it's a wake up call." You bet, Jesse. Ventura respects Bill Clinton and hopes he can get focused and get on with doing the good job he has. But Ventura also says it's one thing to dally in a motel room -- but he shouldn't be doing it in the White House "our house".

Russert then turned to a critical list of Ventura's positions. Industrial hemp should be legalized and we should tax it. Ventura sounded smart. "Fight drugs on the demand side, not the supply side." Ventura argues that we shouldn't legislate on stupidity. He also thinks that pot for medicinal purposes should be legal. "Are you concerned about your thoughts on drugs and alcohol because young people voted for you?" asked Russert. Ventura: "I'm not sending a pro-drugs message. I'm saying be smart. Our main issues are taxes and education -- not on people's personal responsibility." Ventura added that he would not spend more money on education, but would focus on the pork in the budget. "The schools can be improved without throwing money at them."

Ventura, a member of the Reform party, sees himself as a mediator in the "Let's put Minnesota first" plan -- a plan that got him elected with only 37% of the vote. He would not say he would support Perot, and that the Reform Party should look for a new candidate in the future.

The entire interview made Russert look like an arrogant little prig and Ventura look like a decent American with far more smarts than one might guess. Ventura did have some fun taking some shots at fellow wrestler Terry "Hulk" Hogan after Russert asked him a dumb question about Hogan's comment to The New York Times that Ventura was going to run for President. Ventura said the thing he learned best was, "the American Dream is there, and don't give up hope."

Ventura also pointed out that "Nobody looks at Rep. Steve Largent and says 'How can a football player be a congressman?' Why do they ask how can a wrestler be a governor?"

Russert slaps him again by seriously asking him about his new moniker, Jesse "The Mind" Ventura. Ventura made Russert look like a jerk again. Tim tried to recover and ask whether Ventura will call him Tim "The Body" Russert. Smiling (no doubt knowing what a jerk Tim was being), Ventura replied, "Take your shirt off right now, Tim! LetÕs see what ya got!" Thank God, Russert didn't.

After two commercial breaks, Russert interviewed our two newest senators-to-be - Rep. Chuck Schumer (D - NY) and Senator-elect Pete Fitzgerald (R-IL). Schumer defeated D'Amato and Fitzgerald -- a millionaire -- defeated Carol Moseley Braun.

The start was boring: Russert talked about the loophole in the gun control law that allows people to go to gun shows and buy guns without a background check. Schumer and Fitzgerald agree -- Fitzgerald thinks that some people should be able to carried concealed weapons in limited circumstances. He does not, however think this should be a national policy.

Gee, gotta find us a gun show, Gonzo!

Gun Control? What possible interest do we have in this niche issue? Schumer talks of his backing for "trigger locks" and laws making it illegal to by "more than one gun a month." Fitzgerald support the locks but would "take a look" at the 12 guns a year law.

Russert asked Fitzgerald about his calling on Clinton to resign. He said it is hard to extrapolate anything national from this part of his platform: "...we should move as expeditiously as possible." Russert then asked Schumer how sweet the victory was for the White House. Schumer reminded Russert about D'Amato's ridiculous hearings aimed at Hillary Clinton -- that ended with nothing. Of course, Russert didn't mention that. He also said that we had an election that was a victory against politics of divisiveness. Schumer said that Gingrich is too far right and Fitzgerald said he wasn't.

Fitzgerald laughingly said that maybe Gingrich thought it was time to pass the ball. You bet it was! And Schumer is wrong: Gingrich was a moderate -- a moderate crook, that is.

Fitzgerald continued to defend Gingrich. Why, we wonder? Gingrich is dead meat. We think Fitzgerald will have a tough time in the Senate if he chooses to fight worthless battles like this.

Russert continued to lynch Clinton by asking Schumer whether Clinton lying to the Paula Jones jury was a crime. Schumer said Clinton ought to be punished in some way, but not impeached. Russert asked whether the House Judiciary Committee will vote for impeachment. Schumer said he thinks that the Committee is trying to wriggle out of this -- and that it will never come before the full house.

"But you would be open to some form of censure or reprimand for the President?," Russert asked, practically begging. "Yes," said Schumer. "Maybe, "said Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald added that "we shouldn't rely on polls by putting our fingers in the wind." Obviously he doesn't -- which accounts for his ludicrous defense of Newt!

Russert then asked about Pat Moynihan's (D-NY) recent announcement that he will not run for re-election to the Senate. Schumer wants to name Penn Station in Washington after him.

Oh, brother. Not another Ronald Reagan Airport scenario!

IGNORED OR NEARLY IGNORED

Only a couple of the Sunday shows addressed the space shuttle mission and John Glenn's presence -- an event that has reawakened interest and pride in America's space program.

And the breakdown of a possible settlement in the Paula Jones case went practically unmentioned -- and one might assume it's off the radar for now. It isn't. The various Jones factions had the rug pulled out from under them by the unlikely team of Abe Hirschfeld and Mr. and Mrs. Susan Carpenter McMillan. And the situation is practically guarantees to get uglier.

And, of course, there was the near-total silence on the part of the pundits for their rather limited clairvoyant abilities. Bill Kristol chose to make light of it in a manner that allowed him yet another opportunity to defame Clinton with his "apology" for predicting so wrongly: "I want you all to know that I misled my wife, my friends."

Our Quote of the Week -- which should tell you all you need to know about the shamelessness of the Sabbath Gasbags.

--- The Editors