November 25, 1998

Fading Starr

Very little made sense in Washington last week. Fortunately, very little of it mattered. The Republicans elected the telegenically-challenged Representative Dick Armey as the House Majority Leader -- why give him another shot? -- and then they selected Representative J.C. Watts as their number-four man. The latter action was accompanied by much non-Republican snickering, since the move looked like affirmative action. Watts, a two-termer, had campaigned for the job by arguing that the party needs to display its diversity. (In the House, he's it: the sole black Republican.) That the Republicans acted hypocritically was not surprising. But what was hard to fathom was that they anointed as their chief message-man a self-proclaimed Christian-right-hugging moralist who once fathered a child out of wedlock. (In a 1995 interview with the Tulsa World, Watts declined to say whether he had ever provided financial support for this daughter.) This fact was known to Republican caucus -- though it was scantily reported -- and it provided the GOPers no pause. Perhaps they figured that in the party of Henry Hyde (onetime philanderer) and Dan Burton (another non-married procreator), the easy-lovin' Watts truly represents the Republican caucus. Or perhaps they were attracted to Watt's daring proposal on how to improve Republicans' electoral prospects: hire more consultants. In any event, the line-up of the GOP leadership holds little significance. All those elected, including presumed Speaker-to-be Bob Livingston, scored perfect 100s on the Christian Coalition scorecard. It will be the old whines in a new slate.

As tough as it was to comprehend the GOP leadership votes, it was more difficult to understand the Republican strategy on impeachment. Take this two-question quiz. First, who are the most unpopular and scorned characters in the sordid Monicagate saga? That's easy: Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp. Second, who did the Republicans thrust in front of the public as their impeachment hearings lifted off? If you said, Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp, you're right. Why lead with the villains? The Tripp tapes could only sicken those still listening. They were a painful reminder of why many Americans hate this whole mess and desire it fade away. Given that, from a GOP perspective, it was a dumb lead-in to the Big Day, which turned out not to be so large after all.

In the end, the GOP miscalculation regarding the Tripp tapes was immaterial, for Starr's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee was a nothing-burger. Those who suffer from Wishful Republican Syndrome were hoping that a strong Starr performance might nudge public opinion in an anti-impeachment direction. They were, of course, in la-la land. Starr did fine, fending off most Democratic swipes. He isn't a million-dollars-a-year attorney for nothing. He talked slowly, kept his cool, ducked some of the more troublesome inquiries (about leaks, his conflicts of interests, and his office's initial handling of Monica Lewinsky), and ran out the clock on harsh questioners. He exonerated the President regarding Travelgate and Filegate. (Conservative legal crusader Larry Klayman must have had fits.) But Starr seemed to suggest that President Clinton can be indicted for his Monica-related offenses after he leaves office. That prompted a few reporters present to speculate that Starr indicted Webster Hubbell once again so that Starr will still be in business when Clinton departs 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Then he can really go after the guy. But, all in all, Starr acquitted himself well -- but not well enough to motivate millions to take to the streets to call for Clinton's head. And that must have disappointed all the WRSers out there.

The puzzle of the day was why the White House bothered to show. The politics of impeachment are favorable to Clinton. Public opinion remains firmly opposed to impeachment. Already a dozen or so House Republicans have indicated they won't vote for impeachment should it reach the floor. So even if the House Judiciary Committee approves articles of impeachment, they are likely to die soon thereafter. As the Republicans look toward a new start in the next Congress, the party has become increasingly divided on this subject. Committee chairman Henry Hyde, trying to satisfying both the yahoo, get-Clinton Republicans and the enough-already GOPers, has adopted a let's-do-it-quick/let's-widen-the-inquiry strategy that is self-contradicting. It has to explode sooner or later. Under these circumstances, the White House and congressional Democrats should let the Republicans go through the motions and not lend any drama to the desultory proceedings. "All the political aides in the White House were screaming that it was nuts to send anyone to the hearing," a White House aide said. "But all the lawyers wanted to do it. For them, it was personal. And you have to assume that Clinton agreed with them."

Still, the showdown between Starr and David Kendall, the President's attorney, was a let-down. Kendall's questioning was largely irrelevant. He dwelled on tangential matters, without scoring points; he let Starr talk too much. He didn't break him. Neither did the Democrats. Overall, it was an unfulfilling session. Democrats bashed away at Starr, trying to demonstrate he is a threat to the republic. Republicans, in response, were fitting him for a spot on Mount Rushmore. Absent from much of the proceeding was a man named Bill Clinton. He is -- it bears repeating -- blessed by his enemies. Starr effectively detailed Clinton's serial lying and explained why this is not just about sex. He argued his case well if ploddingly -- although he did dwell obsessively on every presidential prevarication. But neither Starr, with his excesses, nor the Republicans, with their hypocritical outrage over Clinton's lies, possess the moral authority for prosecuting the president. He wins because his foes are losers.

Ultimately, the long-awaited Starr hearing had no real meaning. It proved nothing, and it provided no new information. Starr, even if he was slippery on several matters, came across as no demon. He never broke out into maniacal laughter or shouts of "I'll get you, my pretty!" But it's too late for him to lead in the conservative cavalry. Especially when he's so boring. This drone-filled hearing couldn't change the fundamentals. Throughout the day, grinning Democratic aides and frustrated reporters of all ideological stripes -- from The Nation, The Weekly Standard, The New York Post -- were shaking their heads amazed at the dismal dullness of the session and wondered, what was the point of it? To rehabilitate Starr? Big deal. Assume he was rehabilitated (even if ethics adviser Sam Dash quit the next day, criticizing Starr for having improperly become an advocate for impeachment). At this point that doesn't gain anything for the Republicans. Starr had his chance to win over the public months ago -- with his actions. He failed when it counted the most.

The politics of impeachment have been settled. The only outstanding question is how the Republicans close this affair. Can they do so without bloody internal warfare? Impeachment is a spent force -- so spent that the White House does not even have to mount a competent challenge.

Her Town

It's not often that the ruling elite issues a crie de coeur. But that is what The Washington Post offered its readers the day before election. On the front page of the Style Section, Sally Quinn, author, wife of former Post editor Ben Bradlee, and Georgetown doyenne, harrumphed for thousands of words about how Bill Clinton has soiled the entire city of Washington with his unseemly exploits and cowardly lies. The ostensible point of the piece was to explain the umbrage gap -- that is, the disconnect between the Washington Establishment and the rest of the country on Monicagate. Quinn maintained she did her homework by interviewing "more than 100" Washingtonians for the piece. (This group, it seems, did not include cops, public school teachers, busboys, or public interest lawyers.) Quinn's take was an exceedingly parochial view of Washington -- demographically and, as we shall see, politically. Last week, New York Times columnist Frank Rich slapped her for going easy on Kenneth Starr, suggesting she ignored his various trangressions because he' a member of the Washington club. But Quinn's omissions were far more wide-ranging than that.

Quinn began by asserting the honor of the Washington Insiderdom. Her proof: recently Washington big-timers of all political stripes -- Fed chair Alan Greenspan, Speaker-presumptive Bob Livingston, columnist Maureen Dowd, Clintonite Rahm Emanuel, you can guess the rest -- gathered at a benefit to raise funds to fight spina bifida, at the invitation of media-couple Al Hunt and Judy Woodruff, whose son has the disease. Hurrah. What a noble band. They put the partisan sniping of the work day behind them and joined hands -- figuratively -- for a worthy and safe cause. Let's not diminish charitable enterprises. But from the dais of this event, Quinn metaphorically surveyed the nations capital and pronounced it a metropolis of do-gooders. She quoted ABC correspondent Cokie Roberts, whose parents both served in Congress, attesting to the soul of the Washington elite: "It's a community of good people involved in a worthwhile pursuit. We think being a worthwhile public servant or journalist matters." For more evidence of this, Quinn turned to Muffie Cabot (formerly Muffie Brandon), who was social secretary for President Reagan and Nancy Reagan: "This is a demoralized little village. People have come from all over the country to serve a higher calling and look what happened. They're so disillusioned. The emperor has no clothes. Watergate was pretty scary, but it wasn't quite as sordid as this." And there was there Tish Baldrige, Jackie Kennedy's social secretary. (Quinn certainly has her finger on the pulse of the ex-social secretary circle). Baldrige told Quinn, "we want there to be standards. We're used to standards. When you think back to other presidents, they all had a lot of class. That's nonexistent now. It's sad for people in the White House....I've never seen such bad morale in my life. They're not proud of their chief."

Ah yes, honor, standards, class. Took a lot of class to engage in secret bombings in Southeast Asia that killed tens of thousands. A lot of honor to work with suspected drug runners in Central America in support of a covert war. Quinn's work showed that self-delusion is a chief pastime of Washington's high society. Her bottom line was that the insiders "feel Washington has been brought into disrepute by the actions of the president." That assumes repute existed previously.

Quinn does not recognize that much of official Washington -- and let's not forget that Washington is mostly populated by middle and low-income African-Americans who do not live in Muffie's village -- is fueled by self-interest and special interest dealing. Each year politicians and government officials by the score leave their well-paid jobs serving the public for positions as lobbyists; they then reap mega-bucks for their efforts to rig the system in favor of their corporate clients. Honor? Professional spinners push truth aside in favor of politically expedient rhetoric. Honor? Television journalists care more about getting air time than broadcasting meaningful truth so they can gain leverage for the next contract negotiations. Honor? Check out the appropriations process, where influence-peddlers wheel and deal to nab million-dollar breaks for their masters. Honor? Mercenary public affair firms plot p.r. strategies for tobacco companies and corporate polluters. Honor? Legislators claim moral mantles and live the life of libertines. Honor? Members of Congress trade votes for campaign contributors.

Quinn is either naive or disingenuous. She lives in a very different Washington than the one that exists. Let me rock her world with one tale I heard from several Senate aides. In a recent budget battle, $10 million was cut from the Justice Department's antitrust office. Why was this done? To make it harder for the feds to go after Microsoft, the aides say. Who was behind this? We couldn't find out, they note. The appropriations process is shrouded in secrecy but they were told the mover was Senator Slade Gorton. Hmmm. Guess which state this Republican represents. Washington, home of Microsoft, which has been pouring money in the past year into dozens of political campaigns and lobbying firms of honorable Washingtonians. This is how the real Washington works. Often you can't even determine who is monkeying around with the public's money.

Clinton is a scoundrel in so many ways. No doubt, his improbity discomforts the comfortable of Washington. It is distasteful. Who wants to have to talk about semen stains, unfinished blow jobs, and Linda Tripp at a charity ball? But it's egotistical folly to believe that Clinton's deeds have besmirched this city of institutional corruption. Quinn relied upon David Broder, the pooh-bah of the Post's political columnists to render Washington's judgment of Clinton: "He came in here and he trashed the place." If only.

-- David Corn