American Politics Journal

PUNDIT PAP
FOR SUNDAY, DECEMBER 7th, 1997
by Jeff Koopersmith

Goodbye Sam
AND, OUR GOODBYE TO "THIS WEEK"

The pundits were out in force this week over Janet Reno and Louis Freeh. Saddam seems to have disappeared off the radar screen. The APJ editorial board has decided not to cover ABC's "THIS WEEK" any longer, due to its cartoon-like format and lack of serious focus on public-policy news -- in any defensible way. Sadly, we'll miss George Will's bow ties, but we can no longer devote resources and talent covering what has to be the worst and most slanted, not to mention boring, treatment of national policy matters on television.

Ratings or not, we ain't that stupid.

One last word for Mr. Donaldson: ditch the wig, Sam. You look like an idiot, and worse -- every time America sees you, they think of Marv Albert.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY

As usual, Tony Snow covered more ground this week than most. What he lacks in objective credibility, he makes up for -- at least somewhat -- in sheer content. How he and the staff at Fox put it together each week is difficult to fathom, although one suspects the unseen hand of former Reaganite Roger Ailes is squarely in the mix.

This week Snow started off with the hated and sometimes hateful Abigail Thernstrom, the new poster girl of the ultra right and a woman who's book sits on the nightstand of arch Black counter-racist, and University of California regent, Ward Connerly, who lives with his wife in a sort of armed no-man's-land in California. Connerly, who desperately wants admission to any all-white golf club is the centerfold of "Modern Black Sellout" Magazine, which promises the African American Middle Class they have no responsibility to their own once they've "made it."

Thernstrom has written a book -- sure to be a national best seller in the Deep South and other pockets of racism in America, including Harvard Yard -- which basic hidden premise is that Blacks are better off today than ever, should be happy with their progress, and should be working the pickets trying to dump affirmative action from the nation's agenda --- A la the Connerly/Wilson-sponsored Proposition 209 which proved once again "America's Dirty Little Secret," racism.

Thernstrom, fresh from getting her intellectual wings clipped by President Clinton in Ohio last week, was charming as she sparred with the FNS panel, including Snow, Congressman Barney Frank, and Juan Williams. Snow started the segment by showing a clip of Clinton asking Thernstrom, in a disapproving tone, to tell him whether or not she felt Colin Powell was helped to gain position by affirmative action programs. "Yes or no," the President demanded to the obviously shocked Abigail who refused to answer the question in front of more than 3,000 people in the packed Ohio auditorium.

But Snow was disappointed by Thernstrom yesterday as she lied, straight faced, saying, "I actually don't remember precisely what he said." Tee-hee. That's out of a page in PR 101. Thernstrom had obviously been briefed by someone that to take on the President would hurt her book sales and close the door on any possibility she might be appointed to the President's Racism commission.

The gravy thickened, and Thernstrom began complimenting the President. Oh brother, talk about fishing. Then Frank butted in headlong and scolded her that Colin Powell himself had said if it hadn't been for Army affirmative action programs, he would never have made it to where he arrived . Snow, antagonist or racist -- take your choice - said, "you cannot have progress in the future with the government stepping in," and Frank retorted, "I think the role of the government has been essential here."

Rather than carry the ball, Juan Williams started criticizing the President for not pushing harder on affirmative action -- and praising arch-conservative J.C. Watts who says the Republicans Party has to stand for something if it wants to eliminate racial and gender-based quotas.

What's Williams up to?

Thernstrom tried to cloud the issue, and absolutely lied about the Republican position on Army affirmative action goals. She began to say the Colin Powell benefited only one way under these programs when Frank, exasperated, cut her off saying," Miss Thernstrom has totally misstated the Republican position. The Republican leadership bill does, in fact, wipe out the military position on affirmative action -- they would outlaw even non-binding goals!"

Snow, nutty as he is, said something to the effect that you can trust the American people to do the right thing -- in question form.

Frank, glib as ever, replied, " I can trust people not to steal, but I wouldn't repeal the laws on theft."

Thernstrom, stupidly began to lecture Frank telling him he didn't understand the differences between affirmative action and racial preferences. With that , the two got into it -- so much so that Snow had to break it up with an inane question to, as he put t it, "sharpen the issue."

But Frank ignored him and went back at Thernstrom. The conversation broke down. Interestingly Juan Williams again foiled the White House bringing up an Administration sponsored meeting in Houston where just Blacks were invited to discuss the President's concerns. Even Frank had to admit that was a mistake. "It was wrong," he said, "It was set up by a friend."

Why? Isn't it okay to talk about 300 years of hell with the people who've suffered under it?

Thernstrom, in a last desperate attempt to save her reputation muttered something about, "nobody is against widening the pool," to which Frank replied 'B.S.' in so many words

Snow, deflated, said, "Based on this morning's conversation, this issue looks dismal." and asked Frank whether he thought Thernstrom herself should be part of the race commission.

Frank avoided the question saying he hadn't thought about it, "they are a debating society." he quipped.

Thernstrom, eager to get on that commission broke in saying "That commission needs to be expanded, so we don't have another monologue on this matter."

"Monologue" as she used it here, is NewtSpeak for "Leadership position."

She looked so self-serving that Snow had no choice but to cut her off, ending the discussion.

After the first break Snow turned to Janet Reno. Uncharacteristically, he began by asking whether Freeh should provide evidence on his memo to Reno urging the appointment of an independent counsel -- "Put up or shut up," was how he put it.

Joining the panel was Henry Waxman, powerful machine Democrat from West Los Angeles and one of the Congress' best known intellects. Waxman, from Kyoto, where he was attending the global warming summit, told Snow that the decision was Reno's and she made it on the law, not on politics.

Snow, deftly switching sides, said that Freeh was a "lawman" too and he interprets the law differently.

As if that makes any difference. It's still her call Tony. Then he asked Waxman whether he thought Freeh should give Dan Burton's Committee a copy of his private memo to Reno. Waxman, not falling for Snow's question merely replied that he didn't see the purpose since the law was clear that it was Reno's, not Freeh's, decision to make.

Snow, trying to trick a master trickster said, in an "I gotcha" kind of way, "Well, what about the tobacco company internal memos -- you think those should be public."

My question -- who's feeding Snow these interrogatories - Fred Thompson or Orrin Hatch?

Waxman just smiled and actually explained the difference, as if Snow didn't understand.- complimenting Chairman Bliley, a Republican, in the course. It was great.

Snow tried to put Waxman on the spot asking whether he felt he could work out a compromise with Burton, but Waxman wasn't falling for it. "I wish I could, but he decides everything - the best example of that is more than 700 subpoenas have been issued from his office in the name of this Committee -- only ten of those to Republicans, " said Waxman.

"Would you like to see the hearing shut down?," asked Snow.

"No, but what might have been helpful would be to have had the house and senate get together and not waste $6 million in taxpayer money, " Waxman jabbed.

And then he launched the bombshell that hopefully we be replayed for real in a challenge to Burton's right to chair the committee.

"Burton has made this a partisan investigation," Waxman calmly said, " and he is the subject of a Justice Department investigation himself (on Burton's own alleged shakedown of a lobbyist for Pakistan) -- it is totally inappropriate for him to call Reno and Freeh , who are investigating him, in front of his committee."

Boom!

Snow couldn't say much to that. So he moved to Burton who joined the show directly, and asked him what his reaction was to Waxman's charge.

Burton, lunatic that he is, actually laughed and told Snow that the lobbyist was a former DNC finance director. He tried to gloss over his own criminal culpability saying, "I have had 30,000 contributors and never heard anything like that. I have no problem with them investigating me.

Whatever that meant.

He ranted on, "Barney Frank started it. The president is being protected by Reno, 65 people have taken the 5th and fled the country....." Blah, blah, blah. (Burton is being investigated because he allegedly demanded $5,000 and then $10,000 from a lobbyist to be obtained from the lobbyist's client -- Pakistan -- a country over which Burton had some control through another committee assignment. When the lobbyist refused, Burton then tried to destroy his reputation. It's a well known tale around Washington and I believe it totally.

Snow and Burton engaged in a non-discussion about the Public Integrity section of the Justice Department and the fact that the New York Times had criticized it this week on its editorial page. Burton told Snow he had subpoenaed the private memo from Freeh to Reno and that he would look at citing Reno for contempt if she didn't produce.

Isn't this strange? Here are two conservatives invoking the NY Times and taking on the mantle of the FBI. Aren't they worried about their militia support out in the hinterlands?

"We might cite her for contempt," said Burton," but (why bother) she would be the one to rule on it."

Snow said, "A Lot of people are scratching their heads on this one. Do you seriously think that Reno and Freeh will talk trash in front of your committee?"

Talk Trash? Well, at least Snow recognizes that Burton is a ward case.

Burton and Snow talked about Fred Thompson's absolutely stupid idea that an independent counsel would AUTOMATICALLY trigger anytime a fact situation similar to this presented itself. Besides costing perhaps $2-3 billion a year to taxpayers paying outside counsel $350-400 and hour, Thompson's idea is acceptable . . especially if we have a Republican president in 2000, and, you are a moron.

Waxman had complained that Burton purposely scheduled the Reno/Freeh hearing tomorrow because he knew that Waxman would still be in Japan. Burton replied that there would be "plenty of Democrats there" and that he was sorry Waxman wouldn't be.

Sure, but Waxman is the only Democrat with a great brain on the committee. Someone must have told Burton that.

After the break, one of my favorite GOP leaders, Henry Hyde, was up.

Snow asked him about a radio address he'd given that day where he urged Reno to reconsider. Hyde said he hoped that public opinion would convince her to do so, (I guess he hasn't been reading the polls) and that he had made two formal requests for her to do an investigation. Hyde said he also sent her a memo on the Chippewa Indian casino debacle.

Of course, like with all the other requests, the Justice Department was already deep into investigations on those issues under its own volition.

Hyde was terrific as usual. He's a real gentleman and even though he was after Reno and the White House as much as any conservative, he does it in the right way - pardon the pun - without impugning personal integrity or making wild and outlandish threats and accusations.

Some discussion ensured about independent counsel Don Smaltz's comments, that Justice was trying to obstruct his independent investigation of Secretary Espy -- where, after two years and few million dollars -- he got a nothing but a low level conviction of an aide on an unrelated charge. Smaltz is an operative for the GOP, in my humble opinion.

Mara Liasson brought up the lack of wisdom of the GOP leadership in trashing affirmative action.

Hyde said, "Well Mara, there's nothing like defining the issue." Ha, ha, ha - he's superb. But way off on this one. Hyde tried to hide saying we're just against quotas, but Mara retorted - they are already illegal," implying - so what's your beef?

Hyde stumbled just a little and said, "...yes, but they are used in universities... " He failed to make his point.

Brit Hume started on his usual racist interests, talking about the recess appointment of Bill Lan Lee -- which I hear from good sources will happen this week

Hyde, always ready with the gentle quip said, " Well a lot of us regret that the president did not give a recess appointment to Judge Bork." and avoided the question of what would happen if Clinton does do it. He obviously respects Lee and does not, I hear privately, respect Orrin Hatch.

Hyde's Committee, by the way is just about to spend another few million of your money, this time investigating the Justice Department from the top down. "We are going to look at everything, " he said.

After the break they talked about Sprewell punching the coach. - Who cares, I say.

A second discussion around the "Spinterpreter," which showed White House spokesman McCurry saying "Freeh is an ingrate, his best isn't good enough... "

Mara Liasson said that the White House is split, confirming our story last week, and added that he is trying to kiss up to the GOP. She rightly pointed out that some in the White House know criticizing Freeh at this juncture is a big mistake because that forces the hand of the GOP to make him their star and further polarize the nation.

Hume, always sharp as carpeting, said - He's already a poster boy for the GOP."

Snow asked what the purpose of these Burton hearings was, other than drama.

Duh! Tony. Nothing.

Juan Williams tried to intellectualize by saying there are two purposes, one to say "We're watching you," and the other to say, "We're holding you accountable."

Another Duh! for Juan.

Liasson offered that the Republicans were making a mistake by going after Reno. "It's the president that should go after," she said. Boy, how good is her White House pass today?" She added that the Republicans wouldn't accomplish anything by calling Reno up to the hill.

But she was wrong there. They'll keep Liasson and the rest of the media focused on this phony issue that much longer.

Liasson also made the good point that indictments or independent counsels could come this week on Babbitt, Trie and perhaps Ickes. That would calm things, she opined.

Of course, that's wrong too. That will only heighten the frenzy to Get Bill Clinton and the nation will be in for three years of pundit torture on the issue.

Even Snow made an intelligent observation - that the appointment of an independent counsel is very bad news for the president, even if just on Babbitt, because an independent counsel can go to the three judge panel and "increase the scope" of his investigation much as Malibu Ken Starr did, so often, over the past four years.

I saved the best for last, and this one ought to convince you that Britt Hume needs a long, long rest. He actually said something to this effect about Janet Reno: : "My question has to do with her brains... I don't think she's the brightest bulb on the circuit..." --- actually more than implying that she was stupid!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle!

Snow, looked dumbfounded -- and that was it.

THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP

John McLaughlin

Issue 1 - Planet Janet! started John McLaughlin this week quoting the New York Times' extensively and regarding their editorial of December 7th. We put it here for your instant information and ask "What are they smoking in Time's Square?"

New York Times Editorial, Sunday December 7th 1997

McLaughlin asks the group, made of James Carney, Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift and Fred Barnes if they think the "magnitude" of Louis Freeh's actions will sink in?

Barnes said Freeh would not release his private memo to Reno and McLaughlin retorted, "Wanna bet?" Is John privy to some inside information -- so inside that even Freeh doesn't know it? Barnes replied - "Not if he's not prepared to resign he won't." Clift said from the sidelines "...he was getting ready to resign his relatively low-paying job because he has 5 kids. This is so transparent, this effort to canonize Freeh, remember Filegate and Larry Potts... Freeh was discredited then. Why the change now?"

Carney defended and attacked Reno simultaneously saying that she takes such a narrow view on the legal issues (only the phone calls) that her refusal to appoint an independent counsel was probably correct.

Barnes chimed in, "What she's done is exactly was the independent counsel act is designed to prevent her from doing."

"Is the New York Times right?, " asked McLaughlin.

Clift: "No. There has always been tension between the FBI and the Justice Department and most people believe Freeh has a blind spot.

Buchanan surprisingly upbraided Freeh, and said he was a "reluctant warrior." "He leaked this memo, if he's gonna be the Big Man, he has to stand up and take his hits," added Buchanan.

McLaughlin suggested that Freeh and Reno had "made a deal" and now they've been turned loose to squeeze the witnesses.

Everyone laughed.

McLaughlin talked about how Don Smaltz, the independent counsel investigating Espy said that Justice had hampered his investigation and that the Public Integrity Section had tried to block Smaltz on Ron Blackley's (a low level aide to Espy) indictment - which was successful. Reno has said that Justice would never have interfered with Smaltz's investigation.

Clift made a wise observation: What this tells us is that Reno won't give Smaltz a blank check. A Federal judge had already admonished Smaltz for setting up a "1- 800 Rat On" number to attract "witnesses" against the White House and the judge told him - "STOP it you idiot."

McLaughlin made a statement that most independent counsels are "low on Reno and high on the FBI."

Well of course, John. The FBI likes to spend money on wide-net investigations, but it's Reno's job to girdle those millions in taxpayer dollar expenditures.

McLaughlin then went on to focus on Justice staffers Radek and Farrington who called the independent counsel statute an insult and opposed Smaltz in federal court saying he needed the concurrence of Justice to expand his dismal "investigation." The court, sadly rejected their arguments. McLaughlin said the Reno gave Farrington a John Marshall award for work on the independent counsel statute despite this.

Well, of course John. The independent counsel statute is an insult to any Attorney General. It's basis is an assumption that the AG cannot be trusted to indict his or her boss. That's an insult if I ever saw one.

Clift re-enunciated her point - the Justice Department operates within a budget, they can't let these independent counsels operate forever. "There's still an independent counsel working from the Reagan years. The clobbering of the Public Integrity section wasn't missed by Clift either. "They started an investigation and less than two years later threw Danny Rostenkowski in jail. They know how to investigate pubic officials."

Barnes made a good point that Reno now has found herself agreeing that she has a vested interest in not appointing independent counsels. "she's changed and agrees with them (Farrington and Radek.)

But Carney said, "she relies too much on them," almost as if he knew that for a fact.

Buchanan opined that those "characters" are very tough, and they've gotten "control of her."

But Clift pointed out correctly, that what changed Reno's mind was the two year "independent counsel "witch hunt on Henry Cisneros, that almost destroyed his life and came up with nothing.

Barnes thought Freeh would "cave". Clift reminded McLaughlin that Reno was the Top Cop, not Freeh, and that Eric Holder, a great lawyer, will be the next Attorney General is Reno leaves.

Clift's new hairstyle must have improved her thinking.

Carney believed that Reno will appoint an independent counsel soon. Well, Duh to James. Everyone knows that's coming on Babbitt or Trie as early as this week. But Carney's mistake is that he thinks it will touch Bill Clinton.

The topic switched to whether Dick Gephardt could overtake Al Gore for the Democrat presidential nomination.

Issue Two - "Gore More Years"

The discussion was pretty poor. A little talk on "what if" an independent counsel is appointed - well it won't be appointed aimed at Gore.

Clift posited that Gore will have a lot more money and he will go to Kyoto tomorrow and sound more like an industrialist and less the environmentalist in order to placate big American business political donors.

Barnes said something, pretty off the wall about Gore having a tough time with trade and that he'll face a $220 Billion trade deficit by the year 1999. Ridiculous. And how would Barnes, of all people, know that anyway." He's lost his invincibility," Barnes said.

Most agreed that Gephardt's recent speech at Harvard was clearly an attack on Gore saying he and Clinton are not good Democrats. But now that the pressure is on, Gephardt is retreating saying he didn't mean that by his talk.

Predictions were so boring they're not worth mentioning. And one more thing John. Forget the www.mclaughlin.com poll. As soon as you announce it, Republican operative elves run to your site and "Fill it OUT" their way -- if you get my drift. You look stupid reporting the results as anything close to a mirror of even your viewer's attitudes let alone America's.

FACE THE NATION

Bob Schieffer

Bob Schieffer scored his second deserved coup in a month landing none other than Janet Reno herself as his lead guest Sunday.

The smooth and pleasant Schieffer soothed the Attorney General kidding her over her preference to be called Ms. instead of "General."

Reno replied, "Yes, I am an adjective, not a noun." and everyone laughed.

Only problem is that Ms. is a noun and General is both a noun and adjective.

You have to hand it to Schieffer. He relaxed her right away, but not enough.

Bob didn't get a lot from Reno that was new. He tried, but failed to get her to blow up on Burton, and instead she said she would "work with" crazy Dan to find some common ground and she refused to discuss any detail of the Freeh memo or her investigation - rightly so.

One thing Schieffer did get was this exchange which must have made Al Gore sit bolt upright once again this week:

Schieffer: "You heard the Vice President, did he celebrate too soon?"

Reno: "We have not closed this investigation. We have 120 investigators. No one has been exonerated. All we did was say the independent counsel statute was not triggered..."

Schieffer: "The White House is not out of the woods yet?"

Reno: "That is correct," in her perfect interpretation of SNL's "Church Lady."\

It was classic Reno.

Reno went on to explain the difference between her ability to appoint independent counsel for covered and non-covered individuals. She told America that on covered persons she had no choice but to appoint an independent counsel when she has evidence of the commission of a crime. As to a non-covered person she has option. Its a "may" not a "will."

Reno ignored Schieffer's question as to whether, had she appointed an independent counsel, it would have appeared she was more independent of the White House than Republicans claim.

"I need an actual, not an apparent conflict she said."

To Schieffer's observation that Burton had said, at least four times that she was just protecting the president, she said, " The Chairman doesn't know what we are pursuing. It's very important to watch what we do . . but I'm not going to be influenced by polls or people calling me names."

What she should have said is this. "The Chairman is the kind of whacko that goes out in his back yard in Bermuda shorts, cuts up a watermelon to look like a human head, takes out his pistol and shoots it -- "proving" that the President and the First Lady murdered Vince Foster. Do you think I care what he thinks"

Schieffer asked what made the Espy and Cisneros cases different - two matters in which she did appoint an independent counsel, but of course she could not answer because an answer would require her to discuss an ongoing investigation in her office.

Then Schieffer tried to zing her with "Don't Freeh's comments dictate that you should have appointed an independent counsel.

Reno, gentle but firm replied, "I write the opinions. If I were to agree with Louis Freeh all the time, I would not be doing my job."

Schieffer then turned to the alleged trashing of Freeh by some in the White House. Reno claimed not to have heard that and complimented Freeh saying he is a wonderful director and , "I think he's done a very good job."

Schieffer then asked the type of question he's famous for, "What is your personal reaction to all of this?

Reno, un-fazed, answered, "I got into public service a long time ago and knew what I was getting into. Then she added, "Waco is the most difficult thing I've ever been involved in, echoing my thoughts about her AG career exactly.

In closing Schieffer asked the Attorney General whether she would stay on through the full term. She answered that she decides those things on a day to day basis and added, at the end, "I feel very fortunate to have worked with Louis Freeh."

"Was that a signal she was going to quit?," you might ask.

We doubt it -- just another "encouraging squeeze" for Freeh to keep his composure.

Schieffer then welcomed the dastardly Orrin Hatch and no-match-for slime John Glenn - a great fellow but no real opposition snake like tongue of the Utah Uvula who launched his diatribe with, "I see some problems and I am going to send a letter to Freeh asking him to conduct his own investigation... and I say that the Attorney General has given incomplete answers...repeated embarrassments, the involvement of several political appointees in the Attorney General's office... and the Attorney General is trying to hamper the investigations."

Hatch announced that Freeh would still cooperate with Reno's people while he did his own checking.

What?! This is Hatch as he is best - a conniving, self -serving bigot who would do anything for a buck and just an inch more power. How dare he, a United States Senator, sworn to uphold the law, subvert the Constitution so flagrantly and pridefully? It really is an outrage, and I'm at a loss for words to describe just how seriously he has injured this nation.

He is a disgrace to Joseph Smith and every Mormon in America including especially my friend Eileen Longacre - a conservative herself. Truly.

Even Schieffer couldn't believe his audacity. Bob said, "You're really going to ask him to conduct totally separate investigations?'

Then Hatch snatched back and said, "No, he should cooperate with them, but also conduct his own investigation."

How's he going to do that, Orrin?

Hatch too, thinks Reno will appoint an independent counsel to investigate Babbitt. Duh. I wonder just how many times that one's been leaked from Justice?

Schieffer, and I, wanted to know if Freeh would actually listen to Hatch's call for his own investigation.

Hatch, as he always claims, said again this week , "I talk to him all the time," but would not answer the question. I wonder if Hatch means he talks to Freeh all the time, while Hatch is "under oath."

Whew! I thought Freeh was losing it.

So...Hatch, floating another trial BS Balloon -- since none of his others have worked -- is caught in yet another half-truth.

Hatch also said the quotable following: "I trust Freeh more than Reno."

Glenn's rebut was weak. He pointed out that it wasn't "protecting the president" to appoint four independent counsels to investigate him and that Janet Reno is continue her investigations of the president and the vice president. Glenn should have said that Hatch was a worthless racist who backs destroying affirmative action and, according to my sources, has been the focus of some pretty intense criminal investigations himself.

Schieffer asked two Senators whether the Freeh-to-Reno memo should be made public.

Hatch, as always lying -- and in the name of God, no less, said, "of course, she's required to hand it over. It's a legal opinion and the public has a right to know."

Hatch again lies to America. Reno not in any way required to hand over a letter from Freeh. What he writes does not have the character of a public "legal opinion,' and in addition, there is no requirement that private legal opinions be made public." Hatch then made some reference to holding the Attorney General in contempt.

Schieffer's sidekick actually said to Hatch, "How do you know that?" and Hatch replied that it was up to a court to decide whether Reno would be held in contempt if she didn't produce the memo.

MEET THE PRESS

Tim Russert

Tim Russert hosted sad old Fred Thompson this week, who went on and on about his oversight responsibilities and repeated his empty charges against the White House. Thompson was indeed pitiful as he reminisced on his motion picture days and I nearly wept with laughter when he talked about saving the nation for his grandchildren. What about for Kelly Anne Fitzpatrick - she ain't chopped liver ya know!

Thompson said that if All Gore, "thought about it hard" he might think about the Buddhist temple and that sitting next to a Chinese businessman at lunch that day was a mistake and that 'those phone calls' were a mistake."

The same pathetic untrue allegations simply made Thompson look like a fool, and Russert helped him along, albeit unintentionally (we think?)

Lisa Myers called Thompson on his irresponsible statement that "Now the President can get away with anything," simply because Reno didn't seek an independent counsel on the White House phone calls.

Thompson, looking dumb, tried to undo that comment by claiming he meant that she had put up such a "high threshold" that no one could reach it.

It didn't work.

Thompson, in his biggest pretense thus far, claimed that congress would now begin to use issue ads and soft money in their campaigns -- As if that wasn't happening already. What an oaf.

Russert turned the tables on Thompson and asked him what HE would do in his own future campaigns to reflect his rhetoric?

Thompson said, not answering, "We've been very careful (Spinterpreter: We've covered our tracks) I have not taken any soft money that I know of."

He said he might support Lamar Alexander again, and wise put down any thought of running for president himself. Thank God, because I would have lost my breakfast.

Thompson was candid on one issue - his totally destroyed relationship with Se-"Neat"-er Trent Lott, the Majority Leader who kissed off Thompson months ago when Thompson, to his credit, gave the Democrats ONE day of hearings against arch criminal Haley Barbour and also spent a week talking about campaign finance reform against Lott's wishes.

Here's the exchange:

Russert: How's your relationship with Trent Lott

Thompson, "frowneling" - About the same.

Russert: When's the last time you spoke to him, one on one?

Thompson: I can't say -- it's been more than a few months.

Ha, ha, ha, ha. Well that tells the story on Thompson's Oval Office aspirations.

The interview broke down when Russert started talking "Hollywood" with Thompson who played small roles in some "large" movies.

Then the MTP panel got together including Lisa Myers, Elizabeth Drew (Oh Gawd) and my old pal Jack Germond who is the straightest shooter in Washington and has paid a dear price for it. Along for the ride was a NEW Paul Gigot, who must have taken a dose of truth serum for Russert's hour.

In typical Germondese, Jack said, "the President ought to fire Freeh."

I thought Russert was going to fall off his chair.

But then Germond added, "But the fact is that Clinton doesn't dare fire him. I don't know what he'll do except "dis" him.

Gigot, unusually wise, said the Republicans would "love that - it would be truth in advertising."

Germond countered with, "Well, (firing Freeh) would not be on the level of Watergate, we are playing with very small potatoes here . . very small."

And that's typical Jack Germond razor insight. "Small potatoes" is exactly right Jack. But small potatoes inflated into "nightmares" by power-hungry Republicans who think they can control the nation simply by slandering anyone who gets in their way are still dangerous.

Elizabeth Drew, still pushing her latest book, seemed to have her own "insider information" -- that Reno would issue a couple of indictments as early as this week. Then she went on to throw bouquets at herself, after Russert opened the door saying she "coined" the term "soft money" which is totally wrong - the term was coined by an RNC finance staffer. I heard it as early as 1979 when the RNC was exploring ways to get around or through the FEC regulations on campaign caps.

Drew replied, fluttering her Betty Davis eyelashes, "I warned, in the eighties, that 'they' were doing it, and it did destroy the campaign finance system. There is an answer -- abolish soft money.

How full of insight she was.

Drew's answer to campaign finance reform is ludicrous and she revels in it. But even Drew, who fancies herself as an "expose' '" artist knows better. She's simply enlisted in the McCain Feingold camp because that the chic place to be. Drew, better than most, should know that if soft money was abandoned, corporate and wealthy individuals' campaign cash would simply be diverted to independent advocacy ads that could do MORE, not less damage to the Democracy. But she doesn't think that far because she's too busy getting rich moving from publisher to publisher for the most lucrative deal.

I do think she's cute however and wouldn't mind taking her to dinner - in Milan or maybe Morocco.

Meyers let on a little more saying that Thompson would try to get Babbitt, Ickes and others indicted for perjury - old news. but added that congressional investigations have become a charade.

Gigot made my point on where the soft money would flow if abolished in the regular campaign cycle but then tried to recover Drew's respect by kissing her behind with some banal flattery.

There was some discussion about whether the public cares about these issues. Both Germond and Gigot -- an unlikely couple -- said they thought polls underestimated public concern.

Then Myers jumped in with her two cents saying, "If people were not paying attention then Lott would never have scheduled a vote on campaign finance reform.

Of course, Lisa, he also sabotaged it at the same time.

Drew did have one interesting to say. She said that the Attorney General could say, 'Okay, we didn't find a crime this time, but in the future you are on notice that the use of soft money is crime."

Well, interesting, but not possible since the FEC and the Courts have, more than once, upheld the legality of soft money.

The Larry Lawrence story came up.

Jack Germond said he suspected "they' will move him but that the thing the Lawrence affair showed was the absolutely terrible shape the White House vetting process was in at that time.

Then Gigot, surprisingly started to attack the GOP saying that they overreached, then the White House did the same. "It looks like Lawrence wasn't telling the truth," he said, "but it isn't anything substantial."

Well, I agree Paul, but tell that to the hate mongers at www.FreeRepublic.com who have been terrorizing us at American Politics for three days now because we made similar conclusions.

Russert, waving the flag as NBC expects him to, said, "I think this is big. I do think Arlington is hallowed ground. I think it will get real big.

And I think Russert is right. But not because of a natural groundswell of support from veterans and others, but because of a well-engineered effort by GOP ultra-right goons to create a demonstration that could take the form of demonizing Lawrence, marching on Arlington, and even trying to "dig him up" themselves to the mutual horror and cheers of the congress.

And that's how it was.

Paula JonesPOSTSCRIPT: A PAULA JONES QUICKIE

Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that all documents pertaining to fund-raising, public relations strategy and tax returns must be turned over to Clinton's defense team, by Paula Jones in about 2 hours. (by 1 p.m. CT Monday.)

Last month, Webber Wright had given Clinton's lawyers access to fund information concerning the number of contributors, amounts of money raised and communications with donors on the fund's operations.

Webber Wright did issue a protective order, though, on the names of the contributors, ruling that disclosure might discourage future donors.

Jones' lawyers had argued that the documents were covered by the attorney-client privilege and therefore should not be turned over to Clinton's team.

Cindy Hays, the former head of the Paula Jones Legal Fund, is scheduled to give a deposition in the case next Tuesday.

Score Minus 1 for Jones!

Copyright © 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Read our privacy policy. Contact us. ISSN No. 1523-1690