 |  |
| |
| Home • Latest • Archive • Search | |
| |
| |
| Home • Latest • Archive • Search | |
 |  |
| Pundit Pap Trumped-Up Guest Rosters Unanimous in Guilty Verdicts Monday, December 28, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- The upcoming impeachment trial and a wrap-up of the year's political "events" were at the top of the "official" pundit agendas. Yes, a consensus for a swift trial, the realization that there are presently not enough votes in the Senate for guilty verdicts, and the very real prospect of a censure alternative were discussed. But two "stealth" agenda points bubbled under the surface: a continued and false attempt to tie the forthcoming "Flynt Report" on the bad behavior of key republicans to the White House, and the flogging of rumors that evidence under House Judiciary Committee lock and key somehow "proves" that Clinton "forced himself" on one of the Jane Does interviewed in the course of trying to pin anything to the president. And to make matters even crazier, there was barely a congressional Democrat in sight this weekend, save Tom Daschle and Clinton-loathing Pat Moynihan on Meet the Press. Here's how the scam went down. Fox News Sunday
Mitch McConnell was guest one, with questions from the full panel. Tumulty asked about "the big option" -- censure. "When would it become appropriate to consider it?" she asked. McConnell started by saying that all parties want a rapid resolution of the issue, and when asked about what "incentive" there would be for censure, McConnell said that the two Articles of Impeachment must be addressed first and that censure would be negotiated among and within the Senate. McConnell's twin messages -- quick resolution and impeachment trial first -- were reiterated throughout the segment, and echoed the views of other Senate Republicans throughout the weekend. Tony said, "Therefore there would be no discussion of a fine or other punishment." McConnell said that would be a bill of attainder -- if they went beyond censure. But he did not mention that it would not be a bill of attainder if the President consents to being disciplined. Fred asked if McConnell thought Clinton was "repentant in the entire sex scandal." Do you believe it? Fred knows the impeachment coup is going to fail! He's calling it a "sex scandal" now!! How, ahem, Democratic of you, Fred! McConnell said Clinton was trying to protect himself from removal. "What would you like to hear from him?" asked Fred. "I'd like to dispose of the Articles of Impeachment first... [we would add so would everyone except the circling-for-blood media, come to think of it]... then get to the matter of censure" before hearing from the President. Juan asked about the "secret evidence... of possible assaults" and whether it would be considered in an impeachment trial. There would be much mention of the so-called "secret evidence" -- material that amounts to nothing but disputed hearsay and that has even been denied by the "Jane Doe" in question concerning stretched-to-the-braking-point allegations that then-Governor Clinton "forced" himself on a woman. Juan's characterization of "possible assaults" was an inaccurate and slanderous characterization of evidence which even Starr himself would not use. He characterized it as "inconclusive" in a footnote in his Porno Report -- a way to keep the evidence 'alive" while being able to say he considered it. This so-called evidence would become a top "stealth" issue as the Sunday shows droned on. "I don't think we have the authority to do that." Would you take away the opportunity from the American people of watching portions of the trial by going into executive session? No, said McConnell, "they'd be deprived of a show trial." But Tony turned back to the "evidence." Wake up -- it's HEARSAY, Tony! "If Schippers said 'We have additional evidence'... it is something you would not consider?" McConnell said that is correct -- but with enough emphasis to imply "You're darn tootin'." McConnell surprised even us -- hinting that all would be wise to back off from this so-called evidence. Tumulty turned back to the issue of executive session. "It's not at all clear to me that we need to put on a public show trial," said McConnell. That was McConnell's second mention of the words "show trial" -- if it weren't for the fact that it would conceal the first detailed defense of Bill Clinton, we'd say he was starting to sound like James Carville. Fred had to ask a question including the words "perjury" and "obstruction of justice" -- wouldn't a censure "undermine" the charges? Fred, you idiot, it would not "undermine" the charges -- it would devastate the impeachment coup! Juan asked about partisanship, eliciting the predictable call for non-partisanship from McConnell --along with the predictable "nobody should attempt to influence us." McConnell also responded to the New York Times piece on Gore looking for a role in the impeachment, and -- again, predictably -- McConnell said he saw no role for the VP. Segment two featured the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rep. Steve Largent (R-OK). Tony actually asked Largent if fidelity would be a qualification for Congressional leadership, and Largent responded with the highly predictable pap about "moral authority" and "values for our kids." Jackson was on his message from word one -- that fighting for housing, schools and Social Security are the real moral issues, and we have lost the focus on moral issues because of the Lewinsky flap -- "this was not a high crime or misdemeanor" but "diverted from the issues" that are crucial. Largent then bored us with the failed lame-duck House censure resolution -- making sure to emphasize words such as "moral... trust... values." He only succeeded in pointing out that the GOP does not care about REAL moral issues. What a fool. Tony Snow even "devil's advocated" him on this, and Largent admitted that "we have to get on with the business of this country." You and your homeys could have, Steve. But you wasted a full year on this foolishness. You and your friends will pay in 2000 -- if not before. It's not inconceivable to be talking about Speaker Gephardt by the end of 1999 once "The Flynt report" hits a newsstand near you. Remember -- everyone thought impeachment was dead the day after elections in November. The only thing that could be wronger is the House leadership's assumption that voters will forget this. Talk turned to another issue for the weekend talk shows -- Larry Flynt. And although each show only spent a few minutes on the topic, it was clear from the intensity of the disdain over Flynt and the attempts to spin this into either scorched earth or collusion with the White House that this was a stealth attempt to "shape' an issue by the media. Tony asked Jackson if he would call upon Larry Flynt not to "out" politicians. Jackson decried "the Flynt level, the Starr level, the Tripp level" of politics -- a turning of the tables that delighted us. Largent then talked about "private sins" and "lying to a Grand Jury is a public sin." It is -- but can you prove Clinton did it? Clinton has a strong case in that the Jones attorneys parsed plenty of words themselves -- to the point that a case against the Prez would get laughed out of court (unless an activist like David Sentelle was sitting in the judge's seat). Largent later called upon the President to resign. What was it Shakespeare said about idiots? Much sound and fury signifying nothing? It'll play well in the Confederacy and on the Christian Broadcasting Network, but thinking people know that. Before the final "Panel Time" of the year turned to predictions for 1999, censure was the topic -- and Fred predicted trial before consideration of censure. Boy, that was a real stretch for Fred. Remember, this is the same goofball who predicted a gain of 20 to 30 republicans in the House. McConnell said "Quick!" on impeachment, said Tony -- does this mean a "rehash of the House Judiciary Committee?" God forbid. Juan, for some reason, said that "Tom DeLay -- for all his work, the Senate wants to hurry it." Fred said "I don't know all this work the Senate has to get back to." The Weasel is obviously ignorant of the Senate's failure to deal with social security, health insurance reform, approving federal judges, or drafting legislation to streamline government. Karen said "What do they do in January and early February? They go into session, they go out of session" Civics lesson, Karen -- they normally do early session maneuvering, hash out preliminary agendas, write legislation in its first draft and begin the first steps in the process of making law. It's not as if legislation is born in its final form. Truth be told, Congress did not do all that much in the first hundred days of the Contract On America. Fred said that David Schippers and Henry Hyde would run the prosecution. Right. With Tom DeLay and Bob Barr pulling the strings. Tony then turned to Flynt threatening to out 12 Republicans -- "Has any Democrat called on him to stop?" Yes, Tony. Bill Clinton. He called for an end to "the politics of personal destruction." You think Flynt cares what Clinton says -- let alone Neo-Nazi southern GOPers about to be exposed as total hypocrites whining about a "pornographer" who is using higher journalistic standards than The Washington Post -- let alone Fox News -- in this particular endeavor? Flynt is in this for market share, money and glory -- just like you, Russert, Donaldson, Dowd, Blitzer, and the rest of the lynch mob! Juan called Flynt a "loose cannon" -- about the kindest words anyone had for Flynt this weekend. Juan turned the subject to the secret so-called "evidence" that DeLay had "used" to turn moderate GOPers to impeachment, and made the only mention on any of the weekend shows that the "evidence" is questionable: "Even Starr said it was ambiguous." Then why did he say so only in the footnotes to his porn novel? To impugn the President! The GOP does not want to delve into a real investigation of the facts Jane Doe No. 5 -- they just want to spin this point to paint the president as a rapist. Tony then did a segment on the year's events and choice sound bites from the news and FNS. yes, it gave us a "been there, done that" feeling for the most part, but there were some moments that brought a smile (or sneer): Bill Ginsburg saying that nobody was interested in the sex lives of the President or Monica Lewinsky, Fred Barnes saying "The President could come on this show and tell us what happened" (in your dreams, Weasel), Susan Crappenter McBimbo gushing about Paula Jones, John Boehner saying that impeachment hearings "would be treated in a very bipartisan manner," predictions of GOP gains in the House, and Rep. O.J. -- er, J.C. Watts' (R-OK) "We eat our own" comments in the aftermath. Predictions -- the presidential contenders? How many bombings of Saddam? How many House speakers? The Big Issues for 1999? Tony ended the program by playing the year's top ten FNS "bumpers" -- the montage of a clip or clips with a pop music selection playing under them. Yes, Fox was just as slanted and brutal as usual, but managed to cram in more material than the competition -- once again. The 17th Annual Mc-Laugh-In Group's Awards Show
And the Awards Show was just as goofy -- everyone getting a chance to dish, dis and pat themselves on the back over the year's biggest losers and near-losers. Biggest Winner Hey, John -- no comments on why Skip Bush is not in politics? Biggest Loser Best Politician Worst Politician Most Defining Moment Turncoat of Year Boring Most Charisma Bummest Rap Fairest Rap Best Comeback Most Original Thinker Most Stagnant Thinker Best Photo Op Enough Already Biggest Lie Capitalist of the Year Person of the Year Next week -- part two! Oh, joy... This Weak
The only good news was that Cokie was out of town. We hope she stays. The first two guests were Franks and Greenwood. Franks said that his call for the President to "come clean" was met with "stony silence." Well, gee, we're shocked. Partisan Republicans want Clinton to "come clean" as a consequence of a perjury trap. Maybe it's because they voted to impeach in one of the slickest and sleaziest railroadings in American history. Greenwood talked two scenarios -- a full-blown trial with a 55-45 partisan split and acquittal, or the President doing "another pep rally" saying "this is all partisan." The GOP is playing the downside of the pep rally for all they can -- but it only serves to bolster people who already hate Clinton. House Democrats need not have done what they did, and the GOP knows this. Greenwood wants a fast trial and a "tough" resolution of censure (we assume censure plus some sort of fine) that does not protect the President from prosecution. Franks joined those insisting that the President admit he lie under oath -- and went into the "no one is above the law" old song-and-dance. No one is below the law either, Frank -- although you and your Clinton-bashing pals would love to see this President in that position. Let me ask you -- when Paula Jones apparently perjured herself some five times in her sworn complaint in the civil suit against Clinton, was she not above the law? Was Starr not above the law when he concealed information from Janet reno in his zeal to merge the Jones investigation with his own politically smelly ouster attempt? Greenwood completely wasted our time by lighting into the show of support House Dems gave the President after the partisan impeachment vote as a "grotesque" show, then brought up the matter of so-called "evidence" locked away -- all hearsay, all questionable, and yet another attempt to impugn the President without giving him a chance to defend himself. This so-called "evidence" will never come up in a Senate trial -- it would destroy the credibility of too many Clinton-haters. But Clinton-bashers -- hate radio and wacko web sites -- will continue to flog it as "proof" Clinton assaulted women. We predict Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich will live to rue the day they decided on this tactic to smear the President. Greeenwood wants to see the President sign an official act of rebuke with Henry Hyde and Orrin Hatch looking over his shoulder. We're sure other GOPers would love to similarly humiliate the Prez. Hey, we say fine -- so long as Clinton also gets to sign two formal Presidential Proclamations of Censure and Condemnation -- one for Hyde's conduct in the Snodgrass affair and the Clyde Savings and Loan fiasco, and another for Orrin Hatch's questionable fundraising and shameless hawking of his perfectly awful CDs on public affairs programs -- and both Hyde and Hatch apologize to the American people for helping divert attention from real issues and embarrass the President. After the break, Sam welcomed Ashcroft and Santorum, and asked about "a lot of talk about censure." Ashcroft said something about impeachment in the House being the "strongest censure." Really, John? If it gets thrown out by the Senate, it's no longer a censure, but a rebuke of the House! Ashcroft then talked about an outcry because "we have not pursued our agenda of tax cuts, crime..." He essentially ran through his own agenda -- he's going to make a run for the GOP nomination. The poor, deluded guy actually thinks he has a chance. We agree -- he now has a chance to make an even bigger fool of himself, since he cozied up to the pariah Taliban Republicans in the House. He was and remains a leader of the legislative branch's "get Clinton" faction on Capitol Hill. He's digging his own grave, and more moderate GOP Senators and Governors will bury him. George Will claimed that "the public is being intrigued if not informed... by the evidence locked up" by the HJC. Will joined the ultra-righters pushing uncorroborated and in fact disputed hearsay -- a great new way to accuse the President of being a rapist without allowing him a chance to defend himself, since this so-called "evidence" will never come out in an impeachment trial. Sam asked if the senators were "intimidated" by Larry Flynt. We wonder if Sam would be intimidated if Flynt -- or an equally thorough and more reputable journalist -- were to dig dirt on him. And sure, a journalist's personal life is pretty much separate from his professional life, but Donaldson has so impugned Clinton in the past year, and in such a mean-spirited, one-sided cheap-shot manner disgraceful to the journalistic profession that he has practically invited a "Flynting." The two "distinguished historians" Michael Beschloss and Michael Kennedy bored us to near death with their longwinded predictions on the Clinton legacy, presidential greatness, and other lofty concepts. "Is your grandchild going to look at a transcript of This Weak and see one of the president's people spinning?" asked Sam in the most ham-handed, self-serving manner. No, Sam. They're going to look at the transcript and see you colluding with the President's worst enemies to take him down -- all for ratings glory. You, a once great journalist, will be thrown into the same slagheap of condemnation with Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer. Not much later, George Will said one of the stupidest things we have ever heard on This Weak"Six of the last seven Presidencies have been truncated by scandal". Scandal? Okay, George, let me spell it out in mostly one-syllable words so you can understand through the migraine haze: Three out of the last seven Presidents lost a chance at a second term when the voters fired them. Sam opened the roundtable with the words, "Welcome to our roundtable -- where we give you strong opinion each week, that you can take or leave." Don't tempt us, Sam! Bill Kristol characterized a Senate trial as inevitable and "a national duty" despite the public sentiment against it. Kristol, the high archbishop of ultra-right "New Moralism," has made the theme of "I and my Beltway pals know what is better for our nation than you, the intellectually and morally retarded public." He talked of lying under oath as a high crime and breaking oaths to justice, as if lecturing us on "facts". It was a roundtable of denial as George Stephanopoulos said the President did not believe he lied under oath [and he has legal reasons to believe this] -- and Sam came back with the claim that Reagan believed that the US was not selling arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Sam asked "What does [Clinton] do about the historians?" This is the most ridiculous sort of speculation and pap from the very same guy who said not too long ago that "the winners write history," now asking a question that implies that Clinton only cares about his image and place in history -- this while his entire agenda has been sidetracked by what looks more and more to be a fraudulent nuisance suit linked unethically and probably illegally to an unfettered "inspector general" investigation of anything that Ken Starr could get his hands on. After the break, Sam opened the final segment with the words "Let's look ahead to the year 2000 -- we've disposed of this President." You only wish, Sam. George Will turned immediately to what will be one of his big topics next year: campaign cash. "Any Republican who wants to run will have to have $20 million in his war chest," said George. Kristol said he likes Bill Bradley as a "credible alternative" to Al Gore. Only because he hates Gore, we presume. Sam asked if "being part of the Clinton-Gore Administration" hurts Gore; Steph said that the GOP risks overplaying their own hand and Gore should pick the right time to "separate" himself from Clinton. But this presupposes that Clinton is toxic, and nobody can predict the outcome of the impeachment flap -- or the mood of voters that may well want to punish the GOP. Speculation turned to who is the leading GOP presidential prospect. Bush is ahead of the rest of the field, said Kristol, but the public does not know his position on the issues. Well, that's no surprise, Bill -- he's a centerist on so many issues that ultra-rightists like you practically consider him a Democrat. All you dare do now is show surprise that the GOP Governors are in the ascent in the party -- and we know where that leaves you. Will predicted that the press will be bored by September of next year -- and said McConnell is a viable candidate. Sam pushed former General Colin Powell -- ignoring Powell's well-known distaste for politics. Kristol had us laughing out loud when he said that Gary Bauer was a viable candidate. Right, Bill -- in the Confederate states, maybe. And they'll think he's a bit too fey and swishy -- they want real men like Bob Barr! Steph made an interesting point -- Republicans need a Jesse Ventura to grow their base, and he doesn't see one. But the same could be said of the Democrats -- Ventura mobilized younger voters in the 18-to-30 age group in a big way. That demographic responds well not only to celebrities but rebels and outsiders who seem "real." And we got one more laugh when Kristol said that Paul McHale -- the first Democrat in the House to call on Clinton to quit -- might reemerge in politics as a Vice Presidential GOP nominee. Right, Bill. In your dreams. Reliable Sources The big topic of conversation on CNN's program dedicated to media criticism was, naturally, America's year of scandal -- and how the media played it up. Hats off to The Chicago Tribune's James Warren for saluting former MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann for personifying the fatigue the public -- and more discerning journalists -- were feeling over the Lewinsky flap. We at APJ miss him. The subject of Larry Flynt came up, and Howard Kurtz brought up the issue of certain media outlets and critics of Clinton claiming on their own without supporting evidence that the White House was somehow working in concert with Larry Flynt. His point -- not one supporting fact to "prove" this spin has come out. But Kurtz should have gone further, given the McCarthyite politicization of these sorts of allegations -- such as Tom DeLay's trying to sic the FBI on Norm Sommer, the man who blew the whistle on the Hyde-Snodgrass affair and as it turns out had no ties to the White House. Bernard Kalb said that the press would not come out looking good, but James Warren said that despite questionable sourcing, journalism was far less sleazy than it was 30 to 40 years ago, citing that news organizations were using terms like "Sources tell CNN that..." Here at APJ, we can't agree at all -- who were the sources and what was their agenda? The New York Times has never apologized for the errors in the original Whitewater news story, which we now believe was sourced by an anti-Clinton dirty trickster, perhaps someone like David Bossie. Meet the Press Russert Continues to Bash Clinton with Trumped-Up Guest List!
Russert pretended he'd help answer these questions with the gang of clowns who were to appear as guests. Of course, his invisible agenda remains his attempt to destroy the President. Why? To save Russert's own credibility, which has taken a licking this year. Russert started with Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), who said there would be a Senate trial. What a surprise. Yawn. Daschle said there are not enough votes to convict the President as of now. He said it would be a mistake to try and delay the trial and that he was looking to make this a bipartisan effort -- a totally different atmosphere than that we saw in the House. He refused to say how long he thought the trial might be. Interestingly, he said, as do the Republicans, that "We already know the facts." That was a mistake. Russert wanted to know when a censure motion could come. Daschle, being very careful, said it could come up at any time during the process. Russert says that censure is "hardly a serious punishment" -- again trying to push a conviction between the lines. Daschle said censure is very serious, but refuses to answer Russert's obvious question: "What is the most serious offense the President has committed?" Gee, Russert is so "sneaky." What a moron. "Do you believe the President lied under oath?" Daschle didn't bite, saying instead "we have to find a way to solve this problem." Russert asked what would happen if Republicans insist that the President admit he lied under oath. Russert seems to think this a big deal. It would not be, inasmuch as censure is just a way for the GOP to save face -- nothing more, nothing less ridiculous. Daschle said that neither he nor Trent Lott want a fee or fine imposed on Clinton. Russert wanted to know whether the Senate would bring Starr in and force him to swear he wouldn't prosecute Clinton. Daschle didn't know-- but didn't rule it out. We can see that now. What a circus! Russert asked Daschle what he thought about President Clinton's remarks about impeachment. The President, in reply to a Los Angeles Times reporter's question about how he felt about impeachment, answered, "Not bad." That's our Bill! He told the reporter that he thought history would treat him well nonetheless -- and he was right. We couldn't agree more. Russert, again playing the fool, asked Daschle, "Shouldn't the President feel more contrite?" Ha, ha, haha! Shouldn't Russert? Daschle said that this issue would be the only matter concentrated on by the Senate until it is solved. Then they will move briskly toward addressing Social Security and Medicare. True. After the mandatory ADM and GE commercials ("We bring good things to public affairs programs that bash Clinton!"), Russert brought out a ridiculous panel of pundits -- including recent traitor Mike McCurry, who stabbed the President in the back during a BBC interview last week. McCurry didn't have the courage to do it to his face in Washington, or in the White House. "Et tu, Mikey?" Russert welcomed Pat Moynihan, the doddering senior senator form New York, whom every Democrat congressman in the Empire State hopes will participate in Celebrity Death Match -- sooner rather than later. Moynihan thinks the entire stability of the nation could totter during this trial. He talks about censure: "The President must participate in censure and that is why it is a good thing -- he must sign it." What if the President refused to sign the censure, asked Russert. "We'll see," answered Moynihan. Russert brought up the a Los Angeles Times story again, then asked Bill Bennett -- the disgustingly fat slob moralist -- who immediately said, "Lets be clear, the President HAS been impeached...." He went on, surly as a bull and heavier than one, and bleats about lying under oath to a grand jury. Of course he doesn't point out that this grand jury was impaneled as a political witch trial and had not even a glimmer of judiciousness about it. Pat Robertson -- allegedly the most corrupt man in televangelism -- is concerned about "the children." Yeah -- and whether they send him tax-free money, of course. Robertson is the "Godfather" of the Christian Coalition -- a bunch of Evangelical hooters locked in their trailers in the Bible Belt. Judas McCurry said the view is that the House was very partisan. He said, "Let's see just what are the facts -- because some of them are in dispute" --- and thereby corrected and slapped Tom Daschle. Then Russert fact-checked him by replaying his remarks in which he said that he has enormous doubts about whether Clinton is fit to be president. Watch McCurry squirm! He said he was troubled about the President's behavior, and that he is troubled about his own behavior. He changed the subject to punishing the President in some way. He claimed these are his personal feelings and that we have to determine what to do as a nation at this point. He tried to say that the impeachment is a permanent stain -- but of course, this is ludicrous because no American will think that this witch hunt was anything but a stain. Quite the opposite. Then Bill "The Blob" Bennett put down McCurry for trying to squirm out. Bennett said his opinion is "based on knowledge," not is party affiliation. Bennett used to be a Democrat. Sort of like saying he used to have Jews that were his friends. Moynihan then freaked everyone out, saying in response to Russert's question about what will happen now: "We'll have a trial then we will censure and then we'll get on with keeping a close eye on Russia, which is moving in on Belarus." Bennett looked at him as if he were crazy. On censure, Robertson said the President will be "a lame duck" and will "have no moral authority to lead" and will be questioned about every move he makes. This is new GOP mantra -- force him to resign by questioning every move he makes. Robertson then said Clinton put American soldiers in harms way to save his political skin. "Lechery, lechery still, war, and lechery is all that holds fashion," croaked Moynihan, the men in white coat no doubt not far behind. Bill Bennett said the state of politics is pretty bad. He should know -- he made it so. He then said that there are "honorable" men and women in Washington -- parenthetically and falsely including himself in that group -- and then said concerning the "politics of personal destruction "that it is the President that lives by this rule -- not Republicans. Bennett has spent years impugning the character of Clinton. In fact, he has made a bundle of money off the personal pain of the Clinton family. He's one to talk about the "politics of personal destruction" as he feathers his own nest using just that. Robertson said that politics in 1998 is reflected by "cultural relativism" and that unfortunately "attack dogs" like Carville work. Robertson insincerely adopts the mantle of honor and reminds us he was once a Democrat. We guess Pat couldn't steal enough money from Bible-thumping old ladies through his tele"scam"gelism -- so magically, or perhaps "miraculously," he became a Republican. Russert asked Robertson about the Y2K bug. Robertson said the FAA is not prepared and neither is the IRS. Interesting that he chose these two agencies -- one controls his private jet and the other lets him get away with paying no taxes! He said that it will definitely give us a SERIOUS DEPRESSION! Ha, ha, haha -- what an idiot. What a waste of time. Of course everything will be fine. There will be a lot of people hired to do the math and the programming by hand. That will be about the worst of it. Russert, now a "born-again" moralist, turns to the birth this week of octuplets. Bill Bennett thinks of Shakespeare, then said "Brave New World," then moves to morality, of course. "Are there things that we can agree on like moral truth?" "Partial-birth" abortion, shared values. He then returns to Brave New World -- that is the prophetic book he said. We'd say Animal Farm ourselves. Pat Robertson, who Russert calls Reverend (cue laugh track) said the "flash point" is Israel. This could lead to a serious conflagration as well as in Korea. But these would only occur after the year 2000, if the Senate will convict Clinton. Great non sequitur. Moynihan said the biggest problem confronting us is the enormous number of scientific advances about which we have not prepared ourselves morally. Russert then showed a clip of Robert Frost, who was on Meet the Press about a thousand years ago. This no doubt is to prove what a great show he hosts. That was it for Meet the Press 1998 -- thank God! Hopefully, Russert will throw a cerebral clot when he tanks up on New Year's Eve -- and we won't see him again in 1999 -- unless we visit him at the Walter Reed Clinic for Wayward Journalists.
|
| |
"Is impeachment enough punishment for our wayward President?" asked Tony Snow at the top of FNS. Topic one would be Monica... er, impeachment, and, of course, there was the promise of predictions from 1999 with the FNS "B Team" of Fred "The Weasel" Barnes, Karen Tumulty and Juan Williams.
John was wearing what had to be the gaudiest, goofiest plaid jacket we have ever seen anywhere on television -- and the first thing he did was to complement Mc-Laugh-In Groupie
"Republicans seem intent on an impeachment trial." It was all Republicans on This Weak -- Sens. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and John Ashcroft (R-MO) and Reps. Bob Franks (R-NJ) and James Greenwood(R-PA), a line-up guaranteed to create one-sided Clinton-bashing. What a bore.
Is there any room for compromise on impeachment? Is health care and social security action now paralyzed? What is the state of politics in American?