Pundit Pap
for Sunday, February 17
by the Pundit Pap Team
Sunday, February 17, 2002, 1:00 PM EST (APJP) -- Campaign finance reform legislation, in the form of Shays-Meehan, passed the House this week. But in Smirk World, it's crucial to keep the so-called "war on terror" at the top of the media's agenda -- tied, of course, to President Bunnie-Pants' trip to Asia, saber-rattling aimed at the "Axis of Evil", and a push for greater "homeland security".
So Enrongate got kicked down to third place. The events of the week should have made it number two on the media radar -- were it not for the need for His Smirking Eminence to keep his war in America's hearts and minds. So CFR and WAR shared top billing on most of the network chat shows.
Here's what we caught.
FAUX "News" Spin Day!
Favorite platform of the Axis of Unilateralism!
FOX News Sunday promised to be particularly egregious this Sunday morning: the "top name guests" would be ultra-right-wing DOD strategist Paul Wolfowitz and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Unfortunately for the viewers, regular host Tony Snow was away for the week; FOX News senior chief of propaganda Brit Hume took Tony's place.
Guest one: Paul Wolfowitz. Hume immediately asked about Dim Son's demand that America send arms inspectors into Iraq. Wolfowitz, picking up on the cue, segued into his best "Saddam Hussein must go" spin (not that we disagree in the least). Brit quizzed Wolfowitz about a string of comments by European foreign ministers and officials slamming Bush and his "Axis of Evil" comment made during the State of the Enron address. Hume seemed a trifle irritated that so many European statesmen would dare say such things about His Fraudulence! Wolfowitz first tried to characterize claims by European officials that Smirk engages in "unilateralism" as "nonsense" (really? check his track record, Paulie - it makes you and him liars), then talked about how interesting the South Asian region has become (uh-huh - as a "theater of war" for Shrub's endless so-called war against terror). Wolfie characterized the recent campaign in Afghanistan as one to "liberate Afghan people" - in reply to Brit's comment that some are saying that "this axis of the evil leads nowhere." Wolfowitz blurted out some blather about terrorists, commercial airlines, and biological and nuclear weapons: "What we can't do is continue living with that problem."
Well, Paul, if that's the case, you also have to eliminate the roots of the problem, including global poverty, a lack of access to education, and a completely corrupt system of foreign "aid" that lines the pockets of the wealthy and just doesn't trickle down.
Brit turned to the topic of what he claimed were some 70 caves in Afghanistan that turned out to be treasure troves of weapons, ammunition, and material for Al Qaeda. Wolfman characterized the finds as a major intelligence bonanza. Hume asked about reports that a new Osama video tape has surfaced. Wolfowitz had no comment.
Hmmm - a new tape that once again has not been shown to the public. Is Fearless Leader scared of "coded messages" - or just scared to show that he's failed to "get" Osama?
Brit then turned the focus on Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners being held under military guard at Guantanamo Bay. What will happen to them? Wolfowitz said, "They are still trying to hurt people. At they make threats all the time. And we've got to keep them secure." Of course, he made it clear that these people would face the justice system of the United States, but his emphasis was the same as that for the rest of his appearance -- security, security, security, that all-pervasive obsession with security. He made sure to emphasize a second time that "...these are DANGEROUS people."
All right already! We know that, Paul, it's not as if we're idiots, as you surely assume -- but your bosses are being pretty dangerous with their unilateralism and "Axis of evil" talk.
Brit asked about the war on terrorism: "How long did this go on?"
Wolfowitz: "A long, long time". Wolfie followed up with a near-John-Bircher rant that sounded uncannily like the sort of "twilight struggle" silliness one would hear from right-wingers a couple generations ago.
Hume asked Wolfowitz to deny that a missile attack launched over a week ago from a predatory drone had hit the wrong people, as some locals in Afghanistan are claiming. Interestingly, Wolfowitz was noncommittal about the results of the attack; it is not certain, he said, as to who was killed. He went on to say that actions in Afghanistan would be going on for a long, long time.
Brit then asked about Iran: has Al Qaeda escaped to that country? Brit was throwing the Wolf a softball to justify including Iran in the "axis of evil" -- this gave Paul justification for rhetorically attacking Iran as he claimed that it was simplistic to think that things would get better there.
Well, Paul, if that's the case, you and your Smirk Puppet have blown it big time. There were PRO-USA protests in Iran following on the September 11th attacks, and anti-hard-liners in that nation saw their movement gain traction. With the Doofus-in-Chief's declaration that Iran is evil, evil, EVIL, dammit, he has turned public opinion against the US and handed hard-line extremists the advantage in a nation that could have proven a formidable ally in quashing ultra-extreme heretics to Islam who engage in mass murder.
Brit asked Wolfowitz what Saddam Hussein would need to do to get out of trouble with the United States. Wolfowitz said that in 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam was told to get rid of all his weapons of mass destruction. He was also given six months to prove that he had. It is now been over a decade, and Saddam continues to develop them. "That has got to stop".
Translation: that's going to be our justification for getting America into a Middle East quagmire.
Overall, Wolfowitz, a chief architect of the Bush administration's "Axis of the evil" spin, made an effort to look and sound less bellicose than he really is -- but the message between the spin lines is that he and Rummy, not Colin Powell, are running the show and we're going to throw our weight around at the global level. When Brit got him on the subject of Saddam, it became clear that Paul is champing at the bit to go after Iraq.
Following the break, Brit Hume sounded a little bit edgy about the results of that 17-hour debate in the House of Representatives that yielded a YES vote on the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. So naturally, Brit had to invite one of the biggest foes of campaign finance reform as the next guest on FOX News Sunday: Mitch McConnell.
Hume seemed shocked that there were components in the bill that Senator McConnell actually liked when he went so far as to say that some of the limits on hard money in the present legislation are a good idea. But Mitch went on to slam the essential killing of soft money in the legislation, saying that the bill had been "written by Common Cause", a group which he characterized, of course, as liberal interlopers out to ruin the money feast on Capitol Hill.
Then Mitch made some news: he said he has enough votes to filibuster Shays-Meehan, announcing that Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) has defected to his side! We were so surprised by the news that we missed a comment he made about an amendment that would provide some sort of "relief" for "Enron victims."
Do you have the votes to block CFR?
McConnell: "I do."
Mitch kept pushing the span that Shays-Meehan was written by "an outside interest group" (what a laugh - is he as outraged that Big Time's Energy Policy was written by a SECRET outside interest group? naaah... we didn't think so).
In response to a question from Ceci Connolly, McConnell said that he would go also attack campaign finance reform bill by claiming there are First Amendment issues. In response to a question from Juan Williams, McConnell again brought up his ersatz tie between killing soft money and so-called special interest groups.
Well, gee, isn't that funny -- it is wrong for "liberal" special interest groups to support legislation, but it's perfectly fine for such "conservative" groups to shower tons of money on political candidates! Do we detect a little bit of a disconnect?
McConnell also made the entirely questionable claim that the present reform bill somehow puts political challengers at a disadvantage. The problem is, his argument made no sense whatsoever. He also went into a rambling rant about incumbents endangered by -- catch this -- wealthy challengers. Has McConnell gone senile?
Fred "The Weasel" Barnes fed McConnell a softball question concerning Dennis Hastert's assertion that campaign finance reform would be "Armageddon." McConnell, naturally, picked up the ball and ran with it -- saying that campaign finance reform would benefit Democrats (in the short term, however, many experts think Shays-Meehan will give the GOP an edge, but only in the short term). When Hume asked McConnell about more details surrounding his claim that Senator Stevens would be voting with McConnell tomorrow, he instead went into his rant about special interest groups again. He again said that he liked the legislation's wording of hard money.
Hoo-boy. McConnell was just repeating the same points over and over and over again. If Tony Snow were on hand as host he wouldn't abide it -- he would've moved onto at least a few other issues by this point. FOX News Sunday falls on its face when they haul out a one-trick pony like Mitch.
Brit: "What is your evidence that Common Cause wrote the bill?"
McConnell: "I just read it in the newspaper."
We wonder if that newspaper is either the Washington "Moonie" Times or The New York Post.
Following the second break, Hume turned to Enrongate. Hume welcome one of our favorite Republicans for sheer slick entertainment, Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA). Needless to say, FOX News generally takes great pains to depict Enrongate as "NOT a political scandal, we repeat, NOT a political scandal, but merely a thermonuclear business blow-up."
Tauzin first discussed the testimony of Enron VP Sherron Watkins and the "fact" that this is an a "accounting scandal" (never mind Smirk's or Big Time's ties to Enron and "Kenny Boy" Lay). Tauzin has concluded that Enron Chairman Ken Lay turned to his general counsel at Vinson and Elkins, Enron's law firm, and got bad advice.
What? Bad advice? It's just a matter of sloppy accounting and bad legal advice? None of these sleazeballs is out to cover their pathetic ass after having lined their pockets, tanked the company, put thousands out of work, and melted down the retirement savings of thousands more?
Tauzin also mentioned a college professor who is also pushing the "accounting standards" case against Enron along with claims that Arthur Andersen's accounting practices were "creative".
Well, that pretty much sealed it: Tauzin's blaming everyone but Enron here.
Fred Barnes allowed Tauzin to say that both parties got money from Enron -- therefore, by implication, IF this is a political scandal it must be "bipartisan" scandal (never mind that the GOP got a HUGE bundle from Enron, and Dems a helluva lot less -- if anything). Barnes, interestingly, also brought up charges that Kenny-Boy Lay "had veto power" over Bush's appointment of an energy secretary. Tauzin, of course, said that he had not uncovered any such evidence -- but Fred must've known Tauzin would say that, otherwise he wouldn't dare ask the question.
Tauzin also said, in response to a question from Ceci Connolly, that there was a certain amount of reluctance to granting immunity to witnesses at this point, as he does not want to interfere with any criminal investigations, and they are still identifying the "bad players".
Hmmm. Will that include Big Time and Chimp Boy?
Hume brought up the issue of a memo from Vincent and Elkins to the top crooks at Enron recommending that that Watkins be given a new job after she blew the whistle. Have you read all of the memo? Tauzin said outright that looks bad for Enron: "It tells me that there may be more people involved in covering up what was going on." Brit tried to play defense lawyer, implying that Vinson and Elkins was looking out for all parties' best interest; Tauzin completely dismissed that notion.
Brit brought up the bankruptcy of Global Crossing and, interestingly, mentioned George H. Bush owned a good deal of Global Crossing stock before the favorite whipping boy of the right, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe (who some in the GOP have gone out of their way to name as a Global Crossing "evildoer" while ignoring the fact that it looks like Bush Daddy got his stock for free). Tauzin droned on about "intangible assets" and the difficulty of accounting for fixed and non-tangible assets: "We have to come up with better [accounting] standards." Tauzin also took the opportunity to tie Enron to Global Crossing.
We pretty much ignored the "Under the Fold" segment FOX News Sunday runs right before the panel pap, but we did observe Brit attacking both the Olympics and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
At last - the always-entertaining "Panel time!" Brit asked the panel what would happen to campaign finance reform. Guest analyst William Kristol predicted that it would be signed into law by Bush! Fred Barnes, shocked by Kristol's forecast, angrily said that McConnell seems to have enough votes to prevent the bill from being rubber-stamped but needs to maintain a filibuster in order to kill the bill. He suspects that a filibuster was being planned to allow the Bogus POTUS to "get involved with shaping campaign finance reform." Juan Williams contradicted Barnes, pointing out that the president doesn't seem to want to get involved. He also made His Fraudulence look pretty bad by saying that if this guy is claiming to be the leader of his party, where is the leadership? Connolly said she was struck by the change in tone of Senator McConnell, but said it that it's obvious he wants to send the bill into conference committee -- where it could die. Both sides, added Connolly, are preparing for a HUGE court battle over First Amendment issues. Williams said that in the short run, the new legislation will give that the GOP a hard money advantage, but in long run it will help Democrats. Bill Kristol said that the impact of the bill is hard to gauge. It would, however, weaken the control of party committees in being able to finance an influence key races. Connolly agreed with Bill Kristol, but added that Democrats are already thinking hard and will come up with ways to get more hard money donations. Barnes, who seems very troubled by this legislation, said that he thinks conservatives will "jump in there" to figure out ways around to the legislation. Bush, he predicted, will have an advantage in being able to raise hard money come 2004.
Brit then turned talked to Enrongate -- is it mushrooming or receding? Bill Kristol explicitly said that it affects Republicans. Even if it cannot explicitly be tied to Republicans, it will hurt them come election time. The best Republicans can do, he added, is to get behind legislation that prevents more Enrongate. Juan said that the big issue is Dick Cheney's refusal to make public the list of businessmen and energy figures who worked on his secret committee to establish a national "energy policy". Ceci said that Enrongate is already having a political impact -- it has triggered the campaign finance reform victory in the House this week. Barnes is not particularly comfortable about the Enron mess. He thinks it will harm Republicans. But he did his best claim that the scandal has faded, faded, faded (translation: We're at War, Dammit!). Juan said that Enrongate raises questions about the present System -- but didn't quite go so far as to say that it is an issue of unregulated, out-of-control accounting. It was strange, however, to hear Bill Kristol refer to the mess as "corporate crime" (my God -- an admission on a FOX News show that big Texas companies might just be breaking the law! Let's hope Murdoch and Ailes doesn't have heart conditions...on second thought...). Ceci Connolly brought up the concern of people holding worthless 401(k) plans. Will Cheney be forced to release the energy panel list? The panel was mixed on their prediction -- Burns saying no, Connolly and Williams saying yes.
Brit, of course, had the traditional FOX News Sunday "Final Word", but instead of some snide commentary focusing on some favorite issue of the crazed right wing, he ran a very funny political ad for Bob Coleman, Republican candidate for attorney general in Illinois. Coleman is holding a baby that simply will not stop crying as he keeps saying, in take after take, "My name is Bob Coleman and I'm running for attorney general."
The final tagline in the commercial: "Bob Coleman. Great attorney. Lousy politician."
Even we had to laugh. It's just about the funniest political spot we've seen in years.
-- JJ Balzer
The McLaugh-In Group!
Issue one: The figure skating scandal at the Salt Lake City Olympics!
What?
Sports?
Say it ain't so, John!
We watch the McLaugh-In Group for insane blather about politics, not hand-wringing over what is in effect professional sports. John spent nearly two minutes ranting at length about how crooked the judging of the pairs figure skating competition at this year's Winter Olympics was. I mean, it's no secret: everybody knows that the judging of figure skating is just about as crooked as the Republican National Committee. Everybody knows that French figure skating judge Marie Reine Le Gougne, who bears a scary resemblance to "Absolutely Fabulous" character Edina Monsoon, is the Katherine Harris of the 2002 Winter Olympics.
John was eloquent, indignant and -- yes -- erudite in his condemnation of the judging of the pairs figure skating competition. And it merely served to remind us that it's a crime that none of the pundit shows put this sort of energy into (or expressed vehement outrage over) the crooked 2000 United States presidential elections. This story was reported, analyzed, detailed, dissected and regurgitated by every major newspaper, cable TV news, and the networks' nightly news programs since Tuesday of this past week. Had they only spent that sort of energy on investigating and reporting the theft of the 2000 election.
We opted to "zone out" for this segment.
And, truth be told, we are getting fed up with the "jock-ization" of the Sunday pundit programs. If we want sports, we'll tune to ESPN or CNN-SI.
Issue 2: is the campaign finance reform legislation passed by the House of Representatives unconstitutional?
Now, that question should be of no surprise to anyone familiar with the way Sunday spin shows work, particularly McLaugh-In -- after all, they are sponsored by General Electric: "We bring good things to big money contributions to the GOP!" God forbid that GE should have their ability to flood the GOP and politicians that they favor with megabucks!
A string of statements by members of the House of Representatives during the debate on Shays-Meehan preceded John's analysis. He called it a "watershed piece of legislation" -- but, he added, there is another campaign finance reform story on Capitol Hill: Dennis Hastert referred to the legislation as "Armageddon. " John said that the National Rifle Association and the ACLU both feel that Shays-Meehan violates First Amendment free-speech guarantees. Are there constitutional problems with this bill?
Tony Blankley agrees that there's a strong argument that the legislation violates freedom of speech. John said that one member of the Federal Elections Commission feels that the statute is unenforceable; Larry O'Donnell said that the current legislation will force the politicians and their opponents to spend more time raising money. Who is the biggest winner? Eleanor Clift, who must have heard a different question, said that campaign finance reform legislation never would've happened without Enrongate. Additionally, both parties get to raise as much hard money as they please. And remember: Bush has no problem raising hard money! Michael Barone went so far as to say he agreed completely with Eleanor, and said that the biggest winners will be incumbents -- challengers will find it more difficult to raise funds under Shays-Meehan. Mike also broke in as Eleanor was commenting, suddenly coming to the defense of the ACLU, saying that special interest groups are really citizens trying to express their views!
We tried our best to suppress our laughter -- Mike Barone so loquaciously defending those friends of conservatism, the ACLU! It's a joy to behold a pundit who normally decries liberal special interest groups suddenly rising to their defense!
A shouting match ensued as John shifted the subject to the participation of people in the political process. It was probably the best "encounter group" moment we've seen on McLaugh-In in the last half year. You couldn't make out what anyone was saying! Tony pointed out that political parties are now forming "shadow groups" looking for workarounds to the present campaign finance reform bill; Mike said that the NRA would be shot out... er, shut out (it really did sound like "shot out"); Eleanor said that the NRA wouldn't be shut out of politics. Is the bill better for Democrats or Republicans? Larry feels that for now it's better for the GOP; Tony doesn't think the public very much cares about the issue (translation: it's good for the GOP). Is Senate passage a foregone conclusion? The panel seems to think so; however, Larry things that the GOP will attempt to filibuster, and John disagreed (hmmm, guess he didn't talk to McConnell when McLaugh-In went to taping).
Should President Bush veto campaign finance reform?
Mike: yes
Eleanor: no
Tony: yes
Larry: no
John: no
WILL President Bush veto campaign finance reform?
Mike: no
Eleanor: no
Tony: no
Larry: no
John : no
Predictions!
Mike: Smirk will take on Iraq within six months
Eleanor: blowback from Enron will cause Congress to reconcile differences on suing HMOs
Tony: Enon's offshore corporations of Enron have board members who prove to be "very interesting" -- when John asked for specifics, Tony refused to play along. Hmmm...
Larry: Senator John Kerry will lead the fight opposing drilling in ANWR -- and will win
John made a prediction about British politics.
What gives here? First figure skating, next British politics? We were left more than a little disappointed by the Pontiff of Punditry this particular week.
-- Donna Wynner
Meet the Pest
An A-list of guests includes Colin Powell, John McCain, and Mary Matalin actually lets James Carville speak! (And he has a lot to say.)
Colin Powell, favorite whipping boy of the whacked-out right, was first today in the Russert hot seat.
Timbo started out by asking some softball questions about Afghanistan and the recent assassination of the new Afghan government's travel minister. What stood out to me was the very obvious edit in the midst of Powell's answer. This may have been as innocent as a cough or sneeze that they snipped out -- yet it's a little alarming during a show as suspect as Meet the Pest. I wonder if Tim is now granting "do-overs" to kindred spirits on the right.
Powell is a very hard guy to dislike, and one only wonders what he was thinking when he agreed to be part of this train wreck of an "administration". He gave measured and plausible answers to all of Tim's questions, though made no news. Of course, he was spared the junk-yard dog aggressiveness that Timmy only hauls out for those in any way associated with the Clinton Administration or those who stray even a bit off the Smirk reservation -- let alone pose serious questions or raise the truth about the Poseur Punk in the White House.
It's a virtue, I suppose -- especially in a military man -- to show unswerving loyalty to his commander-in-chief. But it is truly painful to see a thoughtful, bright, and most importantly, far more knowledgeable and experienced military man getting treated like a rented mule. He's boxed in and forced to swallow policies dreamt up by moron warmongers in the White House that have never served a single day in uniform.
Then the inevitable was finally brought up: Tim questioned Powell about his recent remarks on MTV suggesting that for those that are sexually active, condoms should be used. This flap illustrates just how anti-science and backwards the conservative Luddite religious right truly are -- they want to party like it's 1399!
It's as if someone asked Powell, "If a person is going to be working with high powered electric lines, do you think they should wear insulated gloves and boots and use non-conductive tools?"
The anti-modernity throwbacks on the right evidently think Powell should have just said, "No, no one should EVER wear protective gear or take steps to PROTECT their lives. The only solution is to just act as though electricity doesn't exist!"
Actually, that's a poor analogy. There's a better way to illustrate just how insane the religious right's views are -- that is to ask, "Do you think people that are going to be sexually active should use condoms to prevent potentially fatal disease?" That's what he was asked -- and Powell is actually getting condemned for saying yes!! They wanted him to just tell kids to FORGET about condoms, just never have sex (I guess until you're married, but from what I've heard, nobody has much sex after they're married). They're a little more fuzzy about just how being married somehow makes you immune to contracting AIDS or other STDs. Evidently they haven't asked the many people that have no doubt developed AIDS transmitted from their spouse.
And 'damentalists (they take the "fun" out of everything) should be careful what they wish for. If there were some way to make sure that teens and people in general couldn't have sex unless they were married, there would be one-stop quickie marriage and divorce parlors open 24 hours a day on every corner (with the hypocrites on the right running or investing in them, no doubt).
Powell, to his great and enduring credit, didn't try to dance around the issue. He didn't try to backpedal or fuzzy it up as we normally see pols do on Meet the Pest. He met it head on, didn't back up one step, and actually was defiant. He said that not only did he not regret saying it, but he thought to feel otherwise would be absolutely irresponsible.
One suspects that the White House was probably all over him to back down from his statement. In that case, Powell is a true man of principle. This was a great moment, and I felt like I was truly witnessing some real, live political integrity and courage. It was actually exciting to hear! Sure, it wasn't that big an issue, but in an age where politicians of either party have developed a pathological fear of offending the American Taliban on the evangelical right, it was a welcome sight.
After the break, Tim welcomed the old "Straight Talker" himself, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McCain was very low key, and less animated as usual. Last week, Larry "Serial Husband" King had the withered Don Imus on CNN's Brown Nosers Live. Imus appeared to be smitten with Russert, and lauded him to the point of it being a bit nauseating. The highest praise Imus cited in his fawning of Big Tim was that supposedly, if someone invites Russert to a party on a Saturday night, Russert doesn't go, because he's working on preparing for the Sunday Meet the Press.
Wow! If that doesn't prove he's worth several million a year for several years to NBC, I don't know what does! A guy that actually prepares for a show the day before!! God, what a workhorse! And what dedication!! If only more of us had the capacity to work that hard, maybe we'd be pulling down several million a year (I know grill cooks that work harder than Russert -- and they do a better job).
Anyway, as usual, the result of this super-human devotion to his job was not apparent as Tim asked McCain various obvious questions about his campaign finance bill and its chances in the House. Tim kept asking McCain if it would pass, if Mitch McConnell (R-Cabbage Patch) would be able to filibuster it, and how far McCain was willing to go to get it passed. McCain smoothly dismissed these questions and said that he'd work hard to get it passed, and that he didn't think a filibuster would be forthcoming.
Tim tried to provoke him by pointing out that out of the 25 house members that McCain had made campaign appearances for, only 10 voted with him on campaign finance. Tim wanted to know if McCain felt "betrayed" (as if he'd answer yes). McCain said not at all, and I don't have a problem believing that. He said he understands the tremendous pressure that was applied to the Congressmen and that he can't look back in anger.
Asked about people finding loopholes to get around his legislation, McCain gave a realistic appraisal. He said that there would always be people who find ways to get around laws. He said that they got around the 1907 law outlawing corporate contributions, the one regulating union contributions in 1947, and the reforms after Watergate. He said that there will be people who will use loopholes to get around his proposals, but that in 20 years, there will be two more congressman like himself and Russ Feingold that will stand up and fix it.
On Iraq, McCain said he believed Hussein should be deposed.
As to whether he'll run for president again, he said that he couldn't envision that happening. We're sorry to hear that. McCain was at least a man who sticks by his guns, and would be a worthy opponent for any Democrat. He wouldn't resort to slime, lies, distortion, and cheap stunts to get his points across. And he wouldn't function on a highest bidder basis as the current joker does.
The next segment was one in which it was all too obvious that Timmy thought he can provoke a "good dust-up" between political opponents and sit by, bouncing in his chair like a gleeful kid that just got two guys to fight in Junior High. The sparring partners were Ed Gillespie, Repug consultant, and the one and only James Carville, known for his brilliant campaign management in Bill Clinton's successful runs for President (and for his ability to endure more than two minutes of listening to Mary Matalin).
Matalin must have recently taken Carville's muzzle off, as he was uncharacteristically silent during the Florida post-election crime spree and has rarely been heard since then.
What Serpenthead had to say was so worth repeating that I transcribed the tape.
Despite Timmy desperately attempting to hang everything he could pull out of his hat on Carville, he never landed a blow. And Ed (Dizzy?) Gillespie was reduced to sitting there trying to mouth his little spin points and trying not to look too anemic and ridiculous by comparison to Carville.
This is what happened (with my comments within parentheses).
TIMMY: And we are back. Mr. Carville, Mr. Gillespie, welcome to MEET THE PRESS.
GILLESPIE (Republican Tool): Thank you.
TIMMY: Campaign finance reform, what's going to happen, Mr. Gillespie? Are the Republicans going to try and block it in the Senate?
GILLESPIE: I think some Republicans will try to block it, and some Democrats may secretly be hoping that they're successful. But I doubt that's likely to happen. I suspect campaign finance reform passes the Senate, goes to a conference and gets to the president's desk.
TIMMY: And he'll sign it?
GILLESPIE: I suspect he will.
TIMMY: Be careful what you wish for, James Carville. David Broder wrote a column, Unintended Consequences. Let me show you what he said:
"...the bill hands President Bush an enormous advantage in his 2004 reelection campaign. Here's why: In 2000, when Bush rejected public financing of his race for the Republican nomination, he assembled a record treasury of 'hard money' supporters and allies in the business world. As an incumbent president, he could probably double or triple his take, while at the same time avoiding the spending limits that go with public financing.
"No Democratic challenger is likely to be in a position to reject the taxpayer subsidies, and in a serious contest, on the accelerated calendar Democrats recently adopted, all the Democrats may well hit their spending limit by mid-March. In the past, the winner could turn to the Democratic National Committee and ask it to finance waves of TV ads from its 'soft money' account at least until August, when the convention formally made him the nominee and a Treasury check for the autumn campaign arrived.
"If this bill becomes law, ...the Democrats will have no federal soft money account; their nominee may well be off the air and invisible for five months, while Bush dominates the political debate."
(Tim gets really hot reading stuff like that.)
JAMES CARVILLE: There is no doubt that this president is going to raise more money in history. We saw what he did with Enron. We saw what he did with the nuclear waste industry. We saw how he let energy lobbyists run wild over the White House. We saw that the petroleum lobbyists were saying, "This is so good, we just write down whatever we want." And there's no way that we're going to stop it because they're going to be giving money to this president with both hands because he's given them favors with both hands. But let me tell you something. This campaign finance reform was overwhelmingly supported by the Democrats, overwhelmingly opposed by the Republicans. And I can tell you one thing, Mr. Russert, anything that Dick Armey and Tom DeLay and that crowd is against, there's got to be something good about it. We've just got to figure out what it is.
(How great is THAT?? Ahhhhh yes, the truth shall set you free.)
TIMMY: Democrats got...
(Just SHUT UP Timbo! Don't even TRY to trot out that LAME and completely false Republican spin point!! Notice he doesn't say, "Well some say..." No, he says, "Democrats got..." reporting it as if it were fact. I'm so glad Serpenthead cut him off immediately.)
CARVILLE: We'll never raise as much money as Bush is going to raise and his corporate lobbyists, I can promise you, because he has paid them back in spades.
(Another golden nugget from Corporal Cue ball!)
TIMMY: Democrats did not get plenty of money from Enron and Arthur Andersen?
(Listen and learn, GE Boy:)
CARVILLE: No, sir. Let me tell you exactly this: President Bush got 68 percent more money than EVERY Democrat in the Congress COMBINED. And this ludicrous idea, "Oh, they both got it," no, it was 73 to 27. If you lose the game 73 to 27, that is not a tie. Enron is hooked into this thing so big, their tentacles are so deep in this administration -- it's just like Senator McCain said, of course, as Ralph Reed, a well-known Republican: "It don't matter if you got the right side of the argument. It just matters if you've got the right ear."
TIMMY: Let me turn, in fact, to this whole notion of bipartisanship and show you on the screen something I want to put up. This was the president in August of 2000 at the Republican Convention.
(the videotape clip that followed was recorded August 3, 2000)
GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH (Arrogant Fraud and Liar): I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect.
(End videotape)
TIMMY: And then we had this event in South Dakota when the president and Senator Daschle were asked if bipartisanship was dead.
(the videotape clip that followed was recorded March 9, 2001):
SMIRK: Doesn't look like it's dead to me. It looks like it's alive and well here in South Dakota.
(har har)
(End videotape)
TIMMY: And there's Senator Daschle nodding his head, "bipartisanship alive and well," which leads us to this: political ads paid for by the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, Ed Gillespie, featuring Incurious George. Let's watch.
(Videotape, National Republican Senatorial Committee ad):
SMIRK: A lot of people have lost their jobs and don't have health care.
(No kidding, Einstein, because of YOU driving the economy off a cliff and ending eight years of Clinton prosperity!)
Announcer: But, sadly, partisan Democrats, like Tim Johnson, voted against that compromise.
SMIRK: There's something more important than politics, and that's to do our jobs.
Announcer: We agree.
(So do we -- try working more than 8 months a year, Dumbya!)
(End videotape)
TIMMY: Now, the president's going after Tim Johnson, Democrat from South Dakota, Max Baucus of Montana, Jean Carnahan of Missouri. And let me show you how often they support the president of the United States, and here it is on the screen. Seventy-one percent of the time, they had voted for President Bush. Why would George W. Bush, commander in chief of the war on terrorism, use his good offices, his standing, to go on with a negative ad against Democratic Senator Johnson, who supported him 71 percent of the time?
(If you ever wonder why we're in this state, remember, some Democrats vote with Smirk 7 times out of 10)
GILLESPIE: Well, first of all, Tim, let's note that that's the Senatorial Committee that's running those ads. That is not the RNC even or certainly not the White House. So it's not the president who's waging this campaign. It's the Senate...
TIMMY: Well, but if the president didn't like it, he'd say, "Take my picture out."
GILLESPIE: Sure, he could. (End of argument. Shut up.) Look, the fact is this: there's nothing inaccurate about that ad. The senator in South Dakota, Johnson, did oppose a compromise bill on tax relief that was very important to provide economic stimulus to the country and help the working men and women of this country. He walked away from that. The Senate has not acted on that. They should. You know, sometimes senators hate it when the folks back home learn what they're doing in Washington, DC, but this is an election year, and it's time for them to learn exactly where Senator Johnson stands on these issues.
TIMMY: But it's not going to erode the bipartisan support the president has been hoping to gather from Democrats...
(Tim is shaking in his boots at the prospect that the Democrats might defect from the Bush team!)
GILLESPIE: Tim...
TIMMY: ...when they see someone who's supported him so often is...
GILLESPIE: ...it would be nice if there was some bipartisan support, but let's face the facts. Senator Daschle and the Senate Democrats have decided that it's in their interest to stop the president's agenda from moving forward.
(Almost true. Actually, it's in almost EVERYONE's interest. Around the world.)
They've turned the Senate into a graveyard. I think that, in fact, what you're seeing with these rank-and-file Democrats running back home, Senator Daschle's decision to start running for president so soon is starting to have a negative effect on them and their districts.
(Really? We weren't aware that Daschle had announced he's running...what? He hasn't? You mean, this Gillespie guy LIED? Horrors...)
He may start to hear about this a little bit, and they may come back and urge him to, indeed, move a stimulus package and to start moving some of the president's agenda, including opening trade, opening markets abroad with TPA, including increasing energy supply here in the United States and other issues that are important to the men and women of this country.
(Oh, really? Don't you mean the mere handful of top corporate officials? That's OK. I know how you often get the corporate elite mixed up with "the men and women of this country.")
TIMMY: James Carville, Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate, did block the president's stimulus package.
(IMAGINE! Apologize this minute!)
CARVILLE: Right.
(Bite me, fat boy!)
TIMMY: He also went further than that, and this is what he said. He equated the budget situation to Enron. He said, "The energy giant's collapse and the amount of money in lost employee retirement accounts was comparable to the congressional 'raid' on Social Security to pay for last year's tax cuts for the wealthy." Quote, "I don't want to 'Enron' the American people. I don't want to see them holding the bag at the end of the day just like Enron employees have held the bag." President Bush's budget equated to Enron.
(Fat Tim wants an apology. Some big-time backpedaling. He didn't realize whom he was talking to.)
CARVILLE: No, it's not really. It's way more serious than Enron. Enron was only $90 million. The president is raiding the Social Security trust fund to the tune of $2 TRILLION, so Senator Daschle was actually quite moderate in his remarks.
But let's go back and talk about this sort of spirit of bipartisanship, Mr. Russert, because right here on this set, there was an ad run in South Dakota equating Senator Daschle, an Air Force veteran, I might add, a person who they were trying to kill with anthrax -- they're running an ad comparing him to Saddam Hussein. You gave Vice President Cheney every opportunity to condemn that ad, and he refused to do that.
(More compassionate conservatism from Evil Dick.)
You see, Mr. Rove went before the Republican National Committee and promised the Republicans that they were going to take the war and use it as a political issue after these Democrats, as good Americans, did what they were supposed to do. Why would anyone believe anything different? I tell you, this whole idea, this $2 trillion that came out, I told somebody the other day, this Bush budget, the figures in here, they were put together by a French skating judge, and that's where these figures came from. If you believe that French skating judge, you'll believe the figures, in this budget, I will guarantee you that; $2 trillion they taken out of the Social Security trust fund and given it to their tax cut bill.
And, Senator Daschle, you were way, way too moderate in your criticism. You've got to point out, this is way worse than Enron.
TIMMY: Well, wait, wait, wait.
(Tim was in a tizzy! He can't let the truth stand like that! He must, MUST defend the Republicans.)
The Democrats are less than unified in this. This is what Senator Daschle said in January, and let's watch it.
[Videotape]:
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD): So not only did the tax cut fail to prevent a recession, as its supporters said it would, it probably made the recession worse.
[End videotape]
TIMMY: Made the recession worse. The recession began in March. The tax cut was passed in July. How is that possible?
(Tim, you ignorant slut. Just because a recession may have begun before the tax cut was passed, that DOES NOT mean that it couldn't have made it worse! Use your head for more than a hat rack, you fool. If I got a stomachache on Tuesday, and then ate 17 spoiled Big Macs in a row on Wednesday, does that mean that getting 5 pounds of rancid food couldn't have possibly have made the stomachache worse? Are you stupid? )
CARVILLE: Because, what people did, is they noted these trillion-dollar deficits are coming back, and it kept long-term interest rates up. And when you keep long-term interest rates up, companies can't go out and borrow. I mean, that's all a kind of a technical argument here.
(No it's not James. It's a simply STUPID and illogical argument.)
The truth is is they have raided the Social Security trust fund for $2 trillion, have given up hope on ever reforming Social Security or ever making it solvent. And they're going to come to us when people start retiring and say, "Oh, we got to get rid of Social Security." This is the most dishonest budget that's ever been put together.
GILLESPIE: Tim, this is the Democrats' campaign -- you know it's an even-numbered year when Carville and Democrats are talking about Republicans trying to rid the country of Social Security. (They should be talking about it EVERY year.) Their whole campaign for this year is going to be, and you can sum it up in one word, "Boo!" (Stop it! I can't take much more right-wing humor. It's just TOO funny!) This is about scaring senior citizen, trying to get them to go vote against Republicans by trying to scare them about Social Security. And it's a shame that the party of Franklin Roosevelt, who once proudly said that, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," has been reduced to a campaign tactic of, "We have nothing to offer but fear itself."(Wrong-o Diz. It's YOUR party that is offering real reason for seniors to be fearful.) And the fact is the Republicans are running on issues and on how to improve the quality of life for the American people and this tax cut that the president passed, according to the Council of Economic Advisers, actually ended up saving or creating 800,000 jobs and making the recession a little less harder. (Less harder???)
CARVILLE: Well, whose Council of Economic Advisers? Is this some independent -- or this is not the...
GILLESPIE: The Council of Economic Advisers.
CARVILLE: Oh, I see. Oh, I see. The Council -- yeah, this is Mr. Lindsey.
GILLESPIE: What, you got better statistics? Let's hear them.
CARVILLE: See, the Congressional Budget Office said that this is the most ineffective stimulus package in history. And these are Republicans, by the way.
GILLESPIE: No, they're not.
CARVILLE: Yes, sir, they are. The CBO is appointed by the Republican Congress.
GILLESPIE: It's both -- it's, it's a bipartisan council.
(Score another for Mr. Carville.)
TIMMY: Gentlemen, both parties' candidates, George W. Bush and Al Gore, pledged during the campaign they would not tap into the Social Security surplus. President Bush's tax cut, tapping into the Social Security surplus over a period of 10 years, and the Democrats, no one stepping forward saying, "Rescind that tax cut. Let's cut social spending. Let's not tap into Social Security surplus."
(How far does Tim have to scrape? Now he brings up the raping of the Social Security trust fund, and rather than laying blame where it belongs, with the one's CAUSING this, he tries to hammer the DEMOCRATS for not opposing it strongly enough!! Can you freaking believe it??)
CARVILLE: Well, Senator Kennedy sure did. Senator Wellstone sure did.
TIMMY: Where is the official movement before the Congress?
CARVILLE: Well, I'll tell you...
GILLESPIE: Bring it to the floor and we'll vote on it.
CARVILLE: ...look, it's $2 trillion -- and it ain't just Reagan -- $2 TRILLION. And this tax cut is the reason -- is the PRIMARY reason -- that we're going into a deficit. And, Mr. Russert, you can look. It's right in the Bush budget. If you look at table S-16 on page 415 of the Bush budget, and they readily admit that their tax cut is the principal reason that the country is -- shot its wad on the surplus. And $2 trillion gone right out of Social Security. And Mr. and Mrs. America, you have not seen nothing yet. Wait till these numbers keep coming in, Tim.
(Oh, yeah!)
TIMMY: Here's the problem, Mr. Carville.
CARVILLE: All right.
TIMMY: Senator Tom Daschle, Democrat, South Dakota, says the tax cut made the recession worse. Democrat Tim Johnson, South Dakota, running for re-election...
CARVILLE: A good man.
TIMMY: ...is running this commercial. Let's see the commercial he's running.
[Videotape, South Dakota Democratic Party Ad]:
voiceover: Tim Johnson has strongly supported President Bush, the war against terrorism, his tax cut and his education reforms.
[End videotape]
TIMMY: Bragging that he voted for the tax cut, and Zell Miller, senator from Georgia, had this to say. "Maybe it's at a level that my brain can't reach. How do you have as one of your highest priorities to re-elect the moderate Democrats from South Dakota, Montana and Missouri on one hand, then on the other hand blame them for voting for a tax cut that he maintains has created this recession? Hello?"
CARVILLE: I think they're wrong.
(Why can't more Democrats be like this? No automatic BS. No frantic backpedaling. Just the plain truth. When a congressman is a damn fool, why not admit it?)
Senator Johnson did what he thought was right. I think if we look back we've seen that we've blown $2 trillion from the Social Security stack. I think it was a huge mistake. I think, by the admission of Bush's own budget director, that this tax cut is the principal cause of the deficits that we're now returning to. So Senator Johnson and Senator Miller are entitled to their own opinion. I think that they're both great mean. I just disagree with them on this.
TIMMY: Ed Gillespie, how is the president going to go out and say, "I'm fiscally responsible" when people look and see that a large part of the surplus is gone in large part over a 10-year period attributable to the tax cut?
(Pick me! I've had my hand up the longest! This is an easy one. He'll just lie his ass off!)
GILLESPIE: Actually, Tim, it's also attributable to the fact that we are waging war against terrorism and increasing spending for homeland defense and security measures that are very important to the American people. (I wish there were some way to hook up a 23000 volt device to this guy's sensitive areas that would knock him over every time he uttered the phrase "the American people.")
TIMMY: That's this year, but not over a 10-year period.
GILLESPIE: I understand that, Tim. (Then address it, you ass!) But let's understand something. It's important to realize that economic surpluses, budget surpluses do not create economic growth. (Oh, then I suppose massive deficits DO?) Tax cuts create economic growth and economic growth results in budget surpluses. (Is that why the last time the tax swindle was tried, we ended up with the largest deficit in the history of civilization?) That's what happened in the '90s. (I remember the longest sustained period of economic growth in American history. Is that what you're referring to Diz?) That's what will happen again if we can implement some pro-growth tax policies. That will fill the coffers of the Treasury (you mean wealthiest 2% of the country, don't you?) and will result in surpluses. (In their offshore bank accounts.) James' approach is just plain wrong, and the American people know that, (ZAAAAAAAAP!!! [Sizzle]) and that's why Democrats won't go out and campaign on the tax increase because they know it's wrong, too.
(No, you boob. How could they campaign on a tax increase when the only tax increase anyone is trying is the one SMIRK is assessing on all of us who aren't already worth millions? The one that will cost this country trillions over many decades.)
CARVILLE: So, wait, that's exactly what happened in the '80s. They have this tax cut and the coffers were just overflowing. Didn't we run $3 trillion in debt that the Democrats had to come clean up? I mean, you know, it's sitting there. But, you know, using...
GILLESPIE: We went into a surplus for the first time after we repealed Clinton's tax cut. (HUH?)
CARVILLE: ---this war on terrorism as an excuse for these budget deficits I think is one of the most fraudulent things in American politics. Again, let me refer you to table S-16, page 415, of President Bush's own budget. Even they had to admit it, and the country is going to wake up to this and they're going to wake up that this is the most colossal fiscal mistake that we made in many, many years.
TIMMY: Ed Gillespie, what is the most important issue, the defining issue in the congressional elections of 2002?
GILLESPIE: Jobs, the economy, and the fact that the American people are concerned about their economic security and where your policies to address those concerns -- and I think that the Republicans running on a stimulus package, running on trying to reform welfare, keep the welfare reform that we have now in place and, in fact, improve it in a way that preserves families and enhances the dignity of work.
(What a gaping crock of BS. Code words all over the place. Stimulus package=corporate welfare at obscene levels. Welfare Reform=slashing social services to the needy, children, and the elderly. Preserving families, enhancing the dignity of work=pushing the religious right's agenda and forcing people to work for less than it costs to survive while gutting and eliminating workplace safety regulations.)
Those will be major issues, I think, going into this election, and Social Security will be, as well.
We can hear right now that Republicans are going to have to make sure that the American people know, my mother knows, (That's a new low. Using your innocent Mother to shill for this hoodwinking of the country.) that Republicans aren't trying to cut Social Security and ---
CARVILLE: They're not trying to cut it, they're just trying to take all the money and give it away.
They're just going to break it. They're not trying to cut it; they're going to break it.
(Behold the truth.)
TIMMY: What's the defining issue of 2002?
CARVILLE: I think the defining issue in 2002 is is that somebody has got to stand up to these interests because they're running wild now. We see now that seven nuclear power lobbyists met with Vice President Cheney, gave God knows how much money. They've turned around and broken their word to these poor people in Nevada that they swore that they would never do. We see that they're running wild in Enron, appointing heads of agencies, they're hiding stuff over that. And I think that somebody has got to stand up for the American people, stand up to power in the interests of American people. This administration has stood for power and against American people at almost every juncture that it's had. And I think that's going to be the defining issue here. Somebody's got to stand up for people and say, "It's time that we look out for their interests." Two trillion dollars gone out of Social Security surplus to feed their tax cuts for their contributors. It's got to stop. I think Democrats need to stand up for it.
(Ok, you get two free "American people"s before getting the shockeroo.)
TIMMY: Let me pick up on that issue of Nevada. The Yucca Mountain Waste Disposal Repository: in the campaign, Cheney went to Nevada and said, we have no plans to have an interim site there. This is the advertisement they took out. The president is now announcing there will be a permanent site for waste disposal in -- of nuclear waste in Nevada. You won the election 271 electoral votes to 266. If those four Nevada votes, a state he carried by 20,000, had gone to Al Gore, Al Gore would be president. Has the president damaged his credibility by now supporting a permanent nuclear waste depository in Yucca Mountain in Nevada when he said he was opposed to an interim site?
GILLESPIE: Tim, I don't know if that will hurt him in Nevada in '04. It may. But I think you have to do what's in the best interests of the country in terms of policy. The fact is, if we don't have that site there, you end up with nuclear waste being transported across, you know, about 23 states, I think it is, as opposed to locating it in one remote isolated location. (It is WHAT?) This is in the public's interest. (If it's good enough for Evil Dick, it's good enough for all of us "American peoples." I think the president made the right call. And I don't think he thought about the Electoral College map when he made the call. I think he did what he felt was in the best interests of the country. (What? No lightening bolt on that transparent lie?)
TIMMY: James.
CARVILLE: I'm going to fall out of this chair. He didn't think about the Electoral College when he sent Cheney out there to say we'd never do it? I mean, this is the most ludicrous thing I've ever seen.
Then they tried this fig leaf of the science. Well, the science has gotten worse since the election. This is a classic example of somebody going out and saying something a week before the election to get votes and then turning around, knowing they're going to do exactly the opposite thing of seven nuclear lobbyists meeting with the vice president and, according to a trade publication, walking out saying that they're encouraged. Mr. Koon, who is the chief nuclear guy in the country, was the founder of the Pioneers Club. All you got to do is subpoena these records, look at these contributions, see what they made. They never had any intention, no intention of ever keeping their word on this, and this is an example, again, every time that it's power vs. people, this administration sides resolutely with power and never with people.
GILLESPIE: I would fall out of my chair if I heard Jim Carville talk about an issue that matters to the American people instead of talking about process.
(Real funny, propaganda boy! So now dumping huge quantities of deadly radioactive waste that will be toxic for many more millennia is not "an issue that matters to the American people." ????!!!
You get shocked until your hair starts smoking for that one!)
CARVILLE: You don't think this matters to the people in Nevada?
GILLESPIE: Tell me about it before.
CARVILLE: You tell somebody in Nevada...
TIMMY: All right. (Tim the crooked ref, steps in to halt the fight when it seems his guy is about to get knocked out. Way to go Tim. That's why you make the big bucks.)
CARVILLE: ...that dumping this nuclear waste don't matter. (The Ragin' Cajun reaches around the ref and blasts him one.)
TIMMY: Before we got, the president's at 73 percent popularity. Will the Republicans hold their margins in the House and Senate this fall?
GILLESPIE: Hold and expand the majority in the House and recapture the majority in the Senate.
TIMMY: Whoa! Midterm election. James Carville?
CARVILLE: Well, you know, I like to pick these football games and stuff like that. I'm very encouraged by Democratic chances, but Democrats have -- and I'm very encouraged by this Yucca Mountain stuff. I've very encouraged by this rail service. We've just to go make our points; I think we'll be fine.
Yes James, IF the Dems can make their points, they'll be fine. But will they? Or will they survey the media landscape and determine that it's not worth even trying, since their words will be ignored and not reported or twisted and ridiculed or distorted beyond recognition?
One REALLY wishes that Mary Matalin would let James out of his cage more often. But it's obvious that she knows how effective Carville is in motivating not only core Democrats but also independents and some Republicans, so she rarely allows that.
One can imagine how Matalin is petrified that if Carville scores too many points against her team, that she'll be called on the carpet by her boss, Herr Cheney. It is not too hard to imagine Cheney grumbling and making veiled threats about Carville.
So here's the most effective, (and ONLY) real fighter on the Democrat side, and every time he goes out and scores some big hits, his wife muzzles him. (Cheney) How nice.
It was a shrewd move giving Matalin a highly paid do-nothing job. How hard can it be to be press assistant to a guy that surfaces in public about 4 times a year, and then only to give a talk before a completely supportive audience? Hell, even I could do that. Her biggest chore is to reassure the press that her boss is still alive, for God's sake.
By placing Matalin in that position, they have a leash on Carville, and it's plain that they've yanked on it a few times.
But --- when he is let out of his room, he's wonderful to behold, and could fire up even the most tepid Democrat into fighting mode. He knows his stuff, and he knows how to use it.
Now if we could only hear it more often, and from more than one lonely warrior.
-- Dash Riprock
JJ Balzer is a former television news producer. He lives in New York City.
Donna Wynner is an attorney. She lives in Fort Lee, New Jersey.
Dash Riprock iDash Riprock is a free lance grump based in Moline, IL You can reach him at dashriprockapj@hotmail.com. Just stay out of his yard.
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. Read our privacy policy. Contact us.
ISSN No. 1523-1690
