Scoundrels, Knaves, and Fools

• Where's The ACLU When You Need It? Slick Willie uttered the words "So help me God" during his oath-taking at the presidential inauguration January 21. Isn't it against the law to refer to God in public? Where are the separation-of-church-and-state wackos on this one?

• Conservative columnist William Safire, the only mainstream journalist in America courageous enough to call Slick Hillie a liar, writes with surprising generosity of spirit about Slick Willie's second inaugural address. Safire's column in the January 24 issue of the Indianapolis Star described Slick's speech as "a respectable effort, forcefully delivered." He noted, though, that as "the second Clinton term reveals the tawdry secrets of the first" the near-term might be the right time to "lock in profits on Clinton's stock." Safire said that the several ongoing investigations may bear "bitter fruit" for the Slicks, and that Slick's "reaction to the process of American justice" will define his own character and integrity. Safire said he believes Clinton "will preserve, protect and defend that process, at whatever personal cost, remembering all that he represented on Inauguration Day." History, though, suggests the opposite. It suggests that Slick and his handlers will work assiduously to obstruct and deflect the investigative process. We'll see. (January 25, 1997)

• One of the great euphemisms of all time lives on in Wonderland, D. C.! President Richard Nixon's legendary press secretary, Ron Nessen, introduced it during the Watergate Unpleasantness when he told eager reporters that a previous statement issued by the Nixon Administration was now "inoperative," meaning that it was a lie. Now Newsweek quotes one of Slick Willie's former handlers, Harold Ickes, using the same term in its Feb. 10, 1997 issue. Ickes was being questioned about alleged illegal fund-raising last fall for the Slick Administration, and he denied a claim that he told a big money donor to "shred" a memo Ickes had sent him. Ickes told Newsweek he never used the word "shred" but may have--he can't recall, of course--told the fatcat that the memo was "inoperative." (February 8, 1997)

• Republican Congressman J. C. Watts of Oklahoma delivered his party's response to Slick's State of The Union Address February 4, and he got at least one thing right earlier in the day in a profile piece published in the Washington Post. There the Post quoted Watts as saying he finds it hard to mask his contempt for "race-hustling poverty pimps" and said Watts was referring to the likes of Jesse Jackson and Wonderland, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry. Jackson huffed and puffed, but still showed up to sit with Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich to hear the President's pandering and obfuscations that evening. It's refreshing and encouraging to encounter someone who doesn't pussyfoot around with the language. Cheers, J.C.!

Yeah, But It's Our Decade of Greed

• All these news stories, all this commentary, all this handwringing about rapacious fund-raising by the Slicks, the Gores, the Democrat sleazemeisters, and nowhere among it have I heard any of the big media guys and gals--Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Larry King, Eleanor Clift, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Meg Greenfield, Time, Newsweek--God, how many have I missed?--make the screamingly obvious connection. . .that this is the 1990s version of the utterly loathsome Reaganite Decade of Greed. This latter has been part of the liberal mantra for years. It's uttered to this day by wacko Religious Lefties. Apparently it's not the same thing to the media cognoscenti when liberals are greedy, moneygrubbing scum wallowing in unbridled capitalism. (March 4, 1997)

• The Supreme Court's unanimous vote allowing Paula Jones's lawsuit against Slick Willie to proceed was a bit of a shock. Slick's lawyers are vowing all sorts of appeals. They no doubt have the stuff to stall endlessly. But the Court vote was a blow for equality before the law. Don't be surprised now if Paula Jones dies of unnatural causes before this gets to court. Along with key witnesses for the plaintiff. (May 28, 1997)

• Susan Webber Wright, a Little Rock federal judge who was a law student under Professor Slick back in the good old days, and who may herself have glimpsed the distinguished Presidential genitalia, will preside over the Paula Jones vs. Slick Willie Unpleasantness, should it ever come to trial. According to Newsweek, Wright will urge Slick and Jones to settle out of court because Wright thinks the suit "demeans the presidency." Wright has it half right. The presidency is demeaned, all right. But Slick Willie is the demeanor, not Paul Jones's lawsuit. She is merely reporting what she saw. (June 3, 1997)

Slicks 'R Us!

• USA Today rushed into print June 3 with nationwide surveys showing that Slick Willie's popularity ratings were absolutely unaffected by Paula Jones's lawsuit. Seventy-two percent conceded that "some incident between Clinton and Jones probably did occur" as Jones alleges, but most Americans shrug and say, hey, all this character stuff is irrelevant and they love Slick anyway.

• Why all this fuss about the general--Slick's nominee for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--who had an affair 13 years ago while he was separated from his wife? Why is it a crime when a general does it but irrelevant when Slick Willie does it?

Polls Will Tell Gephardt How He Feels About Things

• Wacko Religious Left Liberal Dick Gephardt's agony in June was deep indeed. He's said to be far more liberal than Slick and his horrific challenge has been to stake out ground to position himself for a run against Al Gore in 2000. Gephardt can't support the Slick budget because it favors the evil rich, but what a tightrope he walks. He's got to divine what issues might be crucial in 2000 and figure out where he stands on them, according to a Chicago Tribune political analyst. In a perfect world, a candidate would know how he felt about things first, and then explain that to the rabble as issues came up. In the real world, they don't know how they feel about issues until extensive polling of how the public feels makes it clear how they should feel. We should all be wishing Gephardt well in his delicate dance.

• Lost Angeles Times writers Marc Lacey and Mark Gladstone, dual bylining a July article on Senator Fred Thompson's commitee hearings on campaign financing, came close to getting it right when they wrote that. . ."Senators appear ill-prepared for complicated questioning. . ." Anyone who watches or listens to news conferences can testify that it's members of the press who are usually ill-prepared for complicated questions. . .and certainly without any interest in insisting that their questions actually be answered.

• Months of testimony, leaks, revelations, and news stories make it clear that Al Gore, whatever he was before he got in bed with the Slicks, has become a devious cunning, lying, artful sleazebag like the rest of them.

• White House counsel Jack Quinn (Slick's fourth) offered a classic Clintonista spin on the Administration's Most Recent Unpleasantness, this one involving Al Gore's fund-raising calls placed from the White House. Quinn told the New York Times, which went ahead and printed it, that "the solicitation was not made in the place where the call was made"--the White House--"but where it (the phone call) was received, which was outside of federal buildings." Only a lawyer or a sociopath could talk like that. Don't you long for the day when they'll all quit dissembling?

• The politics of resentment, that art form practiced by the wacko liberal Religious Left, got some much-needed fuel at the end of September when the Census Bureau's latest economic statistics were unveiled. Every newspaper I saw--and the big talking heads on network television, too--belted out some variation of the liberal mantra that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. . .that the income gap between the top 20 percent and the bottom 20 percent continues to grow. This problem has been around for a few million years, I suspect, and has mostly to do with something liberals have trouble facing: some people are more talented and capable than others and no amount of social engineering will ever change the disparities. Lefties make their living by nurturing the lie that every disparity is the result of a plot or conspiracy by whichever group is on top of the pile, and that the way to fix it is to punish the talented. Is there an older lie than this? The only one I can think of was pointed out by the late British poet Wilfred Owen in Dulce et decorum est, Pro patria mori (Sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country). (October 1, 1997)

While We're Sleeping, They're Plundering

• In the months since the much-touted "balanced budget deal" was signed into law by Slick, various interest groups and even an occasional curious journalist have had time to train their microscopes and shovels on the legislation's well-hidden and unpublicized provisions. You know, the secret stuff they tack on in the dead of night when the rest of us are naively asleep and feeling secure in our cherished belief that our government is in the hands of fellow citizens we can trust. One such special favor was a provision designed to aid a single Texas industrialist by sparing him paying taxes on one of his million-dollar deals. Another allowed the state of New York--and no other state--to be reimbursed by the federal government for certain Medicaid items. And as usual, when this stuff is dragged into the light, it's nearly impossible to learn who wrote and added the provision. They leave no tracks. Everyone just shrugs in amazement that such a thing somehow slipped into the bill. The Joint House and Senate Committee on Taxation reported that the legislation contained 79 provisions which benefitted fewer than 100 taxpayers. Forty percent of these special interest handouts were said to be spawned by our legislators while the other 60 percent were (Slick) "administration initiatives." Whoever said that no citizen's safety, liberties, or pocketbooks were safe while any legislature was in session was dead-perfect correct.

And Speaking Of Grifters, Here's Another One Walking The Streets A Free Man

• Legendary former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski was officially released October 15 from federal custody after serving approximately 15 months of a 17-month prison sentence for a guilty plea to two felony counts of mail fraud (his 1994 indictment included 17 charges of embezzling and misusing hundreds of thousands of dollars of government money from his powerful Congressional aerie). "Rosty" slipped out the back door of a Chicago Salvation Army halfway house where he was confined since August and boarded a gray Oldsmobile containing two unidentified men. The vehicle sped away shortly after midnight, according to the Chicago Tribune. Friends, supporters, and acolytes were quick to express their joy at his release. The Reverend Jesse Jackson, who like Rosty has spent a lifetime dining at the public trough, told the Tribune that Rosty had made "a great contribution to the national Democratic Party before he ran into trouble with the law. . .he's paid his dues, and the public should let him rest." Former Illinois attorney general Neil Hartigan said he fully expects Rosty to "bounce right back" to a normal life. USA Today quoted Hartigan saying "I'm sure he's going to have his choice of opportunities. The people who know what's going on think he paid a very disproportionate price." (May I suggest here that it's "disproportionate" only in the sense that Rosty got caught and processed while his co-grifters have not been?) Cook County Commissioner Ted Lechowicz opined that his pal "looks better than he did 20 years ago. I told him so." Rosty's attorney, Howard Pearl, speculated that "it's important for him (the convicted felon and former House Ways and Means Committee chairman) to get his (consulting) business going." (Code for: time to ease back up to a front row seat at the trough).

• The news has been sprinkled lately with reports of one weird judge after another striking down term limits initiatives passed in the states. Ongoing evidence that those opposed to term limits aren't going down without a bitter fight, and that no matter the issue, a judge can always be found, somewhere, who'll provide the desired ruling. I believe they will prevail in the end and that the term limits movement will dissolve in despair. There's simply too much at stake.

The Answer Is Simple: The Best Idea Is Money

• Lost Angeles Times syndicated columnist Cal Thomas lamented the failure of Senator Fred Thompson's just-completed campaign financing hearings to outrage the American people and quoted Slick Willie telling donors at a fund-raiser the day after Thompson's white flag that "The party with the most money wins." Thomas asked his readers what ever became of the notion that "the party with the best ideas wins?"

• Richard Cohen, writing in the November 4 Washington Post, used his memory of attending a meeting of conservatives years and years ago and there making the discovery that "conservatives can be mean" to launch a column excoriating modern conservatives opposed to Slick Willie. Cohen attributed the Paula Jones Unpleasantness to a conservative plot cleverly maneuvered by The American Specator and other dark, right-wing hobgoblins. "What we are seeing now is the political equivalent of total war," he wrote. He used words I'd use to describe Slick when he called the sex allegations against Slick "slimy" and "squalid," and accused conservatives of being "recklessly radical." It took a careful reader to note that Cohen did not deny the allegations, he merely blamed them on The Enemy. Here's my hunch: if Slick Willie weren't a scumbag, people wouldn't be saying he was one, in articles, editorials, columns and lawsuits. To suggest that all this is just made up by antichrists is a fairly shopworn proposition by now.

• Although the Supreme Court on November 3 upheld California's Proposition 209 by refusing to hear a suit claiming it was unconstitutional for the state to forbid racial preferences, opponents of the new law angrily denounced the decision and vowed to fight on with more lawsuits, foot-dragging, resistance on all fronts, and even refusal to comply with the now required dismantling of what are euphemistically called affirmative action programs. The American Civil Liberties Union hissed and stamped its feet and promised more court action. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and the Berkeley City Council renewed their pledges to ignore the now-validated law and continue to resist. Wacko Religious Left activists, kooks, and victim groups began organizing protest marches. Howls of outrage, anguish, and angst blanketed the nation. This is odd, indeed. When conservatives do this sort of thing, it's mean-spiritedness. When bleeders do, it's moral courage.

Yeah, But What's His Favorite Song Today?

• Troublemakers. They're everywhere. Jim Campi of Citizens Against Government Waste is one. He heard the Weeper-in-Chief, Slick Willie, quoted around Princess Diana Funeraltime saying that "Candle in the Wind" was his "favorite Elton John song." Campi, who'll obviously stop at nothing to destroy the President and all he stands for, did a database search and found that--big shocker coming here, best brace ourselves--Slick's been flexible over the years about his favorite songs. In the 1960s it was "Chelsea Morning." Then along came "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow," the Fleetwood Mac song that had Clintonistas practically head-butting at the 1992 Democratic Convention. At a fund-raiser in 1992, the band played the then-favorite, "On My Way." Later, Slick told singer Joe Walsh that his 1973 hit "Rocky Mountain Way" was his all-time favorite. In 1994 when Ray Charles won a Grammy award, Slick told reporters that Charles's "A Song for You" was his favie. In the summer of 1997, Slick was featured on a rock music TV channel's "Rock & Roll President" special and there it was noted that "Monday, Monday" and "Eleanor Rigby" were among the president's favorites. In 1996 when Slick visited Manila, Philippines president Fidel Ramos investigated and was told "Love Me Tender" was Slick's favorite. (Excerpted from John McCaslin's "Inside the Beltway" column in the Sept. 28, 1997 Washington Times.)

Maybe Dan Couldn't Spell, But He Knows How To Harpoon a Tree-Hugging Fraud When He Sees One Department:

• Vice President Al Gore said there was "no controlling legal authority" to prevent him from making fund-raising phone calls from his White House office. When former vice president Dan Quayle appeared on CNN's "Inside Politics" program October 26 and someone reminded him of Gore's quip, Quayle offered this fairly piercing insight: "I'll tell you what. There's no controlling moral authority in the White House. That's what the fact of the matter is." Precisely. (From The Washington Times, Nov. 9, 1997)

• Another Clintonista's been indicted. This time it's former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros. Henry's charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and lying to the FBI. Press Secretary Mike McCurry rushed forward Dec. 11 to tell eager reporters that he hopes the press and public are not "equating indictments with convictions." If these things are against the law the inescapable question is: Why haven't the Slicks and scores more of their handlers, aides, friends and appointees also been charged? All this, friends, from what Slick promised us would be the most ethical administration in our nation's history.

• The Courts Keep Plodding On, But They'll Never Catch Up With Slick Department: U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth scathingly rebuked the Slick Administration in a ruling Dec. 18 that it had lied in an affidavit filed by Ira Magaziner, the Clintonista who ran the Slicks' failed first-term attempt to create a national healthcare system. Lamberth fined the administration $285,864, an amount we can be sure the Slicks will pay from taxpayer pockets, not their own. This and more from the Most Ethical Administration in Our Nation's History. (December 18, 1997)

Back to top