1998 | Scoundrels, Knaves & Fools

Retired Senator Bob Dole blames his failed 1996 presidential campaign on illegal and unethical advertising by the Democrats, according to a statement leaked to the press this week. The advertising barrage, Dole said, "was instrumental in shaping positive public opinion about the president and negative public opinion about me." Aside from that being the purpose of advertising, Dole still doesn't get it. He lost the 1996 race not because of negative advertising but because he was an inept inside-the-beltway hack without any defining beliefs or passions who failed miserably to define either the enemy or the issues, who declined to deal candidly and forthrightly with any issue, who abandoned or never believed in the conservative cause, whose campaign was barren of any animating principles or vision and who had no idea why he was running other than he'd stood in the Republican line the longest. Dole lost because he was the worst candidate the Republicans have nominated in decades. (January 10, 1998)

The latest allegations of sexual impropriety against Slick have produced the expected denials plus countercharges that Slick's enemies continue to foment lies and rumors in a decades-old conspiracy to destroy the great human being who heads the most ethical administration in our nation's history. The denials are as preposterous as the offenses themselves would have sounded if you'd have described them to a citizen of pre-1960s America. What the Clintonistas are asking us to believe is that hundreds and hundreds of people have conspired over the last 25-30 years to destroy Slick Willie by making up out of thin air all the stories and rumors which have dogged the Boy President all his adult life. Best not to forget that old adage: Where there's Slick there's vomit. (January 25, 1998)

There'll be a brief furor over this Most Recent Slick Unpleasantness. Editorial writers will fulminate. TV's big talking heads will nod their heads gravely. A few ordinary citizens--negativists, destroyers all--will get their hopes up, thinking at long last America's gonna care, stand for something, say it's had enough. The Clintonistas will be in stunned silence for a brief period. They'll huddle in the bunkers, get their stories straight, plan strategy. Clintonistas--led by Paul Begala and that drooling, beetlebrowed fugitive from Deliverance, James Carville--will come roaring up out of their burrows in a blitzkreig of spinning, shading, fudging, denying. They'll attack the accusers, deflect inquiries, anesthetize us with artfully crafted non-answers. Media people, always overly impressed by the majesty of the presidency and already sensing their own polls showing countless millions of Americans rallying to Slick's banner, will back away apologetically. Starr, Lewinski, Tripp and others will be demonized. Slick, citing the advice of his lawyers and counting again on the public's short attention span, will say no more about it. The media will be almost indescribably relieved to be done with it. End of Most Recent Unpleasantness.

Yes, But Why Is She Talking This Way About Her Husband And Family Friends?

Following up on her claim that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" was behind The Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Slick, Hillary Clinton was quoted saying, "I think when all this is put into context and we really look at their motivations, look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for." Indeed. (January 29, 1998)

What I loved most about Slick's press conference, where he huffed and puffed and told us in no uncertain terms that he hadn't been humping Monica, was the finger jabbing the air and the lectern thumping. P.S. He's lying.

Slick Hillary went full-bore after her demons last week when she ruminated on national TV about a vast right-wing conspiracy out to destroy the Clinton presidency. Since she declined to take questions, there was no immediate opportunity for the dialogue liberals are so fond of. Hillary, in trashing special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, told the nation that the three-judge panel which appointed special prosecutor Kenneth Starr "is headed by someone who was appointed by Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth." She inferred that the three-judge panel is part of the plot to destroy her husband, Slick. She said David Sentelle, the District of Columbia judge who heads the panel, was "appointed by Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth," the two Republican senators from North Carolina. The Wall Street Journal digested this and in an editorial February 2 made a few corrections to Slick Hillie's TV rantings. To quote the Journal, "Federal appeals court judges are appointed by Presidents, not Senators. In fact, Faircloth was nowhere near the Senate when David Sentelle was named a judge in 1985. He (Faircloth) was still a Democrat and had just left a job as Democratic Governor Jim Hunt's secetary of commerce." The newspaper noted that the other two judges on the panel were appointed by Gerald Ford and--my golly this is really embarrassing--by Presidents Johnson and Kennedy. I love it when the press follows up on things like this, catches politicians and others playing fast and loose with facts. It's to journalism's everlasting shame, however, that so very few reporters, papers, and broadcast outlets ever do it.

Washington Post and Newsweek syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer offered a scathing assessment of Slick Willie's troubles in his column published February 2 in the Chicago Tribune. He says This Most Recent Unpleasantness "is not about sex but about truth." If it can be shown that Clinton lied under oath, Krauthammer ventures, "nothing else matters. His presidency is over." Krauthammer speculated that Congress will not attempt impeachment over one count of perjury, and that Slick "will never resign. He'd be $3 million in debt, humiliated, powerless, indeed homeless. This gambler did not even leave himself a San Clemente to fly home to.. .No, he'll try to stay in office no matter how many party elders beg him to leave. He'll be a dead man walking, an object of ridicule." And in his last sentence Krauthammer coined a useful, incisive phrase that should find an honored place in our language. He said Slick will be "an Oval Office O.J., denying what everyone knows he did."

Several weeks of haranguing and hectoring by Slick's attack dogs have pretty much blunted the Monica Lewinksi Unpleasantness which thrust its lovely head into the public eyeball in late January. You can sense a tide turning against Starr as the Clintonista counterattacks take root in the public gourd. Much of the "news" now has an anti-Starr tone to it. This is an utterly remarkable triumph of spin for Slick's handlers.

Golf Course Statecraft

Yet the little stories keep bubbling to the surface. 60 Minutes offered a feature February 15 on Slick's close friend and adviser, Vernon Jordan. There was speculation that Jordan himself might have been getting a bit o' Lewinski poon. Someone on the show reportedly said that when Slick and Jordan get together on the golf course, they "talk pussy", not statecraft. Jordan is said to be a legendary cocksman in his own right.

Slick Hillie's self-control and her capacity for enduring humiliation are superhuman.

I remain convinced that we see in Slick many of the characteristics of the sociopathic personality. He is awesome.

World Class

Gotta give credit where credit is due: There hasn't been a craftier, more cunning, clever, and politically brilliant group of politicians in the White House in our nation's history than Slick Willie and the Clintonistas. They are unparalleled. If the Republicans are smart they'll give it up, bargain for any settlement they can get, and sprint off the playing field. They're overmatched. They stand no chance--absolutely none--against Slick and his handlers.

We're seeing some handwringing now among journalists. Hardly a day passes without a lament about the sordidness of American public life, and particularly political life. Here's the answer to all of the wailing: if the Clintonistas weren't in the White House, the press would have dramatically less sleaziness and corruption to write about and the quality of our public life would improve measurably. Do the wailers want to tell us that every President would be like this one? That's a preposterous idea. The reason there's so much trash to write about is because Clinton and everything he touches are tawdry and trashy. We don't have tabloid journalism. We have a tabloid president. (February 16, 1998)

You have to love the irony of Slick Willie, who schemed and lied and weaseled to evade the draft during the Vietnam War, now being the one to order American service men and women to a possible death in The Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Saddam Hussein. Clinton is morally bankrupt and so is any nation which elects and re-elects and applauds such a reprehensible human being. (February 20, 1998)

O.K., I confess. I've mailed off a small (but heartfelt) contribution to The Rutherford Institute to help cover expenses of Paula Jones's lawsuit against Slick Willie. It made me feel so good I almost filled my pants. (February 24, 1998)

Who Ya Gonna Believe, A United States Senator Or Another Right-Wing Wacko Conspirator Out To Destroy Our Country?

Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, when asked recently about possible impeachment proceedings against President Slick, replied that she had "never been married and never committed adultery" and therefore "could not answer that question." Either the reporter, Michael Catanzaro of Human Events or Washington Times columnist Greg Pierce, who reported it March 1, researched the matter and discovered that Moseley-Braun was in fact married to a Michael Braun from 1973 to 1986. They had one son and were divorced in 1986. (March 1, 1998)

Another Destroyer Out To Get Willie

Presumably millions and millions of Americans watched Kathleen Willey's interview by Ed Bradley on Sixty Minutes Sunday night. Every last syllable of it was made up out of thin air. Willey is one more part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy out to destroy the President. She, like all the others, is delusional, hysterical, mentally unstable, hallucinating, possessed by an inexplicable need to destroy a good and innocent man, and willing to risk imprisonment by lying under oath to do so. (March 15, 1998)

You could search long and hard in America to find a man willing to call a thing what it is, but Congressman Dick Armey of Texas was willing to give it a try last week. Armey spoke to a high school class in Dallas April 6 and described President Slick as a "shameless person." He added that "If it were me that had documented personal conduct along the lines of the president's, I would be so filled with shame that I would resign. This president won't do that. He basic credo in life is, 'I will do whatever I can get away with.' " The next day when Armey was asked about the remarks, he confirmed he'd made them and assured eager reporters that he meant them. Armey's candor is nearly unprecedented for a Republican. It brought forth the usual howls of derision from Slick's attack dogs, and Republican Newt Gingrich was quick to assure America he did not share Armey's views. Armey will not draw any crowds in this country trying to stir up a dialogue about an antiquated concept like shame. (April 6, 1998)

"The key fact is that we have in the White House a man who can swear falsely on a Bible and then trash those who tell the truth--a man completely without honor or decency." --Columnist Mona Charen, writing in the March 18, 1998 edition of the Indianapolis Star.

An Idea Which Must Be Stopped

The lead story in this morning's Indianapolis Star was headlined "House to Vote on Campaign Finance Reform: GOP Leaders, Facing a Rebellion, Reverse Stand and Will Allow Action. . ." Several Congresspersonnel were quoted saying this was a great day for democracy. Leaders of both parties claimed credit. The vote is to occur in May. No need for citizens to get excited. Both parties will secretly stake their lives, honors, and above all their sacred fortunes on preventing any significant campaign finance reform. This week's action is fluff, designed to placate and anesthetize the public. They'll all huff and puff, wave the flag and say patriotic things, and then somebody will figure out a way to kill this most dangerous idea. (April 23, 1998)

They're Furious, But Nobody's Denying it

Indiana Congressman Dan Burton is catching heat from the Clintonistas and fellow travelers for publicly calling Slick Willie a "scumbag." Burton uttered this truth earlier in April during a meeting with the Indianapolis Star editorial board. When the paper quoted him, he confirmed he'd said it. Millions and millions and millions of exquisitely sensitive Americans have taken offense. Egged on by Slick's dirt-digger attack dogs, the assault on Burton is in full roar. But even listening carefully, we don't hear anyone denying Burton's charge. The howlers are simply outraged that he uttered the words. That's the crime, in their eyes. Why are we so afraid, in this great big wonderful free-speech-worshipping country of ours, of calling a thing what it is? If it weren't for euphemisms, there'd be almost no public dialogue at all. The nation owes Burton its gratitude.

Almost completely unreported in the Danny Burton Unpleasantness was this: A reporter for the Star first proposed the word "scumbag" to describe Clinton during the editorial board meeting and used a clever rhetorical device long favored by journalists, politicians, pollsters, flim-flammers and clever debaters. It works like this. The reporter injects a phrase or a statement into the conversation then lures or finesses the interviewee into at the very least a partial acquiescence or acceptance of the terminology. When the story is printed it artfully suggests that you chose the words on your own. Simple, and usually successful. The interviewee, of course, always has the option to stoutly deny the terminology--and unless he's addled he'll have witnesses, or better yet, tapes--if he disagrees and realizes what's going on. Burton, much to his credit, confirmed that the reporter put the "scumbag" term on the table but said that although he might have chosen a less pungent term had he been carefully analytical of the situation (he said he thought his comments would be "off the record" but that dodge won't work, sorry Danny) he was accepting full responsibility for the comment as published. A fine and subtle point, but one worth noting.

Here's an idea maybe we all can embrace regarding the unseemly, undignified, and unfortunate choice of words of that well-known scumbag, Congressman Danny Burton of Indiana. Everybody makes a deal: Burton quits calling Slick a scumbag in public as soon as Slick's attack dog dirt-diggers (Drs. Carville, Begala and company) are put on leash and hauled back to their burrows. Henceforth we use phrases like Most Recent Unpleasantness or The Recent (or Far Distant) Unpleasantness Said to Involve The President (or, of course, Newtie, Danny, Dick, Paula, Trent, Kathleen, or whomever) and The Tart- or Humjob-of-The-Moment. Fair enough? Another option would be never again to talk about anything like this in public or in private. That would enable the press to get back to its job of basking in the glory of celebrity and getting in bed with those they cover, and our Skexuslike politicians to get back to theirs, namely scamming the people, plundering the treasury, and handing out spoils to their friends and allies.

Of course if Burton really had been thinking quickly he could have offered this in reply: OK, I won't call him a scumbag. I'll call him a liar, a draft-dodger, a womanizer, a disgrace to our nation, and a corrupt Snopesian grifter. I think that gets it about right. (April 23, 1998)

I have trouble following the logic when people say we should not say nasty things about the president because he is after all the president and we must respect the office. The logic is upside down. Anyone who truly respects and honors the office of the presidency should be mortified and appalled at how Slick has degraded it and our country. Respect for the presidency and our country is precisely why we should loathe whoever dishonors the office.

The Grouper's Clever Spin

Right after word leaked that Webster Hubbell had again been indicted, America's television screens were flooded with images of The Big Grouper on his front lawn denying everything. In a defiant, embittered tone, the former deputy U.S. Attorney General and longtime friend of the Slicks, threw down the gauntlet and publicly renewed his everlasting fealty to the Clintons: ". . .(Kenneth Starr) can indict my dog, they can indict my cat, but I am not going to lie about the president or first lady or anyone else." Hubbell said. Perfect, if he keeps his word. Despite Hubbell's claim of the opposite, there's not a shred of evidence on this planet or any other that anyone is trying to get him to "lie about the president. . ." What is sought is for Hubbell to tell the truth and all of it. We'll all die an agonizing and slow death waiting for one of the big media talking heads to point out Hubbell's artful distortion, though. Hubbell's clever spinning keeps him in perfect lockstep with the massive wacko left-wing conspiracy to destroy Kenneth Starr and prevent the truth from ever being known. (May 1, 1998)

Hammering The Big Grouper

Days like today make me wish I were a special prosecutor. I'd indict Webb Hubbell's dog, his cat, his goldfish, parakeet, portfolio, iguana, neighbors, friends, parents, clothing, stereo system, coffee pot, children, Shetland pony, CDs, shoes, furniture, doctor, dentist, barber, wombat, cheese shaver, mailman, mechanic, and lawn boy, too. Did I overlook anything or anyone? I've got plenty more subpoenas right here in my briefcase. Here, let me get out a sheaf of crisp new ones, riffle 'em up close to your ear. Isn't that the next-most compelling sound you've ever heard? Next to crisp, new thousands, of course.

In what was without doubt the poorest choice of words publicly chosen in This Most Recent Clintonista Unpleasantness Said to Have Involved Webster Hubbell. . .Hubbell's attorney denounced the indictments by saying, "The office of the independent counsel brought Webb Hubbell to his knees." Surely this irony was unintended. Or is this disease transmittable?

"People loved Reagan, she said, because he appealed to what is best in us; and people love Clinton because he appeals to what is worst." --Danielle Crittenden, writing in the March 23, 1998, issue of The Weekly Standard, recounting an observation made by an (unidentified) friend.

Here's why spinning--raised to an art form by the Clintonistas--works. First, remember that television is the key medium. It's a winning strategy because each time a lie is uttered, X percent of the public will believe it. The other side may protest, but its replies never catch up and reach 100 percent of those who heard the original distortion. Thus a given percent of the population will continue to believe and act upon the lie, no matter how much clarification or rebuttal follow. The nature of the broadcast media assures no opportunity--ever--for the differing versions to be carefully examined in the same room under harsh light before unrelenting questioners who pursue all inconsistencies, spin, and evasion to satisfactory answers. Even shows which do pose as open forums or live debates fall woefully short. Myriad commercial interruptions prevent developing any line of thought or pursuit of more than a few minutes' length. Reporter cowardice and ineptitude make it impossible to meaningfully explore any public issue, even any single question. Most reporters, even the big media talking heads, are seriously disadvantaged when facing a skillful spinner. Clever people figured this out long ago. Television is king. Most Americans get substantially all their "news" from the tube, and so the lie, the distortion, the spin, the evasion always work. Given an indolent, uninspired press corps and a generally addled public actively avoiding any confrontation with reality, the con artists will forever have their way with us. And the spinners, well, they're a wonder to behold. (May 7, 1998)

Clinton, Indiana Speaks, CNN Bleeps

CNN took its quest for truth into the heartland this week to do a May 4 "local color" feature on The Danny Burton Unpleasantness Involving The Right Wing Wacko Congressman's Unseemly Use of a Word So Outrageous We Can't Even Allow It on The Air, Never Mind That We Gleefully Report on Slick Willie's Alleged Semen Stains on Monica Lewinsky's Cocktail Dress and Slick's Boob-Grabbing and Wang Dangling In The White House--Oh, And We Cover Ted Kennedy, Howard Stern, Marilyn Manson, James Carvile, Jocelyn Elder, Ice T and Assorted Other Abominations With A Straight Face, Too. . .well, CNN sent an intrepid reporter to. . . .Clinton, Indiana, to find out what Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch thought of all this. Sure enough, one of the local Clintonites, fairly beaming as the reporter asked the question, told CNN that, "Well, here in central Indiana, we think Clinton is a scumbag." CNN, ever so sensitive to matters of taste and decorum, bleeped out the offending word. (May 7, 1998)

Ooops! Times Caught With Scumbags Down

The New York Times joined in the screams of outrage about Congressman Dan Burton's truth-telling. The Times in its April 24 issue refused to even print the offending word "scumbag" and excoriated Burton for refusing to apologize for "using a euphemism for a despicable person" to describe Slick Willie. A day earlier the paper also declined to use the word. Obviously, readers are supposed to deduce that the Times is simply too dignified to stoop to such things, and that, well, some language simply isn't fit to print. But here comes the troublemaking Washington Times with its computers searching New York Times files and--guess what!--the Times was willing enough to use the dread term "scumbag" before Congressman Burton came along. Those dangerous computers turned up several "scumbags" in columnist Frank Rich's work in the 1990s. "Scumbag" also appeared in a 1992 New York Times feature about heroin addicts, and in 1988 the paper quoted the prim and proper Senator Orrin Hatch using "scumbag" in a Senate floor debate about drug lords. All we really need to know here is that the New York Times is just as hypocritical and agenda-driven and ideologically partisan as the rest of us, but won't admit it.

Yeah, But He's Our Convicted Felon. . .

Musta been a full moon over Indiana's May 4 primary election. Republicans voters nominated Paul Helmke to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Dan Coats. Helmke, the mayor of Fort Wayne, won a tight race with only a two percent margin over his nearest contender. So how did Helmke celebrate the next day? He went to Wonderland, D.C., to meet with his longtime friend, Slick Willie. Both Slicks attended law school with Helmke and the three have remained friends over these many years. Helmke swears he is a conservative Republican but has been warm and effusive in his praise of Slick Willie's life and many accomplishments. My guess is he's Trojan Horse'd the GOP. He'll run against former Indiana governor Evan Bayh, who is considered the unbeatable "Mt. Everest" of Indiana politics. But before the Democrats could get over their glee at having Helmke in their camp, word leaked--the press has to cover these things, you know--that Bob Kern, the Democrat nominee to run against right-wing antichrist Danny "The Scumbag" Burton, is a convicted felon. Party leaders were appalled, as we might imagine. Massive efforts were launched months ago to prevent Kern from running at all. The Marion County Democratic chairman petitioned the state election commission to take Kern off the ballot, arguing that he should be forced to use his given surname of Hidalgo. That, one surmises, would have made it clear to Demo voters that the candidate was just another despised minority, and let the party get on with choosing its officially sanctioned and sponsored candidate, who also had a suspicious name (Nagarajan), but had been approved and trotted forth as the pooh-bahs' choice. The Indianapolis Star reported after the election that on a previous run for public office Kern used the name Bobby S. Hidalgo Kern. When he was convicted of forgery and theft in 1998 he was known as Bobby Scott Hidalgo. Party leaders were said to be baffled over how this could happen. If so, they are being disingenuous. With nationwide margins as high as 80 percent heartily embracing the Clinton Administration, why wouldn't Democrat voters in Indiana prefer a convicted felon? This Most Recent Unpleasantness has to drive the Democrats simply crazy, for Burton is believed to be vulnerable and has been under national attack for weeks and will continue to be a prime target of the Clintonistas. If they can't have him killed or get him off the ballot somehow, bet money the Demos will swallow their principles and back their convicted felon, or, in the alternative, quietly support a third "independent" candidate, a "real Democrat" in disguise, in the fall election. For his part, Kern or Hidalgo is well on his way to either the U.S. Congress or, failing that, a Cabinet position in the Slick Administration. He's got the bonafides, no question about it. (May 7, 1998)

Again we are greeted by the disgusting spectacle of a lying, womanizing, corrupt, draft-dodging scumbag , President Slick, laying wreaths, giving speeches, dishonoring the dead and defiling the holiday and the presidency. When will we be delivered of this abomination? (Memorial Day--May 25, 1998)

Two Dictionaries Weigh In With Bad News

Tom Palmer of Havelock, North Carolina, is one of several Americans who got out their dictionaries when the Religious Left Wackos went postal when Congressman Dan Burton called a thing what it is earlier this spring. Palmer dragged out his Oxford model and found this under "scumbag": "a worthless, despicable person." Oxford defines "worthless" as "without value or merit" and "despicable" as "contemptible, especially morally." Palmer wrote the Washington Times to report his research and concluded that in his view, the description fits. My Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines "scumbag" as a "condom" or a "mean, despicable person." That's Slick Willie, all right--without the "mean," of course.

Congressman Charles Rangel of the Wacko Religous Left called me the other night to ask what I thought now, Mr. Smartypants, now that U.S. District Judge James Robertson has thrown out Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Special Persecutor Kenneth Starr's indictment of Webb Hubbell, his wife, his accountant, his dog, cat, goldfish, lawn boy, auto mechanic, and others for tax evasion? Well, I told him, it had nothing to do, you can be sure, with the truth of the charges and a lot to do with a Slick Willie appointee and a debatable interpretation of the law (Starr says he will appeal). Hubbell, in fact, has already pled guilty and served prison time for mail fraud and tax evasion. Probably best, I told Rangel, to let the appeals process play itself out and see what happens. Maybe the appeals judge will be from the Wacko Religous Right (and a part of the vast conspiracy), in which case we win. Besides, I thought Starr was doing the best job he could with the nation's work and that he ought to be left alone to do it, and that his sex life had nothing to do with anything. Rangel angrily challenged me to spell potato and hung up.

Sid's Slur Gets A Pass From The Big Talking Heads

The big talking heads and the big mainstream media were strangely silent and indifferent about recent comments by Hillary's close friend and presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal which, had they been uttered by a politically incorrectoid at an approved victim class, would have stirred a national firestorm of angry foot-stamping and excoriation. Blumenthal publicly characterized Kenneth Starr aide Hickman Ewing, an evangelical Christian, as a "religious fanatic." A few journalists--rightwing fanatics, by and large--protested, but the big hitters had no problem with Blumenthal's slur.

A few people have noticed, but it's not getting the sort of banshee-screaming Dan Quayle would have gotten. . .Vice President and Environmental Wacko Al Gore recently confused Michael Jordan with pop singer/weirdo Michael Jackson and the big media talking heads aren't making any big deal about it. Sorry for peeking.

The Slick Administration's preposterous position on the legal struggle over whether Slick's Secret Service guards may be compelled to testify in court has been tossed out by an appeals court. Slick and his handlers argued that if the agents aren't granted immunity and shielded from having to testify about anything they've witnessed, that would cause the president to push his Secret Service protection farther away, thus endangering the president's life. Only a president trying to hide something would feel the need to push away his protection in such circumstances: a scumbag like Slick, in other words. Any decent human being holding the office wouldn't give this a second thought.

I was in a discussion July 25 with a friend about whether the President should be subject to the law just as every other citizen is, no exceptions. My friend felt the President should not, that he should be exempt from subpoenae and certain other procedures. His reasoning seemed to be that otherwise the President could not carry out his duties. He gave as an example a situation where--and we merely speculate here--a President might be put in jail. What then? How could he carry out his duties as Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, for example, in the event of a national emergency? I replied that criminals and gang leaders have historically run criminal empires from behind bars and done it with ease, and that I felt confident a President would be up to the task.

The Rahmster Manhandles Tim

One of Slick's handlers, Rahm Emanuel, appeared on NBC's Meet The Press Sunday July 26 and emerged as a study in the art of deflection. News of Slick's subpoena from Kenneth Starr had the media folks in a frenzy, and Emanuel and host Tim Russert jousted to a draw on the matter. Russert told his national audience and the androidal Emanuel that his network had placed eight--count 'em, eight!--calls to the White House the previous Thursday and Friday to ask if Slick had been served a subpoena. Russert said on all eight occasions White House spokeslackeys denied it. Russert then asked Emanuel why the White House had lied. Emanuel gave a masterful non-answer, leaving Russert clearly frustrated. Russert moments later tried to pin down Emanuel with a question about whether Emanuel was saying that Slick would comply with Starr's subpoena. Each time Emanuel said that Slick's lawyers were "meeting with Starr's staff in an effort to get the prosecutor the information he needs." Russert tried again, rephrasing. Emanuel repeated his answer without a word's variation. Russert tried once more. Emanuel parried, same answer. Russert asked Emanuel at least six times to say whether Slick would comply with the subpoena. Each time he was rebuffed. Russert finally gave up, as he and all his colleagues in journalism should. Nobody gonna get the better of a Clintonista in these matters. Might as well give it up, Tim. Might as well give it up. (July 30, 1998)

Why is Anita Hill still portrayed as a hero, a victim, a paragon of virtue, truth, and honesty, but Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and all the rest are reviled as unstable, demented, conspiratorial, lying, trashy whores?

There are so many days and nights of Monicagate coverage that it all blurs. But sometime in the past week E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post speculated that Slick will continue to delay and delay and delay so that he can learn exactly what Monica Lewinsky has secretly testified to before the grand jury so he, Slick, can know how to put together his own story. No one on the show blinked so much as an eyelash.

Not often, but occasionally one of the media mavens will shake a head and note with mild concern that it's a pretty sad day when the public dialogue is mostly talk of oral sex in the White House. I've got news for them. If a decent, moral human being occupied the White House the talk would be of other things. The reason the public dialogue is trashy and tabloid is because we have a trashy, tabloid President. Simple as that.

Public Television's The Capital Gang, featuring Margaret Carlson (Time), moderator Al Hunt (Wall Street Journal), Robert Novak (syndicated columnist), Rep. Barney Frank (Democrat of Massachusetts) live in the studio and Kate O'Beirne (National Review) somewhere remote, was its usual informative self Saturday night (August 1). Carlson ridiculed Linda Tripp's protest that she's been trashed by the Clintonistas and the media. Frank said that (Slick Willie) has had fewer rights in facing his subpoena and His Most Recent Unpleasantness, the grand jury investigation, than the average American citizen would have. A film clip of former White House chieftain Leon Panetta was shown, in which Panetta blamed Slick's troubles on others and claimed our country can't function if every time we elect a president we "go after the President with scandals." (Oddly, Panetta didn't note the most obvious thing: if presidents don't behave scandalously, nobody goes after them for scandals). Carlson said the past seven months of Kenneth Starr's investigation and of media hysteria were "spent entirely on sex." Frank said the Most Recent Unpleasantness is "entirely about sex." Hunt, apparently having already read the report that Starr hasn't written or published, said that "so far he (Starr) doesn't have anything (on Slick) except the (Monica Lewinsky Unpleasantness)." No panelist challenged Hunt's preposterous assertion. Frank said he felt confident nothing would be done (regarding the Slick Unpleasantness) by Congress before the November election because there simply wouldn't be time, adding that nothing done by the current Congress could by law carry over to the new one, anyway. Novak said he thought he detected "a little bloodlust" on the part of some Republicans. (August 2, 1998)

Brian Williams of MSNBC hosted a short feature August 3 on why the public dialogue is so sordid and tawdry. He suggested the "lowbrow culture Clinton has cultivated has engulfed the presidency." Rep. Bill McCollum, a Florida Republican, and Marty Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, were Brian's guests. McCollum remembered how differently Jimmy Carter had responded to an independent prosecutor's investigation. Meehan chanted the mantra: 40 million dollars. . .four years. . .nothing but sex. Meehan said, "There's no evidence to suggest he (Slick) is not telling the truth,." McCollum claimed it was not "just about sex" and Meehan conceded that the matter might actually be decided on the basis of evidence.

They're finally proving what we knew intuitively all along: it rains more on weekends. An Arizona State University research team looked at years of weather data and a clear pattern emerged: more rain falls on Friday, Saturday and Sunday than any other days. The likely culprit is human activity--it's believed pollution that builds up around urban areas during the workweek is a major factor in the rainfall patterns. The science journal, Nature, reported the study in its issue on newsstands August 6. This is something else Al Gore and the wacko Religious Left can blame on conservatives and capitalist greed. (August 6, 1998)

The Clintonistas will have to start trashing Monica again now that she's testified. Don't be surprised if Slick springs a last-minute surprise and refuses to testify (it may depend on what the polls show in the final 10 minutes leading up to his grand jury appearance). Carville, Begala, Davis, Emanuel and Co. must be cooking up some new counter-offensive. Carville in particular has been too quiet lately. Slick will contend that according to his special definition of sexual relations, what he got from and had with Monica didn't qualify. Starr gave away the store when he allowed Clinton to testify after Lewinsky. This assures that Slick and his handlers will have transcripts of her secret testimony in time for him to tailor his own statements. Should have been the other way around: Clinton testifies first, then Lewinsky. This is almost willful stupidity on Starr's part.

The mantra continued this morning on Meet the Press. Joseph DiGenova and Roy Black, both attorneys, were guests. Black said Slick and the entire population of the United States would know about Monica's secret grand jury testimony long before Slick himself is scheduled to testify August 17. He said he thought there was a 50-50 chance Kenneth Starr was using the infamous blue cocktail dress "as a bluff to get Clinton to confess" to something. Black said Slick was in a terrible bind now that he's committed to testify, not adding the obvious, that Clinton's word on anything is worthless and that there's a good chance he'll change his mind at the last minute. Both lawyers speculated that the existence of the blue dress caught Slick's attorneys and handlers by surprise. Black said "the only way Starr can justify all these years (of investigating) and spending all this money is to try to indict and impeach the president." Black seemed to be trying to get a message through to Clinton that he should refuse to testify, once inside the grand jury room, about his "private sex life." Black conceded there was "a huge amount" of circumstantial evidence against Clinton. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame were guests on the last half of host Tim Russert's program. Both seemed deeply concerned that the matter has gone too far. This is not quite what we'd expect from two old warriors who so joyously and aggressively led the wolfpack which brought Richard Nixon to ground. Bernstein uttered the mantra that the whole thing is "all about the private sex life of the president" and that our great nation was "on the edge of a tragedy" because of Starr's investigation. (I would counter that if we are, it's because of the Slicks and not Kenneth Starr). Both agreed with obvious regret that the presidency has been stripped of many of its "privileges" as the process has moved forward and courts have been forced to rule on numerous Clinton claims of privilege. Russert didn't mention the conclusion that begs to be made here, namely that since nearly every single Clintonista claim of privilege had been struck down by the courts, doesn't that suggest compellingly that the claims were spurious to begin with? Woodward conceded that Starr's authority and investigation were legitimate, and that the problems facing Slick and his handlers were "very, very serious now." Bernstein said "thoughtful people" ought to step back from this (ongoing investigation) and come together to work out some resolution before Slick's scheduled August 17 testimony. In the entire program I never heard anyone--not even Russert--suggest that the overriding goal of all this should be to find and expose the truth. You never hear Clinton's handlers mention this either. (August 9, 1998)

Add to the list of lies: Slick saying he looks forward to going before the grand jury to tell his story.

No matter how bad it gets, my friends, just remember and take comfort in this: Slick promised us his would be the most ethical administration in the history of our great nation. So we must wait, keep the faith, trust in Slick and his handlers.

As the clock ticks down to Slick's scheduled testimony, it's a measure of the president's credibility that there's widespread expectation that he'll spring a last-minute trick, come up with some new claim of privilege, or new definitions of language and law and slide outta there smirking. (August 16, 1998)

The only honest thing Slick's said about this Most Recent Unpleasantness is that nobody is more anxious to put this behind him than he is.

Doesn't Pass The Smell Test, But Does Smell

Ask yourself this: Did you require days of intense prepping by your lawyers the last time you decided to "tell the truth"? Did you have your family float numerous "trial balloons" in the week leading up to your truth-telling so you could see which version of "the truth" would hit a home run in the hearts of Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch? I suggest the answers would all be no. Slick isn't prepping to tell the truth. He's prepping to tell more lies.

Ann Coulter's new book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, raises the stakes for anyone who wants to persist in believing Slick Willie isn't eminently impeachable. Much like Watergate, the Most Recent Slick Unpleasantnesses have dribbled out in bits and pieces over a span of years, making it difficult for any citizen to see or understand a coherent picture. Coulter weaves a seamless tapestry ranging from the 600-year history of impeachment to definitions of "high crimes and misdemeanors" (about which, daily polls make obvious, most Americans are deeply misinformed) to detailed analysis of Slick's grand jury testimony (Coulter's conclusion: he lied on numerous occasions) in the Paula Jones Unpleasantness and numerous other acts and pronouncements by Slick and the Clintonistas. Coulter says Clinton's offenses already exceed those for which Richard Nixon was forced to resign, and that if Congress is in any way interested in doing its duty--and if we, as citizens are--then the door is wide open to impeach Slick Willie. More hatemongering and negativity, of course, from still another member of that vast rightwing conspiracy out to destroy a good and decent man and his family and friends, and a book millions and millions and millions and millions of Americans will not want to read. I got my copy early, before they start burning them.

Slick's Commerce Department is in court trying to get permission to use statistical sampling for the 2000 Census instead of what the law requires, an actual count. Their plea is all gussied up to look like a noble concern for freedom and justice and fair play, but it's a thinly disguised scheme by liberals to get more of their minority constituencies added to the numbers. The lefties claim that the regular census misses huge numbers of minorities who simply can't be reached or found by census-takers, but who, they insist, are really there even though invisible. Watch this one carefully.

Coach Or Slick? A Toss-Up

I was recently asked: Who do you dislike the most--Bob Knight or Bill Clinton? I thought for a moment, then told him my loathing for them is about equal. Knight is a world-class asshole, Clinton a world-class scumbag. Knight is, from all available evidence, a man of his word. Slick's word is worthless. Slick is sleazy; Knight is not. Knight is said to be loyal to his friends. Slick willingly sacrifices his friends whenever it's convenient. Knight has a mean, ugly, vicious side frequently on display. Clinton rarely displays even a hint of these qualities. Both are cunning, masters at manipulating people and situations to their benefit. Knight at least knows what he believes in. Slick Willie believes in whatever the polls tell him is the hot-button of the moment. Slick has no inner core, no guiding principles; Knight does. Knight's asshole-ness, however, is of such titanic proportions that for me it outweighs all his good qualities. Clinton has few discernible good qualities.

Slick got indignant about his cherished personal privacy Monday night (August 17) in his four-minute non-apology to a largely somnolent American public. "Even presidents have a private life," he said. Obviously he's selective about these matters: he summoned no similar indignation when the White House purloined some 900 supposedly secret FBI files on fellow citizens. Guess their privacy is different.

NBC Seminar Inspiring

NBC ran a short profile of Slick Willie's artful use of the English language Monday night, replete with a rich selection of slick Slick quotations and a narrator pointing out "inconsistencies." I'm not generally impressed with network television, but this was a bold and valuable effort.

Senator Orrin Hatch appeared on several TV programs following Slick's non-apology August 17 and I was surprised to see that Hatch has apparently undergone a recent spine transplant. Barely a month ago he was pleading on national news shows for Slick to come forth with an apology so the Republicans could forgive him and not have to deal with this Most Recent Unpleasantness. Monday night Hatch was a different man--quite riled, obviously, and to my surprise willing to stand up and call a thing what it is. I suspect the Republicans are still cowering under their desks trembling in fear of Slick, though. You can't blame them. Slick is a master manipulator, the most cunning politician ever to strut the American stage. He's already demonstrated numerous times that Republicans are no match for him (the "government shutdown" fiasco of a couple years ago the classic example). No matter how battered and wounded he may appear, Slick remains an incredibly dangerous foe, and you can bet Hatch and his quaking cohorts know it.

Special Prosecutor Lawrence Welch spent $47 million dollars chasing Reagan, Ollie North and others. Bet the bleeders weren't howling and protesting about that.

Roy Black, the liberal defense attorney, and Gary Bauer, the conservative head of American Renewal, which actually supports religion and morality having a role in our society, were among guests August 18 on the ridiculous Larry King Live show on CNN. A brief exchange between Bauer and Black offered a snapshot into the liberals' national sport, ridiculing Christians. Larry, leaning forward in his suspenders, asked his guests what kind of message The Most Recent Slick Willie Unpleasantness is sending to America's young people. Bauer said they were utterly terrible messages about lying and infidelity. Black couldn't resist. He said, "I've got news for you, Gary, people are not going to stop having sex. They're going to have sex whether you like it or not." This was not a reply to Larry King's question. This was an obvious ridiculing of Bauer and the notion of morality he was trying to present--another attack on religion, in other words, from a smug, smartassed liberal. Bauer did not reply and of course Larry King didn't say a word. We all owe Black our thanks for revealing a bit of his true self.

Sleaze Keyword: Cigars

Inside sources say there's more Slick Willie sleaze heading down the pipe for us, kinky stuff the big slipstream media desperately don't want to report, stuff that'll make it hard to conclude Slick's not a pervert on top of all the other things. Keyword: cigars. Keep an ear out for it, they say. (August 26, 1998)

My wife Mogo, bless her, adamantly does not want to see this kind of salacious material discussed in public. She worries about the damage it does to the human spirit, and particularly to children. I agree with her, but I feel every ugly fact and detail should be laid out in the bright light of day. Slick is a human being vile beyond our ability to describe or comprehend vile. He and he alone is the reason sordid behavior and moral squalor are served up daily in big steaming piles in the public dialogue. The Clintonistas have waged a jihad against facts and the truth's emergence for years and trashed and demonized all who stood in their way. They've manipulated public opinion to a point where some 70 percent of the American public is in desperate denial about what Slick Willie is. We--and above all those who support and defend Slick--need to have this matter smeared in our faces and smeared in our faces and smeared in our faces until we can't bear it any more, until we confront the truth. Because of this vileness, I want Slick and his merry band of Clintonistas and acolytes to suffer and suffer mightily. With the exception of Chelsea, they are all volunteers, not victims. Cruel? Implacable? Indeed. I feel not a shred of sympathy or remorse. This is a hideous, ugly experience but we've got to endure it to be rid of this abomination.

Name Changes

It's Sick Willie now.

It's the Oral Office, too.

They're yapping back and forth now about the timing of Starr's report and how much of it should be made public. Bleeders and Clintonistas have no more fervent hope than to stampede Starr into submitting his report before the election, and the sooner the better. If they succeed and Starr does, it's over. For the Clintonistas will then unleash a storm of spinning and propaganda such as the world has never seen to convince the public the report, no matter what it says, is a partisan vendetta by an evil rightwing maniac out to destroy the hopes and dreams of every American and ruin the lives of a great and good man and his family. The public will buy it, I guarantee you. The Republicans will have no choice but to run screaming for the exits. They'll lose not only the Starr report but the election in November as well. This is a political and propaganda war conservatives and Republicans have no hope of winning, and they know it. Starr gives little evidence of being politically canny. If he has a shred of savvy in him he'll turn in his report the day after the election. Watch for a major liberal offensive in the coming weeks to goad him into quickly delivering it.

Consumer confidence fell in August for the second month in a row, according to a New York research firm, The Conference Board. The University of Michigan's polls show it's fallen four consecutive months. For months and years on national TV Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, Jimbo Carville, Roy Romer, Susan Estrich and assorted other Clintonista flacks, propagandists, wind-up dolls and hangers-on have been telling us the reason people love Slick Willie so much is because the economy--Slick Willie's economy, they hasten to add--is doing so wonderfully that people recognize what a magnificent job Slick is doing and they don't want anything to rock the yacht, don't want to risk upsetting anything by facing reality. But now the stock market's tanking, nervousness and sagging confidence stalk the land. Does this mean that lying, whoring, and law-breaking by the President and Pervert-in-Chief will no longer be tolerated? Just wondering. (August 26, 1998)

Sick's Secret Admirers

What a struggle it is, trying to understand why so many people heartily approve of Sick Willie. It's much more complicated than this, but here, I submit, are some pieces of the puzzle. Americans love a rogue, a con man. It's in the American character and psyche to love a guy who outsmarts the authorities, who thumbs his nose at convention, who gets away with breaking the rules. And millions of American men secretly cheer--and deeply envy--a guy who can get hummers in the workplace--or anyplace else, for that matter--and poon by the boxcarload. What is it that Sick and his close personal friend and fixer,Vernon Jordan, talk about on the golf course? "Pussy," that's what! That combination of cunning rogue and charming cocksman is the dream of millions and millions of American men. Sick's living that dream for many of us: scoring at will and invulnerable, too! It doesn't get any better than that for a big portion of the American male population.

Last night on CNN's Larry King Live one of the Republican guests referred to GOP concern that Slick and the Dems are hatching a plan to shut down the government this fall and blame it on the Republicans. Roy Romer, the wacko leftwing liberal extremist governor of Colorado and chairman of the Democratic National Committee, laughed out loud at this and called it "crazy talk." It isn't of course. It's realistic talk, something liberals aren't much acquainted with these days. As recently as the first week of August, Slick was setting the stage by vowing to veto any "bare bones" (Slick gets to decide what's bare-bones) budget the evil Republicans might submit to keep government funding at current levels while budget disputes are worked out. Romer was just alarmed that someone might be catching on. Slick pulled off this stunt in 1996 by vetoing a bill that would have kept the government operating, then spinning the issue so magnificently that the public blamed the GOP. The Republicans have never gotten over that trauma, and they're right to fear the same thing again. They're seriously outmatched in any battle of cunning and wits with Slick Willie. A repeat of their 1996 debacle over the government shutdown is a recurring GOP nightmare, as well it should be.

One of Slick's defenders asked a critic the other night on a national TV talk show, "Well, just what is it you want the Clintons to do?" The critic had been hinting at something as preposterous as remorse and a genuine apology for the Most Recent Unpleasantness Afflicting the First Family. I've forgotten what the critic said, but here's my answer. I'd like to see either one of them pick any day of the week and spend five minutes in public unscripted, unrehearsed, unplanned, unprogrammed, unvarnished. No mood rings, no mantra, no polls, no days of preparation by their lawyers, handlers, propagandists, advisers, lackeys, and hangers-on. We hear entirely too much about the Clintonistas' endless agonizing over how to alter or manipulate their images to respond to this crisis or that one. You get the feeling they don't even get out of bed without reading the overnight polls and seeking professional advice about how to act today. Just five minutes as real people in real time.

A three-judge panel ruled 3-0 in Wonderland, D.C., August 24 that Sick's Commerce Department may not use statistical sampling in the year 2000 Census. Thus ends--but just for the moment, for these folks ceaselessly, relentlessly probe for openings--another Clintonista attempted end-run on the law, which clearly specifies that an actual count be conducted. The Sick Administration knew that, but chose to claim it had the authority to use statistical sampling, anyway. And so we had the spectacle of one branch of government (the House of Representatives) suing to rein in another. The Commerce Department's intent was obvious: get more liberal Democratic constituents on board before the next reapportionment. An old Clintonista nemesis, Judge Royce Lamberth, (he's issued several rulings against Clintonista initiatives in the Plague Years since 1992) wrote the decision, which told the Clintonistas to read the law. Sick is threatening to veto any funding for the Commerce, State, and Justice departments if they include limits on statistical sampling, according to an August 26 editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Sick and those like him are one reason why eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

We Know One Thing: Founding Fathers Never Imagined A Sick Willie

It may be only a decoy, but wacko leftwing liberal extremist columnist Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal seems to be having his doubts about Sick Willie. Writing in the August 26 edition, Hunt recounts his reactions to Sick's "limited hangout" non-apology of August 17, first with an anecdote and his own comment. According to Hunt, when the Lewinsky Unpleasantness first broke into print in January, one of Sick's first reactions was to call serial toe-sucker and former in-house adviser Dick Morris to ask what he (Sick) should do. Morris, according to his own account, took a poll and told Sick the public wouldn't accept the truth. (Sounds suspiciously like the public I know). Then Hunt ruminates: "Think about this. In a time of moral crisis, the president of the United States calls a moral leper who once while with a hooker let her eavesdrop on conversations with the Oval Office and (who) months earlier had suggested Hillary Clinton was a lesbian. . ." Hunt later offers these conclusions: "The best solution probably is resignation." Clinton's behavior. . ."is so objectionable that doing nothing is (unacceptable)". . . "President Clinton's behavior deserves more than mere disapprobation. He genuinely has brought shame on his office". . ."his presidency is going to be diminished and discredited in any event." Hunt has this advice for those who complain about public opinion and political calculations becoming important factors in this matter: ". . .they should lodge their complaints with the founding fathers, who never envisioned the impeachment of a president would be orchestrated by an unaccountable special prosecutor." Well, yes, indeed. . .and I would add that the founding fathers never envisioned a president like Sick Willie inhabiting and defiling the office, either. (August 29, 1998)

Starr's Still The Antichrist For Zuckerman

Mort Zuckerman, the objective, unbiased editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, told a C-Span audience last night that independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr "is one of the most pernicious influences in our country's history." Zuckerman said "the public has already made up its mind" about what it considers important in a president, and added he was "very uncomfortable" with the way the Lewinsky Unpleasantness burst into the news in January. Zuckerman's anti-Starr remarks were interrupted several times by audience applause. The editor said all this sex stuff shouldn't be the public's business. Then, in a comment that startled me but apparently not a soul in the audience and certainly not the program's deferential moderator, a New York radio talk show host, Zuckerman said he thought public figures were entitled to "a certain amount of indiscretion" regarding sex. There was no follow-up or clarification, but that sure sounded like old Mort was saying if you're big and powerful and important and a celebrity then you get a free pass from him in the infidelity and sex department. This is certainly a thoroughly modern sentiment, in any event. Zuckerman said he believed "Ken Starr has a political agenda." I wonder if Zuckerman would admit to having one.

The Indianapolis Star's editorial writers expressed puzzlement this morning in an editorial about polls and public opinion. The Star noted that 70 to 80 percent of the public is said by the pollsters to admire, embrace and support--if not actually worship--Sick Willie, but that in the last two weeks 90 percent of the letters it had received from the public were anti-Clinton. Something just didn't make sense here, and the editorial couldn't provide an answer

A Film Clip The Big Slipstream Media Guys 'n' Gals Didn't Show Us

From the front page of the August 28 Wall Street Journal this precious nugget. . ."At Clinton's visit yesterday to Worcester, Mass., employees of Dooley's Cleaners held up a sign reading: 'Welcome President Clinton. Monica should have had her dress cleaned here.' "

Hey, We All Need Sedatives Now And Then

Broadcaster Keith Olberman suggested on his MSNBC show September 3 that the level of political nastiness in our country may have sunk to the McCarthy era or Civil War times. His guest, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, tried to calm Keith down by softly remarking that the current level wasn't very good, but it was not as low as either of Keith's offerings. There, there, Keith, there, there.

Clintonistas will want to make much of Congressman Dan Burton's admission that he fathered a son in an extramarital affair in the early 1980s. Unfortunately for them, it won't fly. Both men had affairs outside of marriage. There the comparison ends. When confronted with the story, Slick lied and Burton didn't. And buried in the Slickiana of yesteryear is the report that many years ago in Arkansas Slick himself fathered a child not his wife's, one of many bimbo eruptions he and his acolytes have kept the lid on. I wonder if the big slipstream media will be interested in resurrecting any of this now that Burton's story has burst into the headlines. (September 4, 1998)

As the Unpleasantness continues to unfold in coming months, always remember: this is not a quest for truth; it is a quest for hiding the truth.

One of many puzzlements about the Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Sick Willie is the reactions of all who've been betrayed and sent forth to lie on his behalf. To a man and to a woman they repeat their own mantra, insisting to eager reporters that they feel absolutely no sense of personal betrayal but feel only sadness for the man they serve. This level of denial is confounding to ordinary people, and only deepens the mystery of why not a single one of them has stood up and resigned. Is there not a single principled person among this whole sorry lot? The only explanation I can think of is--Sick must have pictures. (September 4, 1998)

Lanny Battered, But Unbowed

Sick's most ardent defender, Lanny Davis, is almost a five-nights-a-week regular on MSNBC's evening talk shows. Last night Lanny looked battered and worn out, but he still doggedly offered the Clintonista mantra. . .40 million dollars. . .four years. . .nothing but sex. Recently they've added a chorus: this (the Unpleasantness) is "all out of proportion." You get the feeling, though, that Davis's strength is weakening under the relentless battering of facts and truth.

For my part, Starr's $40 million tab is the best investment the federal government's made in living memory.

Silencing Panetta

Occasionally TV brings us moments of piercing insight. Some months ago on Meet The Press, Pat Buchanan, David Broder, Mary McGrory, Leon Panetta and William Bennett were chatting, and a brief exchange between Bennett and Panetta provided one of those moments. Panetta was vigorously defending Slick Willie's character and morals and deflecting any suggestions that the Most Recent Unpleasantness was or should be of the slightest concern to most citizens. Bennett finally interrupted Panetta and asked him point-blank: If the President lied under oath would that be crossing the line, would that be a failure of moral character? Panetta paused, and paused, and then refused to answer. Finally he said we should wait until the facts are in. That Panetta could not bring himself to make even a moral judgment about a matter as simple as lying under oath was, I thought, a real clue about the Clintons and the people serving their administration.

I recently provoked a conversation with a group of co-workers at Universal Export on the Lewinsky Unpleasantness. I was curious to learn what regular, everyday folks thought. All but one person in the group of eight of us had a college degree. Most were CPA's, several with master's degrees in business. I asked a few questions to get things going. No one in the group knew what Filegate referred to. A female co-worker, about 40 years old, said she thought the reason women so strongly supported Sick was that the women he degraded and seduced were generally "trailer park trash." She used the same logic to explain why feminists savaged Clarence Thomas but are silent about Sick Willie. Feminists believed Anita Hill's never-proven allegations, she said, because Hill was "an educated woman." While agreeing they wouldn't feel comfortable leaving their own daughters alone with Sick, they declined to be critical of his behavior. The one person without a college education offered this comment, however: "He ain't got no morals. He's worse than an alley cat." There was approximately a 6-2 margin in the group who felt this whole thing was much ado about nothing, about equal to what the national polls show.

What a coincidence! Just as I was sitting down to draft a letter to Slick's lawyer, David Kendall, on behalf of my boss, Kenneth Starr, about the White House request to see Starr's report in advance, I heard on the news that Starr had already written his own. Starr said about what I would have; namely, no thanks, if you want a copy of the report, please contact the U.S. House of Representatives. Starr resisted pointing out how preposterous it was that the Clintonistas, after trashing and demonizing Starr for four years and denying there was anything damaging in the report, now want the favor of having a week to privately review it to prepare their rebuttal. (September 8, 1998)

Sick Willie's aides and handlers are quoted saying that Clinton's "strategy is ever-evolving."

A comedian guest on the Bob & Tom Show on WFBQ-FM radio offered this imitation of Johnny Cochran counseling Sick Willie on the Monica Lewinsky Unpleasantness, "If it's your mess on the dress, then you must confess."

The Internet sites offering the Starr Report were logging over 300,000 hits per minute Friday afternoon (Sept. 11) after the report was set free. I doubt if this is the sort of "Information Superhighway" Al Gore and Sick Willie hoped for.

"Any President that lies to the American people should resign." --Bill Clinton, in a 1974 political debate.

Lefties are still screaming about Paula Jones being assisted by a "right-wing conservative think tank" (the Rutherford Institute). But why is it O.K. for Sick Willie to have a legal defense fund supported by wacko Religious Left extremists, but not O.K. for Paula Jones to get help from conservatives? Just wondering.

David Talbot, editor of the notorious Internet magazine, Salon, gave MSNBC viewers a rare peek inside the game the evening of September 16 during his appearance on a talk show hosted by Brian Williams. This was in connection with Salon's exposé of an extramarital affair some 30 years ago involving the antichrist Henry Hyde, Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee coincidentally looking into Certain Unpleasantnesses Said to Involve A Great and Decent Man, The President Known As Sick Willie. Williams asked Talbot, "If tomorrow morning you get a story about a Democratic congressman who had an afffair 30 years ago, are you going to print it?" There was a brief pause, then Talbot said, "No." Williams asked about the seeming inconsistency of this. Talbot's reply was that Salon would expose such matters only on "anyone who was attacking the President," and that anyone else's extramarital affair would get a free pass from the magazine. This was bracing and refreshing. Let's praise David Talbot: at least he is honest about his agenda. A day later, the Chicago Tribune's Wonderland Bureau Chief, James Warren, wrote that "Salon. . .has been portrayed in Washington as aggressively pro-Clinton. Most of its pieces have been sympathetic to the president during the Monica Lewinsky controversy and harsh on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. But Salon called for Clinton's resignation when the Lewinsky story broke, and Talbot has called the president's behavior 'irresponsible, arrogant, and reckless.' "

The Indianapolis Star in its September 17 edition reported the results of a poll of Indiana citizens and over 50 percent favor impeachment for Sick Willie.

Americans protesting all that salacious material in the Starr report probably don't realize that what they're actually saying is that Sick Willie's life is pornographic.

Slick now joins Pee Wee Herman, Marv Albert, Hugh Grant, Jimmy Swaggart and Dick Morris in America's fabled pantheon of dirtbags.

California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein said tonight on television that she'd had over 16,500 phone calls, faxes, and e-mails since last Friday about the Most Recent Sick Willie Unpleasantness, and those calls were "overwhelmingly" in favor of "something being done" (about Sick), meaning impeachment or censure. Hers is another poll that Dan, Peter, Tom, Larry, and the rest of the big talking heads won't be over-emphasizing. Instead, we'll hear the steady drumbeat of polls that show two-thirds of Americans love their president and want us to leave him alone. A modest proposal: we need federal legislation requiring that all poll results published anywhere be accompanied by the complete text of the questions and the complete demographics on those polled.

On Second Thought, Maybe Waiting For The Facts Was A Crappy Idea

Has anyone noticed that Lanny Davis, Sick Willie's ardent acolyte and most loyal defender, who since January has been sternly lecturing Americans to wait for the facts to come out, has disappeared from primetime television now that the facts have come out? (September 17, 1998)

And Ken Starr's Daddy Was A Conspirator, Too

Lanny Davis returned to primetime denial duty September 18 on Larry King Live. It was "Liberal Night" for King, who dragged out Davis, David Gergen, Leon Panetta and Mandy (Full Beast) Grunwald to deflect, spin, and defend against the avalanche of--dare we say it, Lanny?--facts. Davis was somewhat subdued, and when King uncharacteristically offered a challenging follow-up question to a Davis assertion of unfairness by pointing out that Davis and the rest of Sick's dirt-diggers spent months demonizing and trashing Starr on national television, Davis conceded there "might have been some excesses on our part." Davis then hastened to add that this--the Starr report and all that salacious material about Sick Willie--was somehow different. "We're talking about impeachment now," Davis bleated. King even allowed a caller to challenge the liberal view by noting that the lefties spent seven months blaming Starr, and have switched now to blaming the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee--isn't it possible, the caller proposed, that the blame ought to fall on. . . .Sick Willie? None of the panelists seemed very happy. Grunwald urged the Committee to listen to the American people who she knew don't want any impeachment, don't want any more damaging facts about Clinton released, don't want to hear any more about anything negative about their president, and do want to get this thing behind us and let Sick Willie get back to work. Panetta said, "Congress is in for a lot of turmoil, but I believe the American people have the strength to endure it." Gergen said he thought the process would be "pretty wretched" but that the country would survive. Later, on an MSNBC show hosted by John Hockenberry, Davis offered an elaborate theory of how Kenneth Starr set a "perjury trap" for Sick Willie, a "set-up Mr. Clinton had no defense for." (Well, none other than telling the truth, which was and remains beyond Sick's capabilities.) Another guest, Tony Blankley of George magazine and a former Newt Gingrich press secretary, noted that the ancient Greeks believed that a man's character is his destiny. "Clinton," he said, "has been lying all his life and it was almost inevitable" that we end up here (with the president in trouble because of lying). Host Hockenberry repeatedly stated his belief that "this is a real crisis." and that releasing the Sick Willie grand jury testimony on videotape would help the president because it would enable the American people to see the President "being questioned by"--he fairly spat out the words--"these prosecutors." Interspersed were film clips of Democrat members of the Judiciary Commitee screaming about unfairness and partisanship. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas accused the Republicans of "obliterating the Constitution." Wacko Religious Left extremist Maxine Waters exercised her highly selective memory and called it "the most partisan procedure I've ever been involved with." Barney Frank said the Republicans had "transformed the commitee into a conveyor belt" for spreading filth and--that Word of The Week again--salacious material about their president. Later Davis suggested that Starr's father, rumored to have been a minister, by raising young Kenneth in a religious home environment may have predisposed him to be eager to pursue Sick Willie. And such was the measure of the Clintonistas' desperation and denial as the curtain came down last night on America's Psychobabble Network.

That's Our Willie!

Delivery trucks for one of New York City's upscale drycleaning establishments--Meurice, garment-care counselors to the stars, acccording to the Wall Street Journal--are whizzing about Gotham bearing brand new signs: "Yes, Mr. President, of course we can get that stain out."

All The Rules Bent For Sick

Sick's apologists are howling that it's unfair to release videotapes of Sick's August 17 lying under oath because Sick was the only witness videotaped. It's an outrage, they say, that the antichrists are releasing testimony in violation of centuries-old rules that have kept such testimony secret. Sick's lawyers asked that the videotape be destroyed, but Starr smiled sweetly and told them he is bound by the law and cannot destroy evidence. The Clintonistas say it's nothing more than an attempt to humiliate and destroy Clinton. But wait, wait, wait! Sick asked for and got many time-honored grand jury rules broken on his behalf. Sick was the only witness allowed to have his lawyers present when he testified. No other grand jury witness in history has had this privilege. Ordinary citizens go into the grand jury room alone. Sick asked to be allowed to testify from the White House instead of in person, as every other grand jury witness is required to do. Slick was allowed to refuse to answer whatever questions he chose. He asked for and was given a time limit of four hours for questioning. He was allowed to refuse to answer questions without invoking the Fifth Amendment, an option never open to Felix Lunchpail. Sick is also asking to be allowed to lie under oath and not be held accountable for it. He claims that only he can decide what certain words mean--complex terms like "is" and "alone," for example. Why is it OK to break the rules for Sick Willie's convenience, but an outrage to violate them when it doesn't? All things considered, releasing the videotape seems fair enough to me. Of course, I have a reprehensible human being to gore here, and I want to be legally accurate about that.

In the context of rising demands that Congress obey the will of the American people as expressed in polls rolling off the presses every minute and leave their beloved rogue president alone, somebody needs to say this and I will: The informed opinion of the majority of the great unwashed American people is limited to approximately what flavor and texture of condom they'll wear to their next black-tie bowling league banquet. One of the most preposterous notions in human history is that the opinion of every halfwit buffoon in society has merit. I feel more comfortable with a Congress that believes its overriding obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to the shrill screaming of Joe Lunchpail and the mobocracy. It goes without saying that such a Congress could put my opinion in the Joe Lunchpail crowd whenever appropriate.

The same people who scream about Congress ignoring the will of the people by continuing efforts to bring Sick Willie to justice don't utter a peep of protest when Congress and legislatures across the nation ignore the will of the people who vote repeatedly for term limits but can't seem to get them. Sorry for peeking.

Russert Outmatched In Duel With Android

NBC's Meet The Press was a downright amazing human experience this morning. Tim Russert hosted. His guests included John Podesta, the latest chief damage control officer for the Sick Administration; Democratic Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts; Missouri Republican Senator John Ashcroft, and four members of the House Judiciary Committee--Republicans Bob Barr (Georgia) and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Democrats Barney Frank (Massachusetts) and Robert Wexler (Florida). The latter six provided occasional nuggets of rational thought. Podesta was an astonishing study in the brave new world of spin whose insidiousness few Americans yet fully understand. (There may be a clue in a comment in New Yorker magazine in early February which said Podesta is so adept at cleaning up Sick's scandals that he is known around the White House as the "Secretary of Shit.") As nearly as I can comprehend it, Podesta's universe is one in which black is white, right is wrong, day is night, down is up, red is green and what you see and hear is not reality. A world, in short, where words have no meaning beyond their definition at only that precise moment by their utterer, and where that moment's definition may be replaced at any moment by another moment's. I'm normally highly critical of journalists for their indifference, their bias, their lack of interest in getting at the truth. Today I give Tim Russert credit: he did about as good a job as any journalist could have done in the pursuit of truth. He asked tough, pertinent questions in clear, unambiguous terms. He asked follow-up questions. He buttressed his questions with facts and with numerous quotations from a wide range of sources. He was civil and self-controlled throughout. All this meant nothing in the face of John Podesta. Podesta responded to every single question and to every nuance and follow-up with mantra, deflection, and spin. Russert cited a Newsweek poll showing 46 percent of those polled believe Sick Willie should consider resignation. Russert asked Podesta what he thought of that poll. Podesta non-answered that "most polls show two of three Americans want him to stay in office. The public stands by the President." Russert flashed on the screen a quotation from a Democrat urging that Clinton and his defenders stop the "legal jousting" and the hair-splitting of language and tell the truth. What did Podesta think about that? The androidal Podesta replied by accusing Russert and the media of "legal jousting." Russert asked Podesta a direct question: did he believe the President lied under oath? Podesta did not answer the question directly. Instead he repeated the mantra, using terms like "misled" and "inappropriate." Russert asked Podesta if White House aide Sidney Blumenthal had ever been in any way involved in spreading negative information about Henry Hyde, the Republican head of the House Judiciary Committee. Podesta did not answer. Instead he said that "Mr.Blumental has denied that." Russert rephrased the question about Blumenthal. Podesta evaded a direct answer. Russert put upon the screen a lengthy quote from a man he described as a "well-known liberal activist" who wrote in a March issue of a liberal publication, The Nation, of being told by more than one source in the White House and elsewhere that Blumenthal has described a scheme to "out" White House enemies by leaking negative information about their pasts. This included the well-circulated quote that these enemies, if they know that "their arms are going to be broken" (metaphorically, by the revelation of unpleasant information from their pasts) they will be less likely to raise them to vote for impeachment proceedings against (Sick Willie). Russert asked Podesta how he would square that quotation with his previous denials that Blumenthal could have been involved in any way. Podesta replied that "I have not heard that story (from The Nation) but we'll look into it." Russert quoted from the Starr report to phrase another question. Podesta did not answer but instead told Russert that he had misused the word "information." What is in the Starr report, Podesta said, was not information, but allegations. Russert returned to the Starr Report to phrase another question. Podesta then asked that Russert not ask him any more questions based on the Starr report, because it was nothing but biased, one-sided allegations from (I paraphrase here) a special prosecutor with a vendetta against the President. Podesta said that "we should wait until all the facts are in." It was about here that Podesta offered the bizarre contention that no thoughtful person could believe that the White House would ever attack its enemies or spread damaging information about an enemy's private life. "We've been the victims of this," he said, "why would we go out and indulge in it?" Apparently Podesta has a mistaken, misleading, or inappropriate memory and is unaware that James Carville and other White House dirt-diggers have been on national television proudly vowing these very tactics and more would be used against their enemies. Russert asked Podesta if he thought the President would accept censure. Podesta said that Clinton "censured himself before the American people. He has already accepted censure." Kerry and Ashcroft proved to be more rational encounters for Russert, though Kerry in particular flashed the lawyerly carefulness and cleverness which characterizes so much of what's coming out of Wonderland, D.C., these days. Kerry referred to the present state of the House inquiry as a "water torture" and suggested that Sick could expedite the process by going before the Committee under oath to resolve all its questions. Ashcroft, who has unequivocally called the president's resignation, seemed to support this notion. Both agreed, in seeming echo to Slick's Willie's famous press conference comment in January, that the process should be resolved "sooner rather than later." Russert asked Kerry if he believed Sick had the moral authority to lead the country. Kerry did not directly answer, and made the claim so many defenders do: that there's a distinction somehow to be made for the president between "private" behavior and public behavior, and that certain kinds of lies under oath are more serious than other kinds. Ashcroft claimed that "the duration of (Clinton's) legacy is inversely related to the length of his presidency" and added he believed Clinton would eventually resign. Kerry said that the about-to-be-released videotape of Slick's testimony is "not the full version" of the case for the president, because "he was still wrestling" with many things on the day he testified. Later, Wexler said that "I think the President has clearly not told the truth under oath." Wexler quickly added that this particular lying under oath was not an impeachable offense.

Clouseaulike Enemies Easy Pickin's For Sick

I watched a good bit of Sick Willie's videotaped testimony. It was obvious he's not a man questing after the truth. His legalisms and hair-splitting invite ridicule (He told the grand jury that the answer to several questions depended on what the meaning of the word 'is' is, and what the word 'alone' means). The prosecutors allowed Sick to refuse to answer some questions, to inject partisan attacks on his "enemies" into several answers, and to drag out the proceedings even though time was crucial since all had agreed on a four-hour time limit requested by the President. Slick kept his composure, though some answers bordered on edgy and agitated. All in all, a performance that can only help the White House spinners. No smoking gun emerged. Mystery of mysteries: no questions about anything but the Lewinsky Unpleasantness. Does anyone else find it even slightly odd that the White House barely resisted the release of this testimony--particularly in light of its ferocious resistance to other Starr procedures? It's not implausible that the White House wanted the tapes released and used its spin team to lure the antichrists into releasing them. Clinton is again blessed with Clouseaulike enemies, first-rate bumblers who are profoundly inept and stupid politically, and thus are easy pickings for Sick Willie's team of assassins, dirt-diggers and spinners.

Though I have no doubt Sick Willie has lied under oath, tampered with witnesses, and obstructed justice, I see no way any of it can be proven to a standard sufficiently high to support a successful impeachment. It is abundantly clear that Sick is far, far too clever for his pursuers. His poll support will reach tidal wave proportions and swamp any politician who tries to bring down this rogue president and national idol. Congressmen can read polls, and ultimately only a crazy one will defy the national will by trying to do something as silly as honor his duty to the Constitution.

Slick said at a recent press conference that the best thing would be for our nation "not to get caught up in the details" of This Most Recent Unpleasantness. Who can blame him for hoping to divert our attention? For it is in the details that cunning, devious men do their insidious work. The details are where the devil is, as old Ross Perot tried to tell us a few years back.

So very long ago, when the Paula Jones lawsuit was just leaving the station, Sick and his handlers tried to derail it in a 1996 Supreme Court filing which claimed Sick was "on active duty" in the military by virtue of his position as commander-in-chief, and that he was therefore immune from Jones's suit or any other because the 1940 Soldiers and Sailors Act protected military personnel from civil lawsuits while on active duty. The Court denied this silly assertion. What a contrast to today, when the Clintonistas wouldn't dream of such a preposterous claim, for it would mean Sick would be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and would be summarily drummed out of office for disgracing the military as well as his country. Far better to be a civilian now, where tolerance for depravity and sleaze is infinite.

Mike McCurry, Sick's press secretary and one of his paid professional liars, says a "grievous wrong" was done to Sick Willie by the Starr team which, according to White House lawyers, refused to include in the Starr report a quote from Monica Lewinsky which was favorable to the President's contention that he never asked anyone to lie about This Most Recent Unpleasantness. These attacks on Starr were prominently featured in the daytime and evening news broadcasts September 22. Around 2 p.m., when I heard it first, a CNN broadcaster added this comment after reading the White House charges: "However, that statement (from Lewinsky) actually was in the report." I watched several hours of MSNBC's evening coverage to see how they'd handle it. During the 9 o'clock hour hosted by John Hockenberry, the episode arose and Hockenberry dutifully mentioned Starr's counterclaim that the Lewinsky quotation was referenced not once but twice in the Starr report. In the 10 o'clock hour, host Keith Olberman did not mention Starr's claim when the story was covered. Wednesday morning's Indianapolis Star carried a bold front-page headline, "Clinton Team Blasts Starr Report Omission." The story, written by Roger Simon of the Chicago Tribune and reprinted by the Star, never mentioned Starr's counterclaim in approximately 20 inches of copy which jumped to a second page. The Chicago Tribune, in a Sept. 27 editorial blasting Starr, accused him of omitting the Lewinsky remark. Which is it? Although based on limited observations, I feel it safe to venture that the media did a terrible job of conscientiously reporting this "story." Numerous questions begged to be answered but were not. How could Sick Willie's lawyers make such a claim if in fact the Lewinsky quote is indeed in the report? Didn't they bother to read it? How could the media not easily verify the White House lawyers' claim? Every media outlet of any significance has a full copy of the Starr Report. It would have been childishly simple for a reporter to read it to see if the claim was true. And how any media organizations could broadcast the White House claim and omit the Starr reply to it is beyond me. Only two answers present themselves: either the media who did this are indifferent and incompetent, or they did it willfully, which is worse. Neither is a confidence-builder.

A Deal For Sick Willie

An item circulating on the Internet this week notes this possible "deal" for Sick Willie: that he be required to give his remaining State of the Union addresses wearing the famous blue cocktail dress. I could go for that.

It was briefly mentioned on MSNBC Friday night (Sept. 25th) that it's now come out that in negotiations with Starr's prosecutors, Sick Willie's lawyer, David Kendall, requested that Sick's testimony before the grand jury be limited to questions about the Monica Lewinsky Unpleasantness. Starr agreed. Yet since the report came out, Clintonistas have been cackling and screeching that the Report and the videotaped grand jury testimony concerned "nothing but sex and Lewinsky" and that proved Starr doesn't have anything to report on the Other Unpleasantnesses Still Lurking in the Background, such as Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Fostergate, and so on. I thought this--the disclosure that Sick's lawyers negotiated this limitation to the questioning--quite a noteworthy piece of information. And stunning, too--for what prosecutor in his right mind would agree to such a limitation? Why, indeed, would Starr? I added this to my list of stories to follow in coming weeks, just to see how the media covered it. The Indianapolis Star of Saturday the 26th never mentioned it.

Hitchens Unloads On Sick

Christopher Hitchens, the British journalist who writes currently for Vanity Fair, greatly surprised me Sept. 25 with his observations on the Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Sick Willie. Hitchens is generally regarded as a liberal, but he aggressively trashed Sick Willie in a guest spot on an MSNBC talk show hosted by Keith Olberman. Hitchens called Sick's actions "shabby" and said he "tells lies even when he doesn't have to tell them." Asked for his opinion about the videotape of Clinton's grand jury testimony, Hitchens said, "The prosecutors were easy on him, and many of their questions were stupid." Hitchens said he believes Clinton has fooled many of his "sexually liberal" friends and that Sick "has a nasty concept of sex." He called Sick's reliance on hair-splitting legal distinctions "preposterous." The British journalist said he was mystified by poll results. "Either the reporters or the polls are doing something wrong," he said, adding that most Americans seem to feel that the Oral Office is Clinton's private property not the American people's public space. He called America's growing obsession with polls alarming and a "dangerous threat to democracy." (September 25, 1998)

Word's seeping out now that Sick's attorneys are huddling with Paula Jones's trying to negotiate a settlement which would head off a scheduled hearing in October on Jones's appeal to have her suit reinstated now that it's known that Sick lied in his testimony in that legal proceeding. Will Paula tell Sick's attorneys to call her back in the year 29,005 A.D., as I would? Or will she go for the easy green? This brings to mind Guy Grand's famous ditty in the novel, The Magic Christian: "Grand's the name. Easy green's the game. Care to play along?" (Everyone did, eventually, as Grand kept riffling those sheaves of crisp, new thousands up next to their ears--one of the world's most compelling sounds!--upping the price, upping the price till he got it right.) I've got a feeling the old convincer will carry the day.

William "Book of Virtues" Bennett put in some time on the Larry King Live show last week and Larry asked him point-blank about his brother, Robert Bennett, who long ago and far away was Sick Willie's lead attorney but disappeared and was replaced by the likes of David Kendall. Bob Bennett, you may recall, was the fella who stepped forward angrily last winter and told reporters and America that by god, there was absolutely no sex of any kind, anyplace, anywhere involving his client, Sick Willie, and anyone, ever! None! None! None! Later, word leaked that, well, there might have been a little nooky, a little bit more than none. Then new attorneys came aboard and the public's heard nothing from Robert Bennett since. Brother William's reply to Larry was cryptic, but it seemed to those adept at interpreting code that he was telling us his brother left Sick's employ because, well, he'd been lied to by his client, or had begged off any more public defenses and been replaced by another attorney more willing to. If this is true, put Robert Bennett on the exceedingly short list of people in Wonderland, D.C., who have actually demonstrated integrity and acted upon it in this Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Sick Willie. Of course we should wait till all the facts are in before passing judgment.

Just Wondering Department: If all this has to do with nothing but Sick Willie's private life, why are taxpayer (public) dollars being used to pay for his lawyers?

Even Sick's handlers are image-conscious. Paul Begala has shaved off that scruffy, wispy beard of his and now sports a youthful, clean look for his televison appearances defending his boss.

Part of the mantra is that Sick's enemies are releasing all this information for the sole purpose of embarrassing and humiliating the President. Well, Sick is an embarrassment to the nation. Why shouldn't we be trying to embarrass him?

Gotta love Senator Ashcroft. He was on Larry King Live with Bob Woodward of the Washington Post last week and when the latter said it would be so much easier if the Most Recent Unpleasantness was about some great issue like national security instead of. . .Ashcroft piped up and said with a twinkle, "Maybe it isn't about sex, since the President has said he didn't have any."

Mantra Trumps Facts

Religious Left wacko extremist Colorado Governor Roy Romer repeated the bleeder mantra that Starr did not include in his report the Monica Lewinsky quote which supports Sick Willie, even though the program on which Romer was a guest--an MSNBC talk show hosted by John Hockenberry Sept. 22--had just reported that the quote was in the report twice.

Geraldine Ferraro, the former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, lost her bid for a U.S. Senate seat in the New York primary election this month, then told reporters her political career is over. Good! And good riddance! That's one less tired, liberal fraud to pester the nation.

Another of Sick Willie's paid professional liars, attorney Bruce Lindsey, told eager reporters Sunday in San Antonio that the efforts by Sick's legal team to negotiate a settlement of the Paula Jones Unpleasantness in absolutely no way imply any admission of guilt by Sick. Of course not. And an Instant Poll showed over 80 percent of Americans strongly support Lindsey and Sick on this matter. (September 28, 1998)

Polls We Won't Be Hearing About From Dr. James Carville

The Pew Research Center asked Americans in late August what one word best described Sick Willie. Topping the list at 42 percent was "liar." Another 18 percent chose "dishonest" and another 12 percent, apparently put off by such bold choices, said "untrustworthy."

The High Cost Of Kool-Aid

Somebody at MSNBC has calculated what it's cost Sick Willie's loyal acolytes and supporters in legal fees as, one after another, they've been hauled before this grand jury or that investigating Certain Unpleasantnesses Involving The President, and all with convenient amnesia or remarkably refreshed memories, depending on the needs of the moment. The network put up a graphic the other night showing that Sick's favorite secretary, Betty Currie, has run up over $100,000 in attorney fees and the rest of them have incurred fees of over $23 million over the last four years.

New Attack Dog Emerges

Late summer brought forth a fresh angry, contorted face in the pack of wacko extremist leftwing liberal bleeder kooks infesting the night-time talk show circuit. . .Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee from Texas. She can demagogue with the best of 'em!

Eager reporters asked Bob Dole what he thought of Perot's criticism of Slick Willie and Dole said, "Ross Perot says a lot of things that I think are beyond the pale. . .(he) deals in overstatement a lot, and it doesn't serve any real purpose." This from a Republican presidential candidate who himself served no real purpose, who refused to make character an issue in the 1996 campaign, who openly expressed a fondness for Slick Willie, and who was the most cowardly, inept, and incompetent candidate the Republican Party has fielded in decades. Why anyone but the Clintonistas would seek Bob Dole's opinion on anything completely escapes me.

USA Today reported Sept. 28 that Sick Willie has a newly created legal defense fund which has raised $2.2 million in the last six months. Where are the angry cries of outrage? How come Charles Rangel, Ted Kennedy, John Conyers, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, Dick Gephardt, John Glenn and the rest of the wacko Religious Left aren't marching in the streets to protest? Where are the leftie kooks who vilify Paula Jones for having a legal defense fund?

Sick's Elmer

Elmer Gantry is the one film or literature character I can think of who best represents Sick Willie. Burt Lancaster, who played the role in the film of the same name, even resembles Sick, with those glittering eyes, the head turned just so, jaw jutting, those blinding white teeth, the hypnotic cadence of that sonorous, mesmerizing voice! Perfect!

Ross Bulldozes Larry Aside

Ross Perot spent an hour September 30 unloading on Sick Willie, and drove poor Larry King half crazy doing it. Perot was the only guest on Larry King Live and was his vintage self. King normally is a strict, controlling presence on his show. He butts in, interrupts, puts words in guests' mouths, steers conversations by subtly injecting his own beliefs and agenda. Rarely can a guest stand up to him. King met his match on this show. This time it was Perot who took over, who steered, who would not be dissuaded or deterred. King frequently found himself literally offscreen, a sputtering, disembodied voice when Perot adopted the amazing tactic of turning in his seat, away from Larry, to face another camera--not the one which usually includes both King and guest--to deliver a stern lecture to America on Sick Willie. Twice Perot held up cue cards showing his e-mail and mailing address and asked Americans to contact him to join a nationwide petition drive urging Sick to resign. Never one to mince words, Perot used terms like "despicable" and "disgusting" and "disgraceful" in describing Sick and his conduct. King grabbed desperately for his personal life raft--his own fervent belief that there are no moral absolutes, that each of us gets to decide what's right or wrong and moral or immoral, based on what's comfortable for each individual--by several times contending that these Unpleasantnesses simply can't be matters of black and white. Perot would have none of it, and scornfully told King that morality wasn't rocket science. King repeatedly tried to get Perot to reply to a question about his political plans. With a singleminded determination worthy of Paul Begala, Rahm Emanuel, John Podesta and the rest of that circuit-riding band of Clintonistas, the jaunty Texan ignored and deflected and turned again to rip Sick Willie. Perot is one of the few public figures in America who'll talk about this sordid episode in blunt language, and the public dialogue desperately needs more of it. Regardless of what we think of Perot, his presence in political debate puts great pressure on the mainstream politicians to address issues they'd otherwise mutually agree to bury. Perot's apparent return to the fray is bracing and encouraging--a wonderful development for ordinary people, a dangerous and terrible prospect for the powers-that-be. His running roughshod over Larry King Sept. 30 was truly a Kodak Moment.

Coincidences Or Not, They End Up Dead

We're beginning to see occasional public references now to the peculiarly large number of people who have encountered or been associated with Sick Willie over the years and then turned up dead under sometimes "unusual" circumstances. How long will it be before the big slipstream media decide this story is worth some digging?

I'd like to see some multimillionaire member of the vast rightwing conspiracy step forward and whisper this in Paula Jones's ear: drop this talk of settling your lawsuit against Sick Willie. Press forward with your appeal. When the case is over, I'll personally fund whatever figure you'd sought from the Clintonistas, and double it for your inconvenience.

In instance after instance of testimony released by Kenneth Starr and in Clintonista press conferences and statements, we encounter people being supremely careful and artful in their choice of words. They speak in a kind of special code, one which always later provides multiple interpretations. This code is the mark of clever, cunning, devious people, not the mark of anyone seeking the truth. Let's give the Clintonistas credit for taking this language play to a new level, to an art form. This is the way the world works, be it politics, government, business or almost any profession or human endeavor. That is why every syllable of every word uttered by these people must be carefully examined and analyzed. Few things are what they seem to be when we deal with such grifters and sociopaths.

An MSNBC town-hall-styled program the evening of October 4 urged viewers to vote by e-mail or telephone on whether Sick should be impeached. At the end of the program, with over 19,400 "votes" recorded, 68 percent said there should be impeachment hearings, 31 percent said the matter should be dropped immediately. A young troublemaker in the audience somehow got the attention of the show's hostess, Jodie Somethingorother, and when given the microphone told the nation he was really curious about why the Arkansas Bar Association hadn't stepped forward to remove Sick's license to practice law, since it was known that Sick had lied under oath and that's one of the bar association's no-no's for member attorneys. Jody quickly injected her view that Sick would need that license to pay his bills after he left office. Chaka Fattah, identified as a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania, and also live in the studio, said that if Sick Willie were impeached the stock market would drop, the American economy would collapse and thousands of people would lose their jobs. At the end of the program, Jody led the audience in applauding itself. It seemed fairly certain that everyone went home feeling pretty good about himself. (October 4, 1998)

Tucked away in the October 12 Wall Street Journal was an article noting that the House Ethics Committee has finally "quietly closed the books on its four-year investigation of House Speaker Newt Gingrich by again chastising him for rules violations" after last year fining him $300,000 for his transgressions. I kept an eagle eye out the rest of the week as I watched television. I checked with our offices all over this great nation. Not a peep has been heard from Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, Charlie Rangel, Rahm Emanuel, Geraldo Rivera, Barney Frank, The Rev. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, and the rest of the wacko extremist Religious Left crowd about the House spending four years and wasting billions and billions of dollars chasing Newtie. Strangest thing. (October 12, 1998)

The Clintonistas are desperately working to get any impeachment proceedings limited strictly to the Lewinsky Unpleasantness, and why is transparent. They know if they can accomplish this, the Unpleasantness is over and they've won. "This is about nothing but sex" has been the mantra spun for months. Americans are resoundingly buying in: they love Sick and they don't want any troglodytic judmentalism spoiling the fun of hummers in the workplace. If the Republicans allow this restriction, they might as well mail it in. They can cancel the hearings and go home. It'll be over. (October 16, 1998)

Well, Not That Big

Vice President Al Gore was quoted at a recent Hollywood party telling grunge rock singer Courtney Love that he was a "really big fan" of hers. Spin magazine said that Love then asked him to name one of her songs, and Gore could not.

And You Don't Have To Take A Bath Afterward

Former president George Bush was featured on the Arts & Entertainment Network's Biography series October 17 being interviewed by David Frost. It was a sad reminder of what it was like to have a decent, honorable man in the White House. Six-plus years of Sick Willie and the Clintonistas have numbed us to what it felt like not to want to take a bath after seeing the President. (October 17, 1998)

Over $20.8 billion in the newly-passed federal budget had to be deemed "emergency spending" in order to evade budget caps in the law. Why is it that when conservatives propose a tax cut the lefties scream their heads off that it's "a raid on Social Security" but when billions of dollars of increased spending are approved it isn't a raid on Social Security? And why would Republicans go along with this sort of scam? Does dealing with Sick infect them, too?

Who's Buying Them

USA Today printed a short list in its October 26 issue of the top 10 "soft money" donors to the two major political parties. The roster included Philip Morris, Amway Corp., AT&T, American Financial Group, RJR Nabisco, Bell Atlantic, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Freddie Mac, Walt Disney Co., and Travelers Group. Philip Morris led the "donor" list with $1.7 million and Amway was next at $1.3 million. Receipts by party: Republicans bagged 79.4 per cent, or $6.8 million, to the Democrats' $1.8 million. The Chicago Tribune later published a story about labor union contributions that showed an even more lopsided margin for the Democrats. The top 10 unions gave over $13 million to politicians: Democrats got 93.7% of that, or $12.3 million. No real revelations here. It just tells us who's buying them.

Escape Hatch Door Rapidly Closing

Here's the best advice I can give to the Republican Party. Newtie should call all 228 House Republicans back to Wonderland, D.C. for an immediate urgent meeting. Behind closed doors he should secure unanimous support. Some nut-crunching may be required, but as Lyndon Johnson famously is said to have said, "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will soon follow." Eventually, all will sign on. Newtie should then dismiss the troops, step into a hallway press conference to announce. . .that as of this instant Republican House members are abandoning all matters associated with the Most Recent Sick Willie Unpleasantness, that no Republican henceforth will ever again discuss the Unpleasantness in any forum, public or private. . .that the House delegation is hereby transferring complete authority and responsibility for this matter to its Democratic colleagues, and that each Republican Representative hereby pledges to abstain (should they inadvertently be caught on the House floor when any vote on any aspect of the Unpleasantness is being taken) from voting and to be entirely absent from the House Chambers when any debate or vote thereon is conducted. If given at least two hours notice of such debate or votes, Newtie should add, House Republicans further pledge that they will leave the Washington area and remain in hiding for the duration of the debate and vote. "We have heard the American people speak," Newtie should say. "We have heard the mandate from Heaven. We have heard the American people's full-throated roar of pain, and we are responding to that mandate and that pain." He should turn to Democratic colleagues waiting in the wings and say to them, "He's your president, you decide what to do." Then Newtie, Dick Armey, and all the rest of the non-leadership should resign. Trent Lott over in the Senate, too. This strategy offers the Republicans their only hope of salvation. In one brilliant stroke it allows the party to get the hideous demon off its back, to be sanitized, deloused, purged of the hideous beast that is devouring them. It allows them to disarm the legion of talkshow guests and hosts, the pundits, critics, droolers and Clintonistas who have so effectively and so savagely scourged the Republican Party. It allows the GOP to atone, to emerge from its self-inflicted Hell into the sunlight of. . . getting back to the really important business of the American people. And it saddles the Democrats for eternity (and whatever verdict history may ultimately render) with complete responsibility for one of their own. The Republicans are politicians, after all. They can read polls-- at least now that the elections are over, they can. They can see the election results. How can they not respond to the titanic majorities of fellow citizens crying out for an end to this? (November 4, 1998)

OK, I'll confess. I voted for half a dozen Libertarian Party candidates Tuesday. I voted "No" on both referendum questions (on changing the state constitution) and "No" on retaining all judges.

Vengeance Within Reach For Democrats

The most entertaining spectacle in the coming months will be to watch the Republicans desperately trying to chuck the Sick Willie Impeachment Unpleasantness. However they do it, they've gotta do it. The next two years are going to be worse for the Republicans than Dante's lower circles of Hell, anyway. Shell-shocked, dispirited, leaderless, rudderless, without vision, courage or will, the Republicans will not be able to pass a single piece of important legislation. Sick can (and most assuredly will--for as Dr. James Carville of the Deliverance Institute has said, this is indeed war--and well it should be) veto anything the Republicans do pass, and do so with impunity. Any issue important to the Republicans has already been appropriated by Slick and made his own. The best Republicans can hope for is a stalemate, but to get even that they'll have to keep traitors in their own midst to an absolute minimum. Vengeance is a sorely underrated experience, and now the Dems are going to get some. All hail the Dems!

Nothing will come of the hubbub about illegal fund-raising by the Democrats. Why? Because the Republicans don't want their fund-raising practices made public as they inevitably would be in any investigation of the Democrats. Both parties are in this together and ultimately they'll join forces to prevent any public airing of the truth about the extent to which money controls and pollutes both parties.

Henry Hyde has sent a list of 81 questions to Sick Willie. The questions concern The Most Recent Unpleasantness. Hyde wants Sick to admit or deny each statement. If Sick has any courage he'll go on national television and rip the list to shreds and dare Hyde to do anything about it. Sick could easily get away with this. The American people are solidly in his camp and will support him all the way. Hyde knows it, too. The list-sending is merely legal and political maneuvering, a game both sides are playing.

The Wall Street Journal's liberal columnist, Al Hunt, offered these interesting post-election statistics in his Nov. 12 column: In the Senate 90 percent of incumbents (26 of 29) were re-elected; in the House 98 percent (395 of 401) of incumbents won re-election; political action committees (PACs) gave eight times as much money to incumbents as to challengers; and--guess what!--candidates who spent the most money won 95 percent of all races. Hunt said, "This election is a reminder why. . .the 106th Congress (should) make an overhaul of the sordid system of campaign finance a top priority." (November 12, 1998)

Hey! Some Good News at The End of A Dark Brown Week

The antichrist, Ken Starr, has sent the House Judiciary Committee a couple more boxes of evidence--a little "Friday Surprise" for the Clintonistas--gathered in the Sick Willie Willey Unpleasantnesses Inquiry, and dropped a 15-count indictment on the head of longtime Clinton crony Webster Hubbell. "The Big Grouper" immediately appeared at a press conference to deny everything and accuse Starr of a jihad against all good and decent human beings. I plowed through the Indianapolis Star's account eagerly searching for the mantra and found it in the tenth paragraph where the Grouper proved again that no matter how many of these blubbering, weepy performances he gives he still can't get it right. Hubbell repeated his charge that Starr is trying to destroy him because he, Hubbell, won't provide incriminating evidence against the Slicks. ". . . nothing the independent counsel can do to me is going to make me lie about them," Hubbell vowed. Grouper's got it exactly reversed: Starr's trying to get him to tell the truth, not lie. And although Clintonistas and Hubbellites are desperate to cast this as a vendetta, turning the screws on key witnesses is standard prosecutorial practice at all levels of law enforcement. The Grouper's already spent some time in prison on matters peripheral to the latest charges. Claims by The Grouper and his supporters that Starr is persecuting an innocent man and making up all these charges out of thin air are simply preposterous.

Dateline: Mars

And speaking of preposterosity, Bob Dole was on TV the other night shilling his new book and he told his host that he'd always believed that the Republican Party stood for diversity and had historically reached out to all groups of people. He's obviously spent too many years on Mars.

Paula Jones finally caved in and took the money. Sick's $850,000 payment to get Jones to drop her sexual harassment suit against him represents still another brilliant triumph for the decades-old Clinton strategy of denial. Sick's handlers--resurrected attorney Robert Bennett among them--were quick to point out that the deal does not include the apology Jones had long sought or any admission of guilt, and that the cash in absolutely no way implied any admission of guilt by Sick Willie. The Clintons' band of liars and deniers will flood the TV talk shows crowing about how this proves their man was innocent all along. The rest of us will just have to listen to it. There's not a soul on this planet outside the coterie of Clintonistas who seriously believes that Sick didn't do exactly what Jones accused him of doing, however.

Chubb Off The Hook

The big winner in the settlement of the Paul Jones lawsuit is the Chubb Insurance Company, which has been stuck paying Sick Willie's legal bills under a liability insurance policy Sick wisely and presciently bought from Chubb years ago. About half the payoff to Jones comes from Chubb, and allows it to buy out its policy with Sick. The rest of the money will come from the Sick Legal Defense Fund, which not a single wacko radical Religious Leftwing kook has been heard to protest the existence of, because they're thundering hypocrites who are too busy marching in the streets and screaming about the Paula Jones defense fund and the conservative foundation that's provided her legal services.

Mark Shields said on the Capitol Gang the other night that the votes are no longer there (in the House) to support an impeachment proceeding. The facts in this Most Recent Unpleasantness are exactly the same as before the election. Only the election results have been added to the mix. If Shields is right, he appears to be telling us that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

I watched about five hours of Kenneth Starr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee investigating every conceivable way to get out of having to consider impeachment of Sick Willie. Obviously one's reaction depends on which side one's on. I thought Starr held up well in the face of fiercely hostile invective--and even, occasionally, questioning--from the committee's pack of mad-dog Democrats. Sick's lawyer, David Kendall, catapulted himself to near the top of my Most Obnoxious Public Figure list with his arrogant, grimacing questioning of Starr. My favorite moment of this segment came when Kendall, ever the demagogue, said that Starr or his "agents" held Monica Lewinsky. . .clearly implying that Lewinsky had been held captive against her will, but of course not precisely saying that, merely laying down the insinuation. Here Starr sharply interrupted to tell Kendall that Lewinsky was in fact not "held." Kendall backpedaled, then tried to cut off the challenge by saying that whatever term was chosen Lewinsky's "mental state" would clearly speak for itself and was on the record. Starr then correctly pointed out that Kendall had said nothing about her "mental state," but had said she was "held." Kendall then resumed his leftwing jihad. Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Sheila Jackson-Lee, and John Conyers were their usual ridiculous selves, and Florida Rep. Robert Wexler seemed to yell and slobber the most in delivering his tirade. Illinois Republican Henry Hyde seems to be playing the Bob Dole role on the committee--the baffled old bull who finds himself in charge because he's stood in line the longest. I feel sympathy for Hyde's having to deal with the likes of Waters, Frank, Conyers and the rest, but he seems to be in well over his head, too, a tired, old fart who's not up to the task. I thought the Republicans generally were passive in their defense and support of Starr. It was interesting that in 14 hours of ripping and tearing at Starr, no Democrat was able to challenge any of the facts Starr's report details. All they could do, since the facts are so against them, was to attack Starr's motives and procedures and second-guess even minor decisions he made along the way. It is to Starr's great credit that he was able to remain civil in the company of such contemptible critics. At the end of the day, I'd bet not a single person in the great American mobocracy changed his position on This Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Sick Willie. (November 19, 1998)

The day after Starr's appearance--what curious timing--his "ethics adviser," Sam Dash, resigned, saying Starr had become "an advocate for impeachment." Dash was an attorney in the Watergate investigation. He is a Democrat. Dash's own Democratic colleagues demanded that Starr testify. When he does, Dash plays this card. Starr's mistake was bringing him aboard in the first place.

Did anyone enjoy the contrast between Starr testifying before a pack of jackals for 14 hours, subject to questions about any topic, alone at a table surrounded by drooling cameramen and pseudojournalists. . . and Sick Willie, who had his handlers negotiate a time limit (four hours) and a limitation of all questions to only one topic (for his August 17 perjuries)?

Charles Bakaly, the public relations representative for Kenneth Starr, was on television November 22 saying that the White House campaign to destroy the credibility and authority of the Independent Counsel has been successfull, but the facts remained. Well, yes--but quick!--somebody tell Charles we're not about to let a few billion facts puncture our cherished delusions.

Offer Still On The Table

Every last man, woman, and child in America wants to get This Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Sick Willie behind us. Everyone agrees on that. Polls prove it. OK. Here's a deal I could accept. Let's drop it completely if Sick will agree to give all his remaining State of the Union addresses wearing Monica's blue cocktail (actually, cocktale is more precise) dress. Fair enough? Do we have a deal?

Sick surprised some observers by providing Henry Hyde and the Judiciary Committee his answers to Hyde's list of 81 questions. Except they are non-answers. That's no surprise. Sick, in his ceaseless questing to find the real perjurer, had his lawyers work on his responses for a full three weeks. The press, in its ceaseless questing to avoid aggressive coverage of Sick's transgressions, gave the story scant coverage. Journalists can read polls. They're scared, too, right along with the Republicans. They know their readers don't want to hear any more of this. Not a single response from Sick was a simple "Yes" or "No" as Hyde had requested. Instead the committee got 81 carefully crafted legalisms hewing to Sick's time-honored and magnificently successful lifetime strategy of deny and deflect. A few Republicans muttered and grumped. They apparently still haven't gotten the message. The funniest non-answer of all was to a question asking Sick if he had or had not ever taken the oath of office for the presidency. Sick declined to answer that yes or no. Can't Henry and the Republicans hear the whole world laughing at them?

Maybe Kenneth Starr will greet Sick Willie right behind the bleachers within seconds of President Gore being sworn in and hand Sick a civilian indictment covering all the Unimpeachable Unpleasantnesses Congress couldn't face up to. I have my candle lit. How about you?

Rush Limbaugh recently explained to his radio audience why he hadn't appeared in recent months on nightly television programming devoted to The Most Recent Unpleasantnesses Unjustly Alleged to Involve Sick Willie. He said that with three or four guests on these shows all yelling simultaneously and with no insightful or challenging questions from the hosts, and with time out for commericals and the hosts' babbling, each individual guest would have no more than two or three minutes of uninterrupted time in which to express a viewpoint, and that, friends, was not enough time, and not worth the time. So Rush declined to participate. Limbaugh's description of these programs and the way they're presented is accurate. But the counterpoint is this: The Clintonistas, whose maggoty infestation of these programs for months on end is the stuff of legend, faced the same handicaps any other guest faced on these shows, yet they deemed it an invaluable investment of their time in service to their idol's cause to be on them. For they realized that even two minutes of mantra successfully broadcast in every programming hour's screeching din helped to advance Sick's cause with the millions of twitching, tic-ridden droolers in the viewing audience. The Clintonistas know that their relentless drone of lies, spin, and deflections eventually wins converts. So while Limbaugh and others of delicate sensibilities and no stomach for the shrieking whorehouse of commercial televison were boycotting these shows and sitting at home fuming, Sick's loyalists were lined up fighting for guest spots because they knew that therein lay the path to victory. (November 26, 1998)

GOP Has A Gene Problem

The Sick Willie Presidency and Assorted Unpleasantnesses Adhering Thereto offer us a snapshot of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. They reveal how woefully ill-suited conservatives are for political warfare. Liberals believe in expanding government. Conservatives believe in shrinking it. All else flows from these two opposing concepts. Indeed these mindsets propel the two groups in opposite directions. Liberals are passionately idealistic and passionately committed to their cause. Conservatives have little or no passion for theirs--or if they do they're clueless about what to do with it. This is why liberals historically work assiduously to populate and control government bureaucracies and local organizations, why they are found wherever minds can be influenced or won--in academe and labor unions, or marching and demonstrating in the streets, for example. Conservatives believe they can win a battle of ideas, and that offering superior ideas is enough to carry the day. And so long as the competition is confined to intellectual jousting in walnut-paneled salons they can hold their own. Liberals know, however, that battles are won in the trenches doing the dirty, grubby work of organizing, voter registration, infiltrating and moving among the people whispering promises. Liberals know that images, perceptions and feelings win battles, that in the modern age of communications ideas have little to no chance in the face of determined spin and manipulation; they know that even one or two minutes of effective lying, demagoguing and spinning on national television will outweigh all the high-toned intellectual reasoning any enemy can put forth. (This is why conservatives stay at home while liberals throng to any spotlight, any microphone.) Liberals know that the very nature of television, the single most powerful form of communicating the world has yet seen, works to prevent the thoughtful, analytical presentation of any idea; this doesn't seem to have yet occurred to conservatives. Liberals believe government should be every citizen's partner, nurturer and sponsor on the road to a better life. Conservatives want government to go away and leave them alone. Conservatives know what they're against but seldom what they're for. In an elemental sense, liberals are active, conservatives passive. Liberals possess far more tribal loyalty than conservatives. Witness the vote on impeachment articles in the House of Representatives. Only five Democrats strayed from tribal ground supporting Sick Willie, and those five defectors were consistent across the range of the four proposed articles. Republican traitors, however, ranged as high as 80 on one article. Democrats are far more loyal to their causes than Republicans. Is it any wonder conservatives in the half-century after World War II were a near-permanent minority, and that when they finally achieved majority status in 1994 they quickly contrived to negate and dissipate that advantage and now stand poised to return to outcast status in the 2000 elections? Conservatives have had the great misfortune to come up against the most brilliant, cunning politician in our nation's history in Sick Willie, grant them that. But their problem is far more fundamental than the bad luck of facing a world-class foe. They're simply not equipped for the contest. It's in their genes.

One of the few amusing tidbits to emerge from the Most Recent Unpleasantness in Wonderland is the report that one of Sidney Blumenthal's fellow White House operatives nicknamed him "Grassy Knoll" or "G.K." for short in reference to the perception that Blumenthal is prone to find conspiracies nearly everywhere. By sheer coincidence, Blumenthal is a close friend and confidante of Slick Hillary.

Columnist Richard Brookhiser, writing in the December 7 issue of National Review, uses the phrase "Founding Fornicators" in poking ridicule at Sick Willie. I wish I'd been clever enough to have thought of that.

Sorry, Guys, Sick's Already Been There, Done That

Republican efforts to impeach Sick Willie "will leave the presidency permanently disfigured and diminished. . ." according to a claim made in a lengthy rebuttal report submitted by Sick and his handlers and attorneys.

It was great seeing Father Robert Drinan on the Tuesday panel of liberal academics, clerics, and attorneys presenting Sick's defense before the House Judiciary Committee. Drinan told the jihadsters that he, Father Bob, was "leaving it to God to judge" anyone who voted "aye" on impeachment. This was truly a Kodak Moment.

Censure Sick Willie? Not on your life! It's the thundering majority of the the American people who support Sick who ought to be censured.

Shay Gets Close But Can't Finish

Republican Congressman Christopher Shay of New York, said to be one of the handful of moderates in his party wavering over how to vote on impeachment, was a guest on Chris Matthews' Hardball program December 10. Under peppery questioning, Shay admitted he believed Sick has lied under oath, probably suborned perujry by encouraging others (Betty Currie and Monica) to lie and cover up, and obstructed justice. Shay listed half a dozen offenses but said he still was not going to support impeachment because these things had not been proven to his satisfaction. Matthews asked Shay what in his view would be the perfect, proper resolution of This Most Recent Unpleasantness Said to Involve Sick Willie. Shay said Sick should tell the truth and then resign. Matthews replied, "Have you ever called for President Clinton's resignation?" Shay admitted he had not. (December 11, 1998)

Impeached!

My favorite number is 218, the number of votes necessary to pass an article of impeachment against Sick Willie. (December 19, 1998)

A Bucket O' Balls Day!

Today's House action approving two articles of impeachment against Sick Willie is one of the most astounding events of my lifetime. Where did the Republicans get the courage to do this? They've defied a tidal wave of loving support and adoration for Sick from the public, they've defied pollsters and advisers who promised them a vote to impeach was political suicide. I leaped out of my chair cheering when the onscreen scoreboard blinked to "218". This is a Life Event for me, personally, the second happiest day of my life (the first is the day Mogo and I were married). Somebody's finally actually nailed this guy! He's indelibly stamped in the history books and no amount of delusion and denial can erase the ugly stain on Sick's legacy. Mogo and I went out to dinner with friends to celebrate. I offered a toast in honor of the House and in joyous celebration of the day's events. A Kodak Moment! A bucket o' balls day! (December 19, 1998)

It took former White House aide George Stephanopolous to remind a grateful nation on Impeachment Day, December 19, that it was exactly a year ago to the day that Monica Lewinsky was subpoenaed to testify.

Sick's handlers were ready immediately following Sick's impeachment with a series of public displays and photo opportunites designed to show the repentant, chastened, human side of Sick. He was on prominent display this morning at church, Bible conspicuously toted in news camera view, daughter Chelsea at his side. They were surrounded by loyalists who bore aloft signs declaring their adoration of Sick. Word somehow leaked out, though, that one angry parishioner yelled at Sick as he walked past, "Damn you for what you've done to our country! Resign for the good of the world!" No doubt the spoilsport was quickly overwhelmed, dragged back into the church, and torn to pieces on the altar by the angry faithful. Later this week Sick was to gather children with him in the East Room of the White House, there to read them holiday (can't call 'em Christmas stories--that would bring ACLU lawyers howling out of the woodwork) stories. One hopes the event will be recorded on film and none of the children will have reached puberty. Sick and his wife will also be serving food to the poor and homeless at a D.C. soup kitchen. All in all, a week designed to warm the human heart. (December 20, 1998)

Shortly after Bob Livingston announced his resignation, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. was quoted on National Public Radio saying that people "don't run for office on their personal lives" and that "no one is electable under that standard." If young Jesse actually believes that, he's running with the wrong crowd.

A Bloviatin' Image Of His Dad

One thing we can say about Jesse, Jr., though: he has the same remarkable talent for bloviation his wacko leftwing extremist kook father has.

Words Guaranteed To Haunt

Weird Al joined fellow tribesmen on the White House lawn in a show of support for the fallen idol and told the world Sick would go down as one of the greatest presidents in American history. Bet those words will come back to haunt Al.

Sick's impeachment has had no noticeable effect on the mantra chanters infesting TV talk shows. Wacko extremist leftwing kook crackpot jihadsters continue to flood these programs, their whining the same as we've heard for months, years. It's time for these folks to face reality, but don't count on it happening anytime soon.

Cambridge University professor and physicist Stephen Hawking was a featured guest this week at a "Millenium Evening" hosted at the White House by Hillary and Sick Willie. PBS broadcast the event to the nation on December 30. As I channel-flipped past it, the camera lingered adoringly on the First Couple as Hillary nodded knowingly at one of the guest's remarks, then cut to Hawking as he told his audience that ". . .by 3.5 billion years ago complex molecules had formed and DNA had come into existence." You know, the stuff the FBI lab found on Monica Lewinsky's blue cocktail dress. The camera did not cut back for a Clinton reaction, but this was a Kodak Moment, surely.

The relentlessly obnoxious Robert Novak tried relentlessly last night on Crossfire to get the newly-elected Congressman from the state of Washington to admit he was a liberal. The fella deflected Novak's efforts again and again and again. He refused to utter the "L" word. I swear they've all been to the same training school, because they all say the same thing, almost down to the syllable. Later on the same program, Michael Kinsley, the wide-eyed editor of the Internet magazine, Slate, proudly admitted he was a liberal. Good for Michael! Could this be one of those rare instances where conservatives have actually succeeded at something politically? Could they have completed demonized the word "liberal"? (December 30, 1998)

This debate will go on forever: Clintonistas describe Sick Willie's "mistakes" as "lying (or misleading) about an adulterous affair (or "about sex")." Sick's accusers say "lying under oath." Period. Sick's entire defense collapses if that distinction can't be made.

My guess is if the Founding Dads could have imagined a person like Sick Willie ever inhabiting the office of the presidency, they would have been a good bit more careful and thorough in defining what they deemed intolerable, and that being a scumbag would have been on the list. But, alas, they could not imagine it and so were not thorough enough. And therein, to the overwhelming joy of Clintonistas everywhere, lies (or misleads) Sick Willie's salvation.

I'd vote to make Sick President for Life. I've never been more serious. Our country--73 percent of it in the latest polls, anyway--and Sick are a match made in heaven and a box office grand slam, as Harry Thomasson would say.

Lefties closed the year eagerly supporting censure for Sick Willie. Some even wanted to include a stiff fine. No point in fining Sick Willie. He never pays his own way. Fining him would be like fining Barbra Streisand or Alex Baldwin or Maya Angelou or some other wacko leftwing extremist.

The Democrat Party was once one even I could admire. It was the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Jack and Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and others. Today it is the party of Larry Flynt, James Carville, Geraldo Rivera, Sick and Hillary Clinton. Those loyal to true Democratic Party principles should be appalled. But are they? (December 31, 1998)

"(Father Robert) Drinan also refused to concede that a President could be impeached for murder--murder, that is, committed for strictly private, not governmental, reasons." --Jay Nordlinger, writing in National Review's Dec. 31, 1998 edition about Father Drinan's testimony and responses to questions before the House Judiciary Committee considering Impeachment articles.

	Scoundrels, Knaves & Fools American Pile Whoops & Squawks Splinters From the Bench Indiana University Sports Lists & Other Minutiae Contact the author	2009 \| 2008 \| 2007 \| 2006 \| 2005 \| 2004 \| 2003 \| 2002 \| 2001 \| 2000 \| 1999 \| 1998 \| 1997 \| 1996 \| 1995 \| Pre-1995 Scoundrels, Knaves, and Fools Retired Senator Bob Dole blames his failed 1996 presidential campaign on illegal and unethical advertising by the Democrats, according to a statement leaked to the press this week. The advertising barrage, Dole said, "was instrumental in shaping positive public opinion about the president and negative public opinion about me." Aside from that being the purpose of advertising, Dole still doesn't get it. He lost the 1996 race not because of negative advertising but because he was an inept inside-the-beltway hack without any defining beliefs or passions who failed miserably to define either the enemy or the issues, who declined to deal candidly and forthrightly with any issue, who abandoned or never believed in the conservative cause, whose campaign was barren of any animating principles or vision and who had no idea why he was running other than he'd stood in the Republican line the longest. Dole lost because he was the worst candidate the Republicans have nominated in decades. (January 10, 1998) The latest allegations of sexual impropriety against Slick have produced the expected denials plus countercharges that Slick's enemies continue to foment lies and rumors in a decades-old conspiracy to destroy the great human being who heads the most ethical administration in our nation's history. The denials are as preposterous as the offenses themselves would have sounded if you'd have described them to a citizen of pre-1960s America. What the Clintonistas are asking us to believe is that hundreds and hundreds of people have conspired over the last 25-30 years to destroy Slick Willie by making up out of thin air all the stories and rumors which have dogged the Boy President all his adult life. Best not to forget that old adage: Where there's Slick there's vomit. (January 25, 1998) There'll be a brief furor over this Most Recent Slick Unpleasantness. Editorial writers will fulminate. TV's big talking heads will nod their heads gravely. A few ordinary citizens--negativists, destroyers all--will get their hopes up, thinking at long last America's gonna care, stand for something, say it's had enough. The Clintonistas will be in stunned silence for a brief period. They'll huddle in the bunkers, get their stories straight, plan strategy. Clintonistas--led by Paul Begala and that drooling, beetlebrowed fugitive from Deliverance, James Carville--will come roaring up out of their burrows in a blitzkreig of spinning, shading, fudging, denying. They'll attack the accusers, deflect inquiries, anesthetize us with artfully crafted non-answers. Media people, always overly impressed by the majesty of the presidency and already sensing their own polls showing countless millions of Americans rallying to Slick's banner, will back away apologetically. Starr, Lewinski, Tripp and others will be demonized. Slick, citing the advice of his lawyers and counting again on the public's short attention span, will say no more about it. The media will be almost indescribably relieved to be done with it. End of Most Recent Unpleasantness. Yes, But Why Is She Talking This Way About Her Husband And Family Friends? Following up on her claim that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" was behind The Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Slick, Hillary Clinton was quoted saying, "I think when all this is put into context and we really look at their motivations, look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for." Indeed. (January 29, 1998) What I loved most about Slick's press conference, where he huffed and puffed and told us in no uncertain terms that he hadn't been humping Monica, was the finger jabbing the air and the lectern thumping. P.S. He's lying. Slick Hillary went full-bore after her demons last week when she ruminated on national TV about a vast right-wing conspiracy out to destroy the Clinton presidency. Since she declined to take questions, there was no immediate opportunity for the dialogue liberals are so fond of. Hillary, in trashing special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, told the nation that the three-judge panel which appointed special prosecutor Kenneth Starr "is headed by someone who was appointed by Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth." She inferred that the three-judge panel is part of the plot to destroy her husband, Slick. She said David Sentelle, the District of Columbia judge who heads the panel, was "appointed by Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth," the two Republican senators from North Carolina. The Wall Street Journal digested this and in an editorial February 2 made a few corrections to Slick Hillie's TV rantings. To quote the Journal, "Federal appeals court judges are appointed by Presidents, not Senators. In fact, Faircloth was nowhere near the Senate when David Sentelle was named a judge in 1985. He (Faircloth) was still a Democrat and had just left a job as Democratic Governor Jim Hunt's secetary of commerce." The newspaper noted that the other two judges on the panel were appointed by Gerald Ford and--my golly this is really embarrassing--by Presidents Johnson and Kennedy. I love it when the press follows up on things like this, catches politicians and others playing fast and loose with facts. It's to journalism's everlasting shame, however, that so very few reporters, papers, and broadcast outlets ever do it. Washington Post and Newsweek syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer offered a scathing assessment of Slick Willie's troubles in his column published February 2 in the Chicago Tribune. He says This Most Recent Unpleasantness "is not about sex but about truth." If it can be shown that Clinton lied under oath, Krauthammer ventures, "nothing else matters. His presidency is over." Krauthammer speculated that Congress will not attempt impeachment over one count of perjury, and that Slick "will never resign. He'd be $3 million in debt, humiliated, powerless, indeed homeless. This gambler did not even leave himself a San Clemente to fly home to.. .No, he'll try to stay in office no matter how many party elders beg him to leave. He'll be a dead man walking, an object of ridicule." And in his last sentence Krauthammer coined a useful, incisive phrase that should find an honored place in our language. He said Slick will be "an Oval Office O.J., denying what everyone knows he did." Several weeks of haranguing and hectoring by Slick's attack dogs have pretty much blunted the Monica Lewinksi Unpleasantness which thrust its lovely head into the public eyeball in late January. You can sense a tide turning against Starr as the Clintonista counterattacks take root in the public gourd. Much of the "news" now has an anti-Starr tone to it. This is an utterly remarkable triumph of spin for Slick's handlers. Golf Course Statecraft Yet the little stories keep bubbling to the surface. 60 Minutes offered a feature February 15 on Slick's close friend and adviser, Vernon Jordan. There was speculation that Jordan himself might have been getting a bit o' Lewinski poon. Someone on the show reportedly said that when Slick and Jordan get together on the golf course, they "talk pussy", not statecraft. Jordan is said to be a legendary cocksman in his own right. Slick Hillie's self-control and her capacity for enduring humiliation are superhuman. I remain convinced that we see in Slick many of the characteristics of the sociopathic personality. He is awesome. World Class Gotta give credit where credit is due: There hasn't been a craftier, more cunning, clever, and politically brilliant group of politicians in the White House in our nation's history than Slick Willie and the Clintonistas. They are unparalleled. If the Republicans are smart they'll give it up, bargain for any settlement they can get, and sprint off the playing field. They're overmatched. They stand no chance--absolutely none--against Slick and his handlers. We're seeing some handwringing now among journalists. Hardly a day passes without a lament about the sordidness of American public life, and particularly political life. Here's the answer to all of the wailing: if the Clintonistas weren't in the White House, the press would have dramatically less sleaziness and corruption to write about and the quality of our public life would improve measurably. Do the wailers want to tell us that every President would be like this one? That's a preposterous idea. The reason there's so much trash to write about is because Clinton and everything he touches are tawdry and trashy. We don't have tabloid journalism. We have a tabloid president. (February 16, 1998) You have to love the irony of Slick Willie, who schemed and lied and weaseled to evade the draft during the Vietnam War, now being the one to order American service men and women to a possible death in The Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Saddam Hussein. Clinton is morally bankrupt and so is any nation which elects and re-elects and applauds such a reprehensible human being. (February 20, 1998) O.K., I confess. I've mailed off a small (but heartfelt) contribution to The Rutherford Institute to help cover expenses of Paula Jones's lawsuit against Slick Willie. It made me feel so good I almost filled my pants. (February 24, 1998) Who Ya Gonna Believe, A United States Senator Or Another Right-Wing Wacko Conspirator Out To Destroy Our Country? Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, when asked recently about possible impeachment proceedings against President Slick, replied that she had "never been married and never committed adultery" and therefore "could not answer that question." Either the reporter, Michael Catanzaro of Human Events or Washington Times columnist Greg Pierce, who reported it March 1, researched the matter and discovered that Moseley-Braun was in fact married to a Michael Braun from 1973 to 1986. They had one son and were divorced in 1986. (March 1, 1998) Another Destroyer Out To Get Willie Presumably millions and millions of Americans watched Kathleen Willey's interview by Ed Bradley on Sixty Minutes Sunday night. Every last syllable of it was made up out of thin air. Willey is one more part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy out to destroy the President. She, like all the others, is delusional, hysterical, mentally unstable, hallucinating, possessed by an inexplicable need to destroy a good and innocent man, and willing to risk imprisonment by lying under oath to do so. (March 15, 1998) You could search long and hard in America to find a man willing to call a thing what it is, but Congressman Dick Armey of Texas was willing to give it a try last week. Armey spoke to a high school class in Dallas April 6 and described President Slick as a "shameless person." He added that "If it were me that had documented personal conduct along the lines of the president's, I would be so filled with shame that I would resign. This president won't do that. He basic credo in life is, 'I will do whatever I can get away with.' " The next day when Armey was asked about the remarks, he confirmed he'd made them and assured eager reporters that he meant them. Armey's candor is nearly unprecedented for a Republican. It brought forth the usual howls of derision from Slick's attack dogs, and Republican Newt Gingrich was quick to assure America he did not share Armey's views. Armey will not draw any crowds in this country trying to stir up a dialogue about an antiquated concept like shame. (April 6, 1998) "The key fact is that we have in the White House a man who can swear falsely on a Bible and then trash those who tell the truth--a man completely without honor or decency." --Columnist Mona Charen, writing in the March 18, 1998 edition of the Indianapolis Star. An Idea Which Must Be Stopped The lead story in this morning's Indianapolis Star was headlined "House to Vote on Campaign Finance Reform: GOP Leaders, Facing a Rebellion, Reverse Stand and Will Allow Action. . ." Several Congresspersonnel were quoted saying this was a great day for democracy. Leaders of both parties claimed credit. The vote is to occur in May. No need for citizens to get excited. Both parties will secretly stake their lives, honors, and above all their sacred fortunes on preventing any significant campaign finance reform. This week's action is fluff, designed to placate and anesthetize the public. They'll all huff and puff, wave the flag and say patriotic things, and then somebody will figure out a way to kill this most dangerous idea. (April 23, 1998) They're Furious, But Nobody's Denying it Indiana Congressman Dan Burton is catching heat from the Clintonistas and fellow travelers for publicly calling Slick Willie a "scumbag." Burton uttered this truth earlier in April during a meeting with the Indianapolis Star editorial board. When the paper quoted him, he confirmed he'd said it. Millions and millions and millions of exquisitely sensitive Americans have taken offense. Egged on by Slick's dirt-digger attack dogs, the assault on Burton is in full roar. But even listening carefully, we don't hear anyone denying Burton's charge. The howlers are simply outraged that he uttered the words. That's the crime, in their eyes. Why are we so afraid, in this great big wonderful free-speech-worshipping country of ours, of calling a thing what it is? If it weren't for euphemisms, there'd be almost no public dialogue at all. The nation owes Burton its gratitude. Almost completely unreported in the Danny Burton Unpleasantness was this: A reporter for the Star first proposed the word "scumbag" to describe Clinton during the editorial board meeting and used a clever rhetorical device long favored by journalists, politicians, pollsters, flim-flammers and clever debaters. It works like this. The reporter injects a phrase or a statement into the conversation then lures or finesses the interviewee into at the very least a partial acquiescence or acceptance of the terminology. When the story is printed it artfully suggests that you chose the words on your own. Simple, and usually successful. The interviewee, of course, always has the option to stoutly deny the terminology--and unless he's addled he'll have witnesses, or better yet, tapes--if he disagrees and realizes what's going on. Burton, much to his credit, confirmed that the reporter put the "scumbag" term on the table but said that although he might have chosen a less pungent term had he been carefully analytical of the situation (he said he thought his comments would be "off the record" but that dodge won't work, sorry Danny) he was accepting full responsibility for the comment as published. A fine and subtle point, but one worth noting. Here's an idea maybe we all can embrace regarding the unseemly, undignified, and unfortunate choice of words of that well-known scumbag, Congressman Danny Burton of Indiana. Everybody makes a deal: Burton quits calling Slick a scumbag in public as soon as Slick's attack dog dirt-diggers (Drs. Carville, Begala and company) are put on leash and hauled back to their burrows. Henceforth we use phrases like Most Recent Unpleasantness or The Recent (or Far Distant) Unpleasantness Said to Involve The President (or, of course, Newtie, Danny, Dick, Paula, Trent, Kathleen, or whomever) and The Tart- or Humjob-of-The-Moment. Fair enough? Another option would be never again to talk about anything like this in public or in private. That would enable the press to get back to its job of basking in the glory of celebrity and getting in bed with those they cover, and our Skexuslike politicians to get back to theirs, namely scamming the people, plundering the treasury, and handing out spoils to their friends and allies. Of course if Burton really had been thinking quickly he could have offered this in reply: OK, I won't call him a scumbag. I'll call him a liar, a draft-dodger, a womanizer, a disgrace to our nation, and a corrupt Snopesian grifter. I think that gets it about right. (April 23, 1998) I have trouble following the logic when people say we should not say nasty things about the president because he is after all the president and we must respect the office. The logic is upside down. Anyone who truly respects and honors the office of the presidency should be mortified and appalled at how Slick has degraded it and our country. Respect for the presidency and our country is precisely why we should loathe whoever dishonors the office. The Grouper's Clever Spin Right after word leaked that Webster Hubbell had again been indicted, America's television screens were flooded with images of The Big Grouper on his front lawn denying everything. In a defiant, embittered tone, the former deputy U.S. Attorney General and longtime friend of the Slicks, threw down the gauntlet and publicly renewed his everlasting fealty to the Clintons: ". . .(Kenneth Starr) can indict my dog, they can indict my cat, but I am not going to lie about the president or first lady or anyone else." Hubbell said. Perfect, if he keeps his word. Despite Hubbell's claim of the opposite, there's not a shred of evidence on this planet or any other that anyone is trying to get him to "lie about the president. . ." What is sought is for Hubbell to tell the truth and all of it. We'll all die an agonizing and slow death waiting for one of the big media talking heads to point out Hubbell's artful distortion, though. Hubbell's clever spinning keeps him in perfect lockstep with the massive wacko left-wing conspiracy to destroy Kenneth Starr and prevent the truth from ever being known. (May 1, 1998) Hammering The Big Grouper Days like today make me wish I were a special prosecutor. I'd indict Webb Hubbell's dog, his cat, his goldfish, parakeet, portfolio, iguana, neighbors, friends, parents, clothing, stereo system, coffee pot, children, Shetland pony, CDs, shoes, furniture, doctor, dentist, barber, wombat, cheese shaver, mailman, mechanic, and lawn boy, too. Did I overlook anything or anyone? I've got plenty more subpoenas right here in my briefcase. Here, let me get out a sheaf of crisp new ones, riffle 'em up close to your ear. Isn't that the next-most compelling sound you've ever heard? Next to crisp, new thousands, of course. In what was without doubt the poorest choice of words publicly chosen in This Most Recent Clintonista Unpleasantness Said to Have Involved Webster Hubbell. . .Hubbell's attorney denounced the indictments by saying, "The office of the independent counsel brought Webb Hubbell to his knees." Surely this irony was unintended. Or is this disease transmittable? "People loved Reagan, she said, because he appealed to what is best in us; and people love Clinton because he appeals to what is worst." --Danielle Crittenden, writing in the March 23, 1998, issue of The Weekly Standard, recounting an observation made by an (unidentified) friend. Here's why spinning--raised to an art form by the Clintonistas--works. First, remember that television is the key medium. It's a winning strategy because each time a lie is uttered, X percent of the public will believe it. The other side may protest, but its replies never catch up and reach 100 percent of those who heard the original distortion. Thus a given percent of the population will continue to believe and act upon the lie, no matter how much clarification or rebuttal follow. The nature of the broadcast media assures no opportunity--ever--for the differing versions to be carefully examined in the same room under harsh light before unrelenting questioners who pursue all inconsistencies, spin, and evasion to satisfactory answers. Even shows which do pose as open forums or live debates fall woefully short. Myriad commercial interruptions prevent developing any line of thought or pursuit of more than a few minutes' length. Reporter cowardice and ineptitude make it impossible to meaningfully explore any public issue, even any single question. Most reporters, even the big media talking heads, are seriously disadvantaged when facing a skillful spinner. Clever people figured this out long ago. Television is king. Most Americans get substantially all their "news" from the tube, and so the lie, the distortion, the spin, the evasion always work. Given an indolent, uninspired press corps and a generally addled public actively avoiding any confrontation with reality, the con artists will forever have their way with us. And the spinners, well, they're a wonder to behold. (May 7, 1998) Clinton, Indiana Speaks, CNN Bleeps CNN took its quest for truth into the heartland this week to do a May 4 "local color" feature on The Danny Burton Unpleasantness Involving The Right Wing Wacko Congressman's Unseemly Use of a Word So Outrageous We Can't Even Allow It on The Air, Never Mind That We Gleefully Report on Slick Willie's Alleged Semen Stains on Monica Lewinsky's Cocktail Dress and Slick's Boob-Grabbing and Wang Dangling In The White House--Oh, And We Cover Ted Kennedy, Howard Stern, Marilyn Manson, James Carvile, Jocelyn Elder, Ice T and Assorted Other Abominations With A Straight Face, Too. . .well, CNN sent an intrepid reporter to. . . .Clinton, Indiana, to find out what Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch thought of all this. Sure enough, one of the local Clintonites, fairly beaming as the reporter asked the question, told CNN that, "Well, here in central Indiana, we think Clinton is a scumbag." CNN, ever so sensitive to matters of taste and decorum, bleeped out the offending word. (May 7, 1998) *Ooops! Times* Caught With Scumbags Down** The New York Times joined in the screams of outrage about Congressman Dan Burton's truth-telling. The Times in its April 24 issue refused to even print the offending word "scumbag" and excoriated Burton for refusing to apologize for "using a euphemism for a despicable person" to describe Slick Willie. A day earlier the paper also declined to use the word. Obviously, readers are supposed to deduce that the Times is simply too dignified to stoop to such things, and that, well, some language simply isn't fit to print. But here comes the troublemaking Washington Times with its computers searching New York Times files and--guess what!--the Times was willing enough to use the dread term "scumbag" before Congressman Burton came along. Those dangerous computers turned up several "scumbags" in columnist Frank Rich's work in the 1990s. "Scumbag" also appeared in a 1992 New York Times feature about heroin addicts, and in 1988 the paper quoted the prim and proper Senator Orrin Hatch using "scumbag" in a Senate floor debate about drug lords. All we really need to know here is that the New York Times is just as hypocritical and agenda-driven and ideologically partisan as the rest of us, but won't admit it. Yeah, But He's Our Convicted Felon. . . Musta been a full moon over Indiana's May 4 primary election. Republicans voters nominated Paul Helmke to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Dan Coats. Helmke, the mayor of Fort Wayne, won a tight race with only a two percent margin over his nearest contender. So how did Helmke celebrate the next day? He went to Wonderland, D.C., to meet with his longtime friend, Slick Willie. Both Slicks attended law school with Helmke and the three have remained friends over these many years. Helmke swears he is a conservative Republican but has been warm and effusive in his praise of Slick Willie's life and many accomplishments. My guess is he's Trojan Horse'd the GOP. He'll run against former Indiana governor Evan Bayh, who is considered the unbeatable "Mt. Everest" of Indiana politics. But before the Democrats could get over their glee at having Helmke in their camp, word leaked--the press has to cover these things, you know--that Bob Kern, the Democrat nominee to run against right-wing antichrist Danny "The Scumbag" Burton, is a convicted felon. Party leaders were appalled, as we might imagine. Massive efforts were launched months ago to prevent Kern from running at all. The Marion County Democratic chairman petitioned the state election commission to take Kern off the ballot, arguing that he should be forced to use his given surname of Hidalgo. That, one surmises, would have made it clear to Demo voters that the candidate was just another despised minority, and let the party get on with choosing its officially sanctioned and sponsored candidate, who also had a suspicious name (Nagarajan), but had been approved and trotted forth as the pooh-bahs' choice. The Indianapolis Star reported after the election that on a previous run for public office Kern used the name Bobby S. Hidalgo Kern. When he was convicted of forgery and theft in 1998 he was known as Bobby Scott Hidalgo. Party leaders were said to be baffled over how this could happen. If so, they are being disingenuous. With nationwide margins as high as 80 percent heartily embracing the Clinton Administration, why wouldn't Democrat voters in Indiana prefer a convicted felon? This Most Recent Unpleasantness has to drive the Democrats simply crazy, for Burton is believed to be vulnerable and has been under national attack for weeks and will continue to be a prime target of the Clintonistas. If they can't have him killed or get him off the ballot somehow, bet money the Demos will swallow their principles and back their convicted felon, or, in the alternative, quietly support a third "independent" candidate, a "real Democrat" in disguise, in the fall election. For his part, Kern or Hidalgo is well on his way to either the U.S. Congress or, failing that, a Cabinet position in the Slick Administration. He's got the bonafides, no question about it. (May 7, 1998) Again we are greeted by the disgusting spectacle of a lying, womanizing, corrupt, draft-dodging scumbag , President Slick, laying wreaths, giving speeches, dishonoring the dead and defiling the holiday and the presidency. When will we be delivered of this abomination? (Memorial Day--May 25, 1998) Two Dictionaries Weigh In With Bad News Tom Palmer of Havelock, North Carolina, is one of several Americans who got out their dictionaries when the Religious Left Wackos went postal when Congressman Dan Burton called a thing what it is earlier this spring. Palmer dragged out his Oxford model and found this under "scumbag": "a worthless, despicable person." Oxford defines "worthless" as "without value or merit" and "despicable" as "contemptible, especially morally." Palmer wrote the Washington Times to report his research and concluded that in his view, the description fits. My Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines "scumbag" as a "condom" or a "mean, despicable person." That's Slick Willie, all right--without the "mean," of course. Congressman Charles Rangel of the Wacko Religous Left called me the other night to ask what I thought now, Mr. Smartypants, now that U.S. District Judge James Robertson has thrown out Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Special Persecutor Kenneth Starr's indictment of Webb Hubbell, his wife, his accountant, his dog, cat, goldfish, lawn boy, auto mechanic, and others for tax evasion? Well, I told him, it had nothing to do, you can be sure, with the truth of the charges and a lot to do with a Slick Willie appointee and a debatable interpretation of the law (Starr says he will appeal). Hubbell, in fact, has already pled guilty and served prison time for mail fraud and tax evasion. Probably best, I told Rangel, to let the appeals process play itself out and see what happens. Maybe the appeals judge will be from the Wacko Religous Right (and a part of the vast conspiracy), in which case we win. Besides, I thought Starr was doing the best job he could with the nation's work and that he ought to be left alone to do it, and that his sex life had nothing to do with anything. Rangel angrily challenged me to spell potato and hung up. Sid's Slur Gets A Pass From The Big Talking Heads The big talking heads and the big mainstream media were strangely silent and indifferent about recent comments by Hillary's close friend and presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal which, had they been uttered by a politically incorrectoid at an approved victim class, would have stirred a national firestorm of angry foot-stamping and excoriation. Blumenthal publicly characterized Kenneth Starr aide Hickman Ewing, an evangelical Christian, as a "religious fanatic." A few journalists--rightwing fanatics, by and large--protested, but the big hitters had no problem with Blumenthal's slur. A few people have noticed, but it's not getting the sort of banshee-screaming Dan Quayle would have gotten. . .Vice President and Environmental Wacko Al Gore recently confused Michael Jordan with pop singer/weirdo Michael Jackson and the big media talking heads aren't making any big deal about it. Sorry for peeking. The Slick Administration's preposterous position on the legal struggle over whether Slick's Secret Service guards may be compelled to testify in court has been tossed out by an appeals court. Slick and his handlers argued that if the agents aren't granted immunity and shielded from having to testify about anything they've witnessed, that would cause the president to push his Secret Service protection farther away, thus endangering the president's life. Only a president trying to hide something would feel the need to push away his protection in such circumstances: a scumbag like Slick, in other words. Any decent human being holding the office wouldn't give this a second thought. I was in a discussion July 25 with a friend about whether the President should be subject to the law just as every other citizen is, no exceptions. My friend felt the President should not, that he should be exempt from subpoenae and certain other procedures. His reasoning seemed to be that otherwise the President could not carry out his duties. He gave as an example a situation where--and we merely speculate here--a President might be put in jail. What then? How could he carry out his duties as Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, for example, in the event of a national emergency? I replied that criminals and gang leaders have historically run criminal empires from behind bars and done it with ease, and that I felt confident a President would be up to the task. The Rahmster Manhandles Tim One of Slick's handlers, Rahm Emanuel, appeared on NBC's Meet The Press Sunday July 26 and emerged as a study in the art of deflection. News of Slick's subpoena from Kenneth Starr had the media folks in a frenzy, and Emanuel and host Tim Russert jousted to a draw on the matter. Russert told his national audience and the androidal Emanuel that his network had placed eight--count 'em, eight!--calls to the White House the previous Thursday and Friday to ask if Slick had been served a subpoena. Russert said on all eight occasions White House spokeslackeys denied it. Russert then asked Emanuel why the White House had lied. Emanuel gave a masterful non-answer, leaving Russert clearly frustrated. Russert moments later tried to pin down Emanuel with a question about whether Emanuel was saying that Slick would comply with Starr's subpoena. Each time Emanuel said that Slick's lawyers were "meeting with Starr's staff in an effort to get the prosecutor the information he needs." Russert tried again, rephrasing. Emanuel repeated his answer without a word's variation. Russert tried once more. Emanuel parried, same answer. Russert asked Emanuel at least six times to say whether Slick would comply with the subpoena. Each time he was rebuffed. Russert finally gave up, as he and all his colleagues in journalism should. Nobody gonna get the better of a Clintonista in these matters. Might as well give it up, Tim. Might as well give it up. (July 30, 1998) Why is Anita Hill still portrayed as a hero, a victim, a paragon of virtue, truth, and honesty, but Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and all the rest are reviled as unstable, demented, conspiratorial, lying, trashy whores? There are so many days and nights of Monicagate coverage that it all blurs. But sometime in the past week E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post speculated that Slick will continue to delay and delay and delay so that he can learn exactly what Monica Lewinsky has secretly testified to before the grand jury so he, Slick, can know how to put together his own story. No one on the show blinked so much as an eyelash. Not often, but occasionally one of the media mavens will shake a head and note with mild concern that it's a pretty sad day when the public dialogue is mostly talk of oral sex in the White House. I've got news for them. If a decent, moral human being occupied the White House the talk would be of other things. The reason the public dialogue is trashy and tabloid is because we have a trashy, tabloid President. Simple as that. Public Television's The Capital Gang, featuring Margaret Carlson (Time), moderator Al Hunt (Wall Street Journal), Robert Novak (syndicated columnist), Rep. Barney Frank (Democrat of Massachusetts) live in the studio and Kate O'Beirne (National Review) somewhere remote, was its usual informative self Saturday night (August 1). Carlson ridiculed Linda Tripp's protest that she's been trashed by the Clintonistas and the media. Frank said that (Slick Willie) has had fewer rights in facing his subpoena and His Most Recent Unpleasantness, the grand jury investigation, than the average American citizen would have. A film clip of former White House chieftain Leon Panetta was shown, in which Panetta blamed Slick's troubles on others and claimed our country can't function if every time we elect a president we "go after the President with scandals." (Oddly, Panetta didn't note the most obvious thing: if presidents don't behave scandalously, nobody goes after them for scandals). Carlson said the past seven months of Kenneth Starr's investigation and of media hysteria were "spent entirely on sex." Frank said the Most Recent Unpleasantness is "entirely about sex." Hunt, apparently having already read the report that Starr hasn't written or published, said that "so far he (Starr) doesn't have anything (on Slick) except the (Monica Lewinsky Unpleasantness)." No panelist challenged Hunt's preposterous assertion. Frank said he felt confident nothing would be done (regarding the Slick Unpleasantness) by Congress before the November election because there simply wouldn't be time, adding that nothing done by the current Congress could by law carry over to the new one, anyway. Novak said he thought he detected "a little bloodlust" on the part of some Republicans. (August 2, 1998) Brian Williams of MSNBC hosted a short feature August 3 on why the public dialogue is so sordid and tawdry. He suggested the "lowbrow culture Clinton has cultivated has engulfed the presidency." Rep. Bill McCollum, a Florida Republican, and Marty Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, were Brian's guests. McCollum remembered how differently Jimmy Carter had responded to an independent prosecutor's investigation. Meehan chanted the mantra: 40 million dollars. . .four years. . .nothing but sex. Meehan said, "There's no evidence to suggest he (Slick) is not telling the truth,." McCollum claimed it was not "just about sex" and Meehan conceded that the matter might actually be decided on the basis of evidence. They're finally proving what we knew intuitively all along: it rains more on weekends. An Arizona State University research team looked at years of weather data and a clear pattern emerged: more rain falls on Friday, Saturday and Sunday than any other days. The likely culprit is human activity--it's believed pollution that builds up around urban areas during the workweek is a major factor in the rainfall patterns. The science journal, Nature, reported the study in its issue on newsstands August 6. This is something else Al Gore and the wacko Religious Left can blame on conservatives and capitalist greed. (August 6, 1998) The Clintonistas will have to start trashing Monica again now that she's testified. Don't be surprised if Slick springs a last-minute surprise and refuses to testify (it may depend on what the polls show in the final 10 minutes leading up to his grand jury appearance). Carville, Begala, Davis, Emanuel and Co. must be cooking up some new counter-offensive. Carville in particular has been too quiet lately. Slick will contend that according to his special definition of sexual relations, what he got from and had with Monica didn't qualify. Starr gave away the store when he allowed Clinton to testify after Lewinsky. This assures that Slick and his handlers will have transcripts of her secret testimony in time for him to tailor his own statements. Should have been the other way around: Clinton testifies first, then Lewinsky. This is almost willful stupidity on Starr's part. The mantra continued this morning on Meet the Press. Joseph DiGenova and Roy Black, both attorneys, were guests. Black said Slick and the entire population of the United States would know about Monica's secret grand jury testimony long before Slick himself is scheduled to testify August 17. He said he thought there was a 50-50 chance Kenneth Starr was using the infamous blue cocktail dress "as a bluff to get Clinton to confess" to something. Black said Slick was in a terrible bind now that he's committed to testify, not adding the obvious, that Clinton's word on anything is worthless and that there's a good chance he'll change his mind at the last minute. Both lawyers speculated that the existence of the blue dress caught Slick's attorneys and handlers by surprise. Black said "the only way Starr can justify all these years (of investigating) and spending all this money is to try to indict and impeach the president." Black seemed to be trying to get a message through to Clinton that he should refuse to testify, once inside the grand jury room, about his "private sex life." Black conceded there was "a huge amount" of circumstantial evidence against Clinton. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame were guests on the last half of host Tim Russert's program. Both seemed deeply concerned that the matter has gone too far. This is not quite what we'd expect from two old warriors who so joyously and aggressively led the wolfpack which brought Richard Nixon to ground. Bernstein uttered the mantra that the whole thing is "all about the private sex life of the president" and that our great nation was "on the edge of a tragedy" because of Starr's investigation. (I would counter that if we are, it's because of the Slicks and not Kenneth Starr). Both agreed with obvious regret that the presidency has been stripped of many of its "privileges" as the process has moved forward and courts have been forced to rule on numerous Clinton claims of privilege. Russert didn't mention the conclusion that begs to be made here, namely that since nearly every single Clintonista claim of privilege had been struck down by the courts, doesn't that suggest compellingly that the claims were spurious to begin with? Woodward conceded that Starr's authority and investigation were legitimate, and that the problems facing Slick and his handlers were "very, very serious now." Bernstein said "thoughtful people" ought to step back from this (ongoing investigation) and come together to work out some resolution before Slick's scheduled August 17 testimony. In the entire program I never heard anyone--not even Russert--suggest that the overriding goal of all this should be to find and expose the truth. You never hear Clinton's handlers mention this either. (August 9, 1998) Add to the list of lies: Slick saying he looks forward to going before the grand jury to tell his story. No matter how bad it gets, my friends, just remember and take comfort in this: Slick promised us his would be the most ethical administration in the history of our great nation. So we must wait, keep the faith, trust in Slick and his handlers. As the clock ticks down to Slick's scheduled testimony, it's a measure of the president's credibility that there's widespread expectation that he'll spring a last-minute trick, come up with some new claim of privilege, or new definitions of language and law and slide outta there smirking. (August 16, 1998) The only honest thing Slick's said about this Most Recent Unpleasantness is that nobody is more anxious to put this behind him than he is. Doesn't Pass The Smell Test, But Does Smell Ask yourself this: Did you require days of intense prepping by your lawyers the last time you decided to "tell the truth"? Did you have your family float numerous "trial balloons" in the week leading up to your truth-telling so you could see which version of "the truth" would hit a home run in the hearts of Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch? I suggest the answers would all be no. Slick isn't prepping to tell the truth. He's prepping to tell more lies. Ann Coulter's new book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, raises the stakes for anyone who wants to persist in believing Slick Willie isn't eminently impeachable. Much like Watergate, the Most Recent Slick Unpleasantnesses have dribbled out in bits and pieces over a span of years, making it difficult for any citizen to see or understand a coherent picture. Coulter weaves a seamless tapestry ranging from the 600-year history of impeachment to definitions of "high crimes and misdemeanors" (about which, daily polls make obvious, most Americans are deeply misinformed) to detailed analysis of Slick's grand jury testimony (Coulter's conclusion: he lied on numerous occasions) in the Paula Jones Unpleasantness and numerous other acts and pronouncements by Slick and the Clintonistas. Coulter says Clinton's offenses already exceed those for which Richard Nixon was forced to resign, and that if Congress is in any way interested in doing its duty--and if we, as citizens are--then the door is wide open to impeach Slick Willie. More hatemongering and negativity, of course, from still another member of that vast rightwing conspiracy out to destroy a good and decent man and his family and friends, and a book millions and millions and millions and millions of Americans will not want to read. I got my copy early, before they start burning them. Slick's Commerce Department is in court trying to get permission to use statistical sampling for the 2000 Census instead of what the law requires, an actual count. Their plea is all gussied up to look like a noble concern for freedom and justice and fair play, but it's a thinly disguised scheme by liberals to get more of their minority constituencies added to the numbers. The lefties claim that the regular census misses huge numbers of minorities who simply can't be reached or found by census-takers, but who, they insist, are really there even though invisible. Watch this one carefully. Coach Or Slick? A Toss-Up I was recently asked: Who do you dislike the most--Bob Knight or Bill Clinton? I thought for a moment, then told him my loathing for them is about equal. Knight is a world-class asshole, Clinton a world-class scumbag. Knight is, from all available evidence, a man of his word. Slick's word is worthless. Slick is sleazy; Knight is not. Knight is said to be loyal to his friends. Slick willingly sacrifices his friends whenever it's convenient. Knight has a mean, ugly, vicious side frequently on display. Clinton rarely displays even a hint of these qualities. Both are cunning, masters at manipulating people and situations to their benefit. Knight at least knows what he believes in. Slick Willie believes in whatever the polls tell him is the hot-button of the moment. Slick has no inner core, no guiding principles; Knight does. Knight's asshole-ness, however, is of such titanic proportions that for me it outweighs all his good qualities. Clinton has few discernible good qualities. Slick got indignant about his cherished personal privacy Monday night (August 17) in his four-minute non-apology to a largely somnolent American public. "Even presidents have a private life," he said. Obviously he's selective about these matters: he summoned no similar indignation when the White House purloined some 900 supposedly secret FBI files on fellow citizens. Guess their privacy is different. NBC Seminar Inspiring NBC ran a short profile of Slick Willie's artful use of the English language Monday night, replete with a rich selection of slick Slick quotations and a narrator pointing out "inconsistencies." I'm not generally impressed with network television, but this was a bold and valuable effort. Senator Orrin Hatch appeared on several TV programs following Slick's non-apology August 17 and I was surprised to see that Hatch has apparently undergone a recent spine transplant. Barely a month ago he was pleading on national news shows for Slick to come forth with an apology so the Republicans could forgive him and not have to deal with this Most Recent Unpleasantness. Monday night Hatch was a different man--quite riled, obviously, and to my surprise willing to stand up and call a thing what it is. I suspect the Republicans are still cowering under their desks trembling in fear of Slick, though. You can't blame them. Slick is a master manipulator, the most cunning politician ever to strut the American stage. He's already demonstrated numerous times that Republicans are no match for him (the "government shutdown" fiasco of a couple years ago the classic example). No matter how battered and wounded he may appear, Slick remains an incredibly dangerous foe, and you can bet Hatch and his quaking cohorts know it. Special Prosecutor Lawrence Welch spent $47 million dollars chasing Reagan, Ollie North and others. Bet the bleeders weren't howling and protesting about that. Roy Black, the liberal defense attorney, and Gary Bauer, the conservative head of American Renewal, which actually supports religion and morality having a role in our society, were among guests August 18 on the ridiculous Larry King Live show on CNN. A brief exchange between Bauer and Black offered a snapshot into the liberals' national sport, ridiculing Christians. Larry, leaning forward in his suspenders, asked his guests what kind of message The Most Recent Slick Willie Unpleasantness is sending to America's young people. Bauer said they were utterly terrible messages about lying and infidelity. Black couldn't resist. He said, "I've got news for you, Gary, people are not going to stop having sex. They're going to have sex whether you like it or not." This was not a reply to Larry King's question. This was an obvious ridiculing of Bauer and the notion of morality he was trying to present--another attack on religion, in other words, from a smug, smartassed liberal. Bauer did not reply and of course Larry King didn't say a word. We all owe Black our thanks for revealing a bit of his true self. Sleaze Keyword: Cigars Inside sources say there's more Slick Willie sleaze heading down the pipe for us, kinky stuff the big slipstream media desperately don't want to report, stuff that'll make it hard to conclude Slick's not a pervert on top of all the other things. Keyword: cigars. Keep an ear out for it, they say. (August 26, 1998) My wife Mogo, bless her, adamantly does not want to see this kind of salacious material discussed in public. She worries about the damage it does to the human spirit, and particularly to children. I agree with her, but I feel every ugly fact and detail should be laid out in the bright light of day. Slick is a human being vile beyond our ability to describe or comprehend vile. He and he alone is the reason sordid behavior and moral squalor are served up daily in big steaming piles in the public dialogue. The Clintonistas have waged a jihad against facts and the truth's emergence for years and trashed and demonized all who stood in their way. They've manipulated public opinion to a point where some 70 percent of the American public is in desperate denial about what Slick Willie is. We--and above all those who support and defend Slick--need to have this matter smeared in our faces and smeared in our faces and smeared in our faces until we can't bear it any more, until we confront the truth. Because of this vileness, I want Slick and his merry band of Clintonistas and acolytes to suffer and suffer mightily. With the exception of Chelsea, they are all volunteers, not victims. Cruel? Implacable? Indeed. I feel not a shred of sympathy or remorse. This is a hideous, ugly experience but we've got to endure it to be rid of this abomination. Name Changes It's Sick Willie now. It's the Oral Office, too. They're yapping back and forth now about the timing of Starr's report and how much of it should be made public. Bleeders and Clintonistas have no more fervent hope than to stampede Starr into submitting his report before the election, and the sooner the better. If they succeed and Starr does, it's over. For the Clintonistas will then unleash a storm of spinning and propaganda such as the world has never seen to convince the public the report, no matter what it says, is a partisan vendetta by an evil rightwing maniac out to destroy the hopes and dreams of every American and ruin the lives of a great and good man and his family. The public will buy it, I guarantee you. The Republicans will have no choice but to run screaming for the exits. They'll lose not only the Starr report but the election in November as well. This is a political and propaganda war conservatives and Republicans have no hope of winning, and they know it. Starr gives little evidence of being politically canny. If he has a shred of savvy in him he'll turn in his report the day after the election. Watch for a major liberal offensive in the coming weeks to goad him into quickly delivering it. Consumer confidence fell in August for the second month in a row, according to a New York research firm, The Conference Board. The University of Michigan's polls show it's fallen four consecutive months. For months and years on national TV Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, Jimbo Carville, Roy Romer, Susan Estrich and assorted other Clintonista flacks, propagandists, wind-up dolls and hangers-on have been telling us the reason people love Slick Willie so much is because the economy--Slick Willie's economy, they hasten to add--is doing so wonderfully that people recognize what a magnificent job Slick is doing and they don't want anything to rock the yacht, don't want to risk upsetting anything by facing reality. But now the stock market's tanking, nervousness and sagging confidence stalk the land. Does this mean that lying, whoring, and law-breaking by the President and Pervert-in-Chief will no longer be tolerated? Just wondering. (August 26, 1998) Sick's Secret Admirers What a struggle it is, trying to understand why so many people heartily approve of Sick Willie. It's much more complicated than this, but here, I submit, are some pieces of the puzzle. Americans love a rogue, a con man. It's in the American character and psyche to love a guy who outsmarts the authorities, who thumbs his nose at convention, who gets away with breaking the rules. And millions of American men secretly cheer--and deeply envy--a guy who can get hummers in the workplace--or anyplace else, for that matter--and poon by the boxcarload. What is it that Sick and his close personal friend and fixer,Vernon Jordan, talk about on the golf course? "Pussy," that's what! That combination of cunning rogue and charming cocksman is the dream of millions and millions of American men. Sick's living that dream for many of us: scoring at will and invulnerable, too! It doesn't get any better than that for a big portion of the American male population. Last night on CNN's Larry King Live one of the Republican guests referred to GOP concern that Slick and the Dems are hatching a plan to shut down the government this fall and blame it on the Republicans. Roy Romer, the wacko leftwing liberal extremist governor of Colorado and chairman of the Democratic National Committee, laughed out loud at this and called it "crazy talk." It isn't of course. It's realistic talk, something liberals aren't much acquainted with these days. As recently as the first week of August, Slick was setting the stage by vowing to veto any "bare bones" (Slick gets to decide what's bare-bones) budget the evil Republicans might submit to keep government funding at current levels while budget disputes are worked out. Romer was just alarmed that someone might be catching on. Slick pulled off this stunt in 1996 by vetoing a bill that would have kept the government operating, then spinning the issue so magnificently that the public blamed the GOP. The Republicans have never gotten over that trauma, and they're right to fear the same thing again. They're seriously outmatched in any battle of cunning and wits with Slick Willie. A repeat of their 1996 debacle over the government shutdown is a recurring GOP nightmare, as well it should be. One of Slick's defenders asked a critic the other night on a national TV talk show, "Well, just what is it you want the Clintons to do?" The critic had been hinting at something as preposterous as remorse and a genuine apology for the Most Recent Unpleasantness Afflicting the First Family. I've forgotten what the critic said, but here's my answer. I'd like to see either one of them pick any day of the week and spend five minutes in public unscripted, unrehearsed, unplanned, unprogrammed, unvarnished. No mood rings, no mantra, no polls, no days of preparation by their lawyers, handlers, propagandists, advisers, lackeys, and hangers-on. We hear entirely too much about the Clintonistas' endless agonizing over how to alter or manipulate their images to respond to this crisis or that one. You get the feeling they don't even get out of bed without reading the overnight polls and seeking professional advice about how to act today. Just five minutes as real people in real time. A three-judge panel ruled 3-0 in Wonderland, D.C., August 24 that Sick's Commerce Department may not use statistical sampling in the year 2000 Census. Thus ends--but just for the moment, for these folks ceaselessly, relentlessly probe for openings--another Clintonista attempted end-run on the law, which clearly specifies that an actual count be conducted. The Sick Administration knew that, but chose to claim it had the authority to use statistical sampling, anyway. And so we had the spectacle of one branch of government (the House of Representatives) suing to rein in another. The Commerce Department's intent was obvious: get more liberal Democratic constituents on board before the next reapportionment. An old Clintonista nemesis, Judge Royce Lamberth, (he's issued several rulings against Clintonista initiatives in the Plague Years since 1992) wrote the decision, which told the Clintonistas to read the law. Sick is threatening to veto any funding for the Commerce, State, and Justice departments if they include limits on statistical sampling, according to an August 26 editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Sick and those like him are one reason why eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We Know One Thing: Founding Fathers Never Imagined A Sick Willie It may be only a decoy, but wacko leftwing liberal extremist columnist Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal seems to be having his doubts about Sick Willie. Writing in the August 26 edition, Hunt recounts his reactions to Sick's "limited hangout" non-apology of August 17, first with an anecdote and his own comment. According to Hunt, when the Lewinsky Unpleasantness first broke into print in January, one of Sick's first reactions was to call serial toe-sucker and former in-house adviser Dick Morris to ask what he (Sick) should do. Morris, according to his own account, took a poll and told Sick the public wouldn't accept the truth. (Sounds suspiciously like the public I know). Then Hunt ruminates: "Think about this. In a time of moral crisis, the president of the United States calls a moral leper who once while with a hooker let her eavesdrop on conversations with the Oval Office and (who) months earlier had suggested Hillary Clinton was a lesbian. . ." Hunt later offers these conclusions: "The best solution probably is resignation." Clinton's behavior. . ."is so objectionable that doing nothing is (unacceptable)". . . "President Clinton's behavior deserves more than mere disapprobation. He genuinely has brought shame on his office". . ."his presidency is going to be diminished and discredited in any event." Hunt has this advice for those who complain about public opinion and political calculations becoming important factors in this matter: ". . .they should lodge their complaints with the founding fathers, who never envisioned the impeachment of a president would be orchestrated by an unaccountable special prosecutor." Well, yes, indeed. . .and I would add that the founding fathers never envisioned a president like Sick Willie inhabiting and defiling the office, either. (August 29, 1998) Starr's Still The Antichrist For Zuckerman Mort Zuckerman, the objective, unbiased editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, told a C-Span audience last night that independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr "is one of the most pernicious influences in our country's history." Zuckerman said "the public has already made up its mind" about what it considers important in a president, and added he was "very uncomfortable" with the way the Lewinsky Unpleasantness burst into the news in January. Zuckerman's anti-Starr remarks were interrupted several times by audience applause. The editor said all this sex stuff shouldn't be the public's business. Then, in a comment that startled me but apparently not a soul in the audience and certainly not the program's deferential moderator, a New York radio talk show host, Zuckerman said he thought public figures were entitled to "a certain amount of indiscretion" regarding sex. There was no follow-up or clarification, but that sure sounded like old Mort was saying if you're big and powerful and important and a celebrity then you get a free pass from him in the infidelity and sex department. This is certainly a thoroughly modern sentiment, in any event. Zuckerman said he believed "Ken Starr has a political agenda." I wonder if Zuckerman would admit to having one. The Indianapolis Star's editorial writers expressed puzzlement this morning in an editorial about polls and public opinion. The Star noted that 70 to 80 percent of the public is said by the pollsters to admire, embrace and support--if not actually worship--Sick Willie, but that in the last two weeks 90 percent of the letters it had received from the public were anti-Clinton. Something just didn't make sense here, and the editorial couldn't provide an answer A Film Clip The Big Slipstream Media Guys 'n' Gals Didn't Show Us From the front page of the August 28 Wall Street Journal this precious nugget. . ."At Clinton's visit yesterday to Worcester, Mass., employees of Dooley's Cleaners held up a sign reading: 'Welcome President Clinton. Monica should have had her dress cleaned here.' " Hey, We All Need Sedatives Now And Then Broadcaster Keith Olberman suggested on his MSNBC show September 3 that the level of political nastiness in our country may have sunk to the McCarthy era or Civil War times. His guest, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, tried to calm Keith down by softly remarking that the current level wasn't very good, but it was not as low as either of Keith's offerings. There, there, Keith, there, there. Clintonistas will want to make much of Congressman Dan Burton's admission that he fathered a son in an extramarital affair in the early 1980s. Unfortunately for them, it won't fly. Both men had affairs outside of marriage. There the comparison ends. When confronted with the story, Slick lied and Burton didn't. And buried in the Slickiana of yesteryear is the report that many years ago in Arkansas Slick himself fathered a child not his wife's, one of many bimbo eruptions he and his acolytes have kept the lid on. I wonder if the big slipstream media will be interested in resurrecting any of this now that Burton's story has burst into the headlines. (September 4, 1998) As the Unpleasantness continues to unfold in coming months, always remember: this is not a quest for truth; it is a quest for hiding the truth. One of many puzzlements about the Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Sick Willie is the reactions of all who've been betrayed and sent forth to lie on his behalf. To a man and to a woman they repeat their own mantra, insisting to eager reporters that they feel absolutely no sense of personal betrayal but feel only sadness for the man they serve. This level of denial is confounding to ordinary people, and only deepens the mystery of why not a single one of them has stood up and resigned. Is there not a single principled person among this whole sorry lot? The only explanation I can think of is--Sick must have pictures. (September 4, 1998) Lanny Battered, But Unbowed Sick's most ardent defender, Lanny Davis, is almost a five-nights-a-week regular on MSNBC's evening talk shows. Last night Lanny looked battered and worn out, but he still doggedly offered the Clintonista mantra. . .40 million dollars. . .four years. . .nothing but sex. Recently they've added a chorus: this (the Unpleasantness) is "all out of proportion." You get the feeling, though, that Davis's strength is weakening under the relentless battering of facts and truth. For my part, Starr's $40 million tab is the best investment the federal government's made in living memory. Silencing Panetta Occasionally TV brings us moments of piercing insight. Some months ago on Meet The Press, Pat Buchanan, David Broder, Mary McGrory, Leon Panetta and William Bennett were chatting, and a brief exchange between Bennett and Panetta provided one of those moments. Panetta was vigorously defending Slick Willie's character and morals and deflecting any suggestions that the Most Recent Unpleasantness was or should be of the slightest concern to most citizens. Bennett finally interrupted Panetta and asked him point-blank: If the President lied under oath would that be crossing the line, would that be a failure of moral character? Panetta paused, and paused, and then refused to answer. Finally he said we should wait until the facts are in. That Panetta could not bring himself to make even a moral judgment about a matter as simple as lying under oath was, I thought, a real clue about the Clintons and the people serving their administration. I recently provoked a conversation with a group of co-workers at Universal Export on the Lewinsky Unpleasantness. I was curious to learn what regular, everyday folks thought. All but one person in the group of eight of us had a college degree. Most were CPA's, several with master's degrees in business. I asked a few questions to get things going. No one in the group knew what Filegate referred to. A female co-worker, about 40 years old, said she thought the reason women so strongly supported Sick was that the women he degraded and seduced were generally "trailer park trash." She used the same logic to explain why feminists savaged Clarence Thomas but are silent about Sick Willie. Feminists believed Anita Hill's never-proven allegations, she said, because Hill was "an educated woman." While agreeing they wouldn't feel comfortable leaving their own daughters alone with Sick, they declined to be critical of his behavior. The one person without a college education offered this comment, however: "He ain't got no morals. He's worse than an alley cat." There was approximately a 6-2 margin in the group who felt this whole thing was much ado about nothing, about equal to what the national polls show. What a coincidence! Just as I was sitting down to draft a letter to Slick's lawyer, David Kendall, on behalf of my boss, Kenneth Starr, about the White House request to see Starr's report in advance, I heard on the news that Starr had already written his own. Starr said about what I would have; namely, no thanks, if you want a copy of the report, please contact the U.S. House of Representatives. Starr resisted pointing out how preposterous it was that the Clintonistas, after trashing and demonizing Starr for four years and denying there was anything damaging in the report, now want the favor of having a week to privately review it to prepare their rebuttal. (September 8, 1998) Sick Willie's aides and handlers are quoted saying that Clinton's "strategy is ever-evolving." A comedian guest on the Bob & Tom Show on WFBQ-FM radio offered this imitation of Johnny Cochran counseling Sick Willie on the Monica Lewinsky Unpleasantness, "If it's your mess on the dress, then you must confess." The Internet sites offering the Starr Report were logging over 300,000 hits per minute Friday afternoon (Sept. 11) after the report was set free. I doubt if this is the sort of "Information Superhighway" Al Gore and Sick Willie hoped for. "Any President that lies to the American people should resign." --Bill Clinton, in a 1974 political debate. Lefties are still screaming about Paula Jones being assisted by a "right-wing conservative think tank" (the Rutherford Institute). But why is it O.K. for Sick Willie to have a legal defense fund supported by wacko Religious Left extremists, but not O.K. for Paula Jones to get help from conservatives? Just wondering. David Talbot, editor of the notorious Internet magazine, Salon, gave MSNBC viewers a rare peek inside the game the evening of September 16 during his appearance on a talk show hosted by Brian Williams. This was in connection with Salon's exposé of an extramarital affair some 30 years ago involving the antichrist Henry Hyde, Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee coincidentally looking into Certain Unpleasantnesses Said to Involve A Great and Decent Man, The President Known As Sick Willie. Williams asked Talbot, "If tomorrow morning you get a story about a Democratic congressman who had an afffair 30 years ago, are you going to print it?" There was a brief pause, then Talbot said, "No." Williams asked about the seeming inconsistency of this. Talbot's reply was that Salon would expose such matters only on "anyone who was attacking the President," and that anyone else's extramarital affair would get a free pass from the magazine. This was bracing and refreshing. Let's praise David Talbot: at least he is honest about his agenda. A day later, the Chicago Tribune's Wonderland Bureau Chief, James Warren, wrote that "Salon. . .has been portrayed in Washington as aggressively pro-Clinton. Most of its pieces have been sympathetic to the president during the Monica Lewinsky controversy and harsh on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. But Salon called for Clinton's resignation when the Lewinsky story broke, and Talbot has called the president's behavior 'irresponsible, arrogant, and reckless.' " The Indianapolis Star in its September 17 edition reported the results of a poll of Indiana citizens and over 50 percent favor impeachment for Sick Willie. Americans protesting all that salacious material in the Starr report probably don't realize that what they're actually saying is that Sick Willie's life is pornographic. Slick now joins Pee Wee Herman, Marv Albert, Hugh Grant, Jimmy Swaggart and Dick Morris in America's fabled pantheon of dirtbags. California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein said tonight on television that she'd had over 16,500 phone calls, faxes, and e-mails since last Friday about the Most Recent Sick Willie Unpleasantness, and those calls were "overwhelmingly" in favor of "something being done" (about Sick), meaning impeachment or censure. Hers is another poll that Dan, Peter, Tom, Larry, and the rest of the big talking heads won't be over-emphasizing. Instead, we'll hear the steady drumbeat of polls that show two-thirds of Americans love their president and want us to leave him alone. A modest proposal: we need federal legislation requiring that all poll results published anywhere be accompanied by the complete text of the questions and the complete demographics on those polled. On Second Thought, Maybe Waiting For The Facts Was A Crappy Idea Has anyone noticed that Lanny Davis, Sick Willie's ardent acolyte and most loyal defender, who since January has been sternly lecturing Americans to wait for the facts to come out, has disappeared from primetime television now that the facts have come out? (September 17, 1998) And Ken Starr's Daddy Was A Conspirator, Too Lanny Davis returned to primetime denial duty September 18 on Larry King Live. It was "Liberal Night" for King, who dragged out Davis, David Gergen, Leon Panetta and Mandy (Full Beast) Grunwald to deflect, spin, and defend against the avalanche of--dare we say it, Lanny?--facts. Davis was somewhat subdued, and when King uncharacteristically offered a challenging follow-up question to a Davis assertion of unfairness by pointing out that Davis and the rest of Sick's dirt-diggers spent months demonizing and trashing Starr on national television, Davis conceded there "might have been some excesses on our part." Davis then hastened to add that this--the Starr report and all that salacious material about Sick Willie--was somehow different. "We're talking about impeachment now," Davis bleated. King even allowed a caller to challenge the liberal view by noting that the lefties spent seven months blaming Starr, and have switched now to blaming the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee--isn't it possible, the caller proposed, that the blame ought to fall on. . . .Sick Willie? None of the panelists seemed very happy. Grunwald urged the Committee to listen to the American people who she knew don't want any impeachment, don't want any more damaging facts about Clinton released, don't want to hear any more about anything negative about their president, and do want to get this thing behind us and let Sick Willie get back to work. Panetta said, "Congress is in for a lot of turmoil, but I believe the American people have the strength to endure it." Gergen said he thought the process would be "pretty wretched" but that the country would survive. Later, on an MSNBC show hosted by John Hockenberry, Davis offered an elaborate theory of how Kenneth Starr set a "perjury trap" for Sick Willie, a "set-up Mr. Clinton had no defense for." (Well, none other than telling the truth, which was and remains beyond Sick's capabilities.) Another guest, Tony Blankley of George magazine and a former Newt Gingrich press secretary, noted that the ancient Greeks believed that a man's character is his destiny. "Clinton," he said, "has been lying all his life and it was almost inevitable" that we end up here (with the president in trouble because of lying). Host Hockenberry repeatedly stated his belief that "this is a real crisis." and that releasing the Sick Willie grand jury testimony on videotape would help the president because it would enable the American people to see the President "being questioned by"--he fairly spat out the words--"these prosecutors." Interspersed were film clips of Democrat members of the Judiciary Commitee screaming about unfairness and partisanship. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas accused the Republicans of "obliterating the Constitution." Wacko Religious Left extremist Maxine Waters exercised her highly selective memory and called it "the most partisan procedure I've ever been involved with." Barney Frank said the Republicans had "transformed the commitee into a conveyor belt" for spreading filth and--that Word of The Week again--salacious material about their president. Later Davis suggested that Starr's father, rumored to have been a minister, by raising young Kenneth in a religious home environment may have predisposed him to be eager to pursue Sick Willie. And such was the measure of the Clintonistas' desperation and denial as the curtain came down last night on America's Psychobabble Network. That's Our Willie! Delivery trucks for one of New York City's upscale drycleaning establishments--Meurice, garment-care counselors to the stars, acccording to the Wall Street Journal--are whizzing about Gotham bearing brand new signs: "Yes, Mr. President, of course we can get that stain out." All The Rules Bent For Sick Sick's apologists are howling that it's unfair to release videotapes of Sick's August 17 lying under oath because Sick was the only witness videotaped. It's an outrage, they say, that the antichrists are releasing testimony in violation of centuries-old rules that have kept such testimony secret. Sick's lawyers asked that the videotape be destroyed, but Starr smiled sweetly and told them he is bound by the law and cannot destroy evidence. The Clintonistas say it's nothing more than an attempt to humiliate and destroy Clinton. But wait, wait, wait! Sick asked for and got many time-honored grand jury rules broken on his behalf. Sick was the only witness allowed to have his lawyers present when he testified. No other grand jury witness in history has had this privilege. Ordinary citizens go into the grand jury room alone. Sick asked to be allowed to testify from the White House instead of in person, as every other grand jury witness is required to do. Slick was allowed to refuse to answer whatever questions he chose. He asked for and was given a time limit of four hours for questioning. He was allowed to refuse to answer questions without invoking the Fifth Amendment, an option never open to Felix Lunchpail. Sick is also asking to be allowed to lie under oath and not be held accountable for it. He claims that only he can decide what certain words mean--complex terms like "is" and "alone," for example. Why is it OK to break the rules for Sick Willie's convenience, but an outrage to violate them when it doesn't? All things considered, releasing the videotape seems fair enough to me. Of course, I have a reprehensible human being to gore here, and I want to be legally accurate about that. In the context of rising demands that Congress obey the will of the American people as expressed in polls rolling off the presses every minute and leave their beloved rogue president alone, somebody needs to say this and I will: The informed opinion of the majority of the great unwashed American people is limited to approximately what flavor and texture of condom they'll wear to their next black-tie bowling league banquet. One of the most preposterous notions in human history is that the opinion of every halfwit buffoon in society has merit. I feel more comfortable with a Congress that believes its overriding obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to the shrill screaming of Joe Lunchpail and the mobocracy. It goes without saying that such a Congress could put my opinion in the Joe Lunchpail crowd whenever appropriate. The same people who scream about Congress ignoring the will of the people by continuing efforts to bring Sick Willie to justice don't utter a peep of protest when Congress and legislatures across the nation ignore the will of the people who vote repeatedly for term limits but can't seem to get them. Sorry for peeking. Russert Outmatched In Duel With Android NBC's Meet The Press was a downright amazing human experience this morning. Tim Russert hosted. His guests included John Podesta, the latest chief damage control officer for the Sick Administration; Democratic Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts; Missouri Republican Senator John Ashcroft, and four members of the House Judiciary Committee--Republicans Bob Barr (Georgia) and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Democrats Barney Frank (Massachusetts) and Robert Wexler (Florida). The latter six provided occasional nuggets of rational thought. Podesta was an astonishing study in the brave new world of spin whose insidiousness few Americans yet fully understand. (There may be a clue in a comment in New Yorker magazine in early February which said Podesta is so adept at cleaning up Sick's scandals that he is known around the White House as the "Secretary of Shit.") As nearly as I can comprehend it, Podesta's universe is one in which black is white, right is wrong, day is night, down is up, red is green and what you see and hear is not reality. A world, in short, where words have no meaning beyond their definition at only that precise moment by their utterer, and where that moment's definition may be replaced at any moment by another moment's. I'm normally highly critical of journalists for their indifference, their bias, their lack of interest in getting at the truth. Today I give Tim Russert credit: he did about as good a job as any journalist could have done in the pursuit of truth. He asked tough, pertinent questions in clear, unambiguous terms. He asked follow-up questions. He buttressed his questions with facts and with numerous quotations from a wide range of sources. He was civil and self-controlled throughout. All this meant nothing in the face of John Podesta. Podesta responded to every single question and to every nuance and follow-up with mantra, deflection, and spin. Russert cited a Newsweek poll showing 46 percent of those polled believe Sick Willie should consider resignation. Russert asked Podesta what he thought of that poll. Podesta non-answered that "most polls show two of three Americans want him to stay in office. The public stands by the President." Russert flashed on the screen a quotation from a Democrat urging that Clinton and his defenders stop the "legal jousting" and the hair-splitting of language and tell the truth. What did Podesta think about that? The androidal Podesta replied by accusing Russert and the media of "legal jousting." Russert asked Podesta a direct question: did he believe the President lied under oath? Podesta did not answer the question directly. Instead he repeated the mantra, using terms like "misled" and "inappropriate." Russert asked Podesta if White House aide Sidney Blumenthal had ever been in any way involved in spreading negative information about Henry Hyde, the Republican head of the House Judiciary Committee. Podesta did not answer. Instead he said that "Mr.Blumental has denied that." Russert rephrased the question about Blumenthal. Podesta evaded a direct answer. Russert put upon the screen a lengthy quote from a man he described as a "well-known liberal activist" who wrote in a March issue of a liberal publication, The Nation, of being told by more than one source in the White House and elsewhere that Blumenthal has described a scheme to "out" White House enemies by leaking negative information about their pasts. This included the well-circulated quote that these enemies, if they know that "their arms are going to be broken" (metaphorically, by the revelation of unpleasant information from their pasts) they will be less likely to raise them to vote for impeachment proceedings against (Sick Willie). Russert asked Podesta how he would square that quotation with his previous denials that Blumenthal could have been involved in any way. Podesta replied that "I have not heard that story (from The Nation) but we'll look into it." Russert quoted from the Starr report to phrase another question. Podesta did not answer but instead told Russert that he had misused the word "information." What is in the Starr report, Podesta said, was not information, but allegations. Russert returned to the Starr Report to phrase another question. Podesta then asked that Russert not ask him any more questions based on the Starr report, because it was nothing but biased, one-sided allegations from (I paraphrase here) a special prosecutor with a vendetta against the President. Podesta said that "we should wait until all the facts are in." It was about here that Podesta offered the bizarre contention that no thoughtful person could believe that the White House would ever attack its enemies or spread damaging information about an enemy's private life. "We've been the victims of this," he said, "why would we go out and indulge in it?" Apparently Podesta has a mistaken, misleading, or inappropriate memory and is unaware that James Carville and other White House dirt-diggers have been on national television proudly vowing these very tactics and more would be used against their enemies. Russert asked Podesta if he thought the President would accept censure. Podesta said that Clinton "censured himself before the American people. He has already accepted censure." Kerry and Ashcroft proved to be more rational encounters for Russert, though Kerry in particular flashed the lawyerly carefulness and cleverness which characterizes so much of what's coming out of Wonderland, D.C., these days. Kerry referred to the present state of the House inquiry as a "water torture" and suggested that Sick could expedite the process by going before the Committee under oath to resolve all its questions. Ashcroft, who has unequivocally called the president's resignation, seemed to support this notion. Both agreed, in seeming echo to Slick's Willie's famous press conference comment in January, that the process should be resolved "sooner rather than later." Russert asked Kerry if he believed Sick had the moral authority to lead the country. Kerry did not directly answer, and made the claim so many defenders do: that there's a distinction somehow to be made for the president between "private" behavior and public behavior, and that certain kinds of lies under oath are more serious than other kinds. Ashcroft claimed that "the duration of (Clinton's) legacy is inversely related to the length of his presidency" and added he believed Clinton would eventually resign. Kerry said that the about-to-be-released videotape of Slick's testimony is "not the full version" of the case for the president, because "he was still wrestling" with many things on the day he testified. Later, Wexler said that "I think the President has clearly not told the truth under oath." Wexler quickly added that this particular lying under oath was not an impeachable offense. Clouseaulike Enemies Easy Pickin's For Sick I watched a good bit of Sick Willie's videotaped testimony. It was obvious he's not a man questing after the truth. His legalisms and hair-splitting invite ridicule (He told the grand jury that the answer to several questions depended on what the meaning of the word 'is' is, and what the word 'alone' means). The prosecutors allowed Sick to refuse to answer some questions, to inject partisan attacks on his "enemies" into several answers, and to drag out the proceedings even though time was crucial since all had agreed on a four-hour time limit requested by the President. Slick kept his composure, though some answers bordered on edgy and agitated. All in all, a performance that can only help the White House spinners. No smoking gun emerged. Mystery of mysteries: no questions about anything but the Lewinsky Unpleasantness. Does anyone else find it even slightly odd that the White House barely resisted the release of this testimony--particularly in light of its ferocious resistance to other Starr procedures? It's not implausible that the White House wanted the tapes released and used its spin team to lure the antichrists into releasing them. Clinton is again blessed with Clouseaulike enemies, first-rate bumblers who are profoundly inept and stupid politically, and thus are easy pickings for Sick Willie's team of assassins, dirt-diggers and spinners. Though I have no doubt Sick Willie has lied under oath, tampered with witnesses, and obstructed justice, I see no way any of it can be proven to a standard sufficiently high to support a successful impeachment. It is abundantly clear that Sick is far, far too clever for his pursuers. His poll support will reach tidal wave proportions and swamp any politician who tries to bring down this rogue president and national idol. Congressmen can read polls, and ultimately only a crazy one will defy the national will by trying to do something as silly as honor his duty to the Constitution. Slick said at a recent press conference that the best thing would be for our nation "not to get caught up in the details" of This Most Recent Unpleasantness. Who can blame him for hoping to divert our attention? For it is in the details that cunning, devious men do their insidious work. The details are where the devil is, as old Ross Perot tried to tell us a few years back. So very long ago, when the Paula Jones lawsuit was just leaving the station, Sick and his handlers tried to derail it in a 1996 Supreme Court filing which claimed Sick was "on active duty" in the military by virtue of his position as commander-in-chief, and that he was therefore immune from Jones's suit or any other because the 1940 Soldiers and Sailors Act protected military personnel from civil lawsuits while on active duty. The Court denied this silly assertion. What a contrast to today, when the Clintonistas wouldn't dream of such a preposterous claim, for it would mean Sick would be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and would be summarily drummed out of office for disgracing the military as well as his country. Far better to be a civilian now, where tolerance for depravity and sleaze is infinite. Mike McCurry, Sick's press secretary and one of his paid professional liars, says a "grievous wrong" was done to Sick Willie by the Starr team which, according to White House lawyers, refused to include in the Starr report a quote from Monica Lewinsky which was favorable to the President's contention that he never asked anyone to lie about This Most Recent Unpleasantness. These attacks on Starr were prominently featured in the daytime and evening news broadcasts September 22. Around 2 p.m., when I heard it first, a CNN broadcaster added this comment after reading the White House charges: "However, that statement (from Lewinsky) actually was in the report." I watched several hours of MSNBC's evening coverage to see how they'd handle it. During the 9 o'clock hour hosted by John Hockenberry, the episode arose and Hockenberry dutifully mentioned Starr's counterclaim that the Lewinsky quotation was referenced not once but twice in the Starr report. In the 10 o'clock hour, host Keith Olberman did not mention Starr's claim when the story was covered. Wednesday morning's Indianapolis Star carried a bold front-page headline, "Clinton Team Blasts Starr Report Omission." The story, written by Roger Simon of the Chicago Tribune and reprinted by the Star, never mentioned Starr's counterclaim in approximately 20 inches of copy which jumped to a second page. The Chicago Tribune, in a Sept. 27 editorial blasting Starr, accused him of omitting the Lewinsky remark. Which is it? Although based on limited observations, I feel it safe to venture that the media did a terrible job of conscientiously reporting this "story." Numerous questions begged to be answered but were not. How could Sick Willie's lawyers make such a claim if in fact the Lewinsky quote is indeed in the report? Didn't they bother to read it? How could the media not easily verify the White House lawyers' claim? Every media outlet of any significance has a full copy of the Starr Report. It would have been childishly simple for a reporter to read it to see if the claim was true. And how any media organizations could broadcast the White House claim and omit the Starr reply to it is beyond me. Only two answers present themselves: either the media who did this are indifferent and incompetent, or they did it willfully, which is worse. Neither is a confidence-builder. A Deal For Sick Willie An item circulating on the Internet this week notes this possible "deal" for Sick Willie: that he be required to give his remaining State of the Union addresses wearing the famous blue cocktail dress. I could go for that. It was briefly mentioned on MSNBC Friday night (Sept. 25th) that it's now come out that in negotiations with Starr's prosecutors, Sick Willie's lawyer, David Kendall, requested that Sick's testimony before the grand jury be limited to questions about the Monica Lewinsky Unpleasantness. Starr agreed. Yet since the report came out, Clintonistas have been cackling and screeching that the Report and the videotaped grand jury testimony concerned "nothing but sex and Lewinsky" and that proved Starr doesn't have anything to report on the Other Unpleasantnesses Still Lurking in the Background, such as Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Fostergate, and so on. I thought this--the disclosure that Sick's lawyers negotiated this limitation to the questioning--quite a noteworthy piece of information. And stunning, too--for what prosecutor in his right mind would agree to such a limitation? Why, indeed, would Starr? I added this to my list of stories to follow in coming weeks, just to see how the media covered it. The Indianapolis Star of Saturday the 26th never mentioned it. Hitchens Unloads On Sick Christopher Hitchens, the British journalist who writes currently for Vanity Fair, greatly surprised me Sept. 25 with his observations on the Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Sick Willie. Hitchens is generally regarded as a liberal, but he aggressively trashed Sick Willie in a guest spot on an MSNBC talk show hosted by Keith Olberman. Hitchens called Sick's actions "shabby" and said he "tells lies even when he doesn't have to tell them." Asked for his opinion about the videotape of Clinton's grand jury testimony, Hitchens said, "The prosecutors were easy on him, and many of their questions were stupid." Hitchens said he believes Clinton has fooled many of his "sexually liberal" friends and that Sick "has a nasty concept of sex." He called Sick's reliance on hair-splitting legal distinctions "preposterous." The British journalist said he was mystified by poll results. "Either the reporters or the polls are doing something wrong," he said, adding that most Americans seem to feel that the Oral Office is Clinton's private property not the American people's public space. He called America's growing obsession with polls alarming and a "dangerous threat to democracy." (September 25, 1998) Word's seeping out now that Sick's attorneys are huddling with Paula Jones's trying to negotiate a settlement which would head off a scheduled hearing in October on Jones's appeal to have her suit reinstated now that it's known that Sick lied in his testimony in that legal proceeding. Will Paula tell Sick's attorneys to call her back in the year 29,005 A.D., as I would? Or will she go for the easy green? This brings to mind Guy Grand's famous ditty in the novel, The Magic Christian: "Grand's the name. Easy green's the game. Care to play along?" (Everyone did, eventually, as Grand kept riffling those sheaves of crisp, new thousands up next to their ears--one of the world's most compelling sounds!--upping the price, upping the price till he got it right.) I've got a feeling the old convincer will carry the day. William "Book of Virtues" Bennett put in some time on the Larry King Live show last week and Larry asked him point-blank about his brother, Robert Bennett, who long ago and far away was Sick Willie's lead attorney but disappeared and was replaced by the likes of David Kendall. Bob Bennett, you may recall, was the fella who stepped forward angrily last winter and told reporters and America that by god, there was absolutely no sex of any kind, anyplace, anywhere involving his client, Sick Willie, and anyone, ever! None! None! None! Later, word leaked that, well, there might have been a little nooky, a little bit more than none. Then new attorneys came aboard and the public's heard nothing from Robert Bennett since. Brother William's reply to Larry was cryptic, but it seemed to those adept at interpreting code that he was telling us his brother left Sick's employ because, well, he'd been lied to by his client, or had begged off any more public defenses and been replaced by another attorney more willing to. If this is true, put Robert Bennett on the exceedingly short list of people in Wonderland, D.C., who have actually demonstrated integrity and acted upon it in this Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Sick Willie. Of course we should wait till all the facts are in before passing judgment. Just Wondering Department: If all this has to do with nothing but Sick Willie's private life, why are taxpayer (public) dollars being used to pay for his lawyers? Even Sick's handlers are image-conscious. Paul Begala has shaved off that scruffy, wispy beard of his and now sports a youthful, clean look for his televison appearances defending his boss. Part of the mantra is that Sick's enemies are releasing all this information for the sole purpose of embarrassing and humiliating the President. Well, Sick is an embarrassment to the nation. Why shouldn't we be trying to embarrass him? Gotta love Senator Ashcroft. He was on Larry King Live with Bob Woodward of the Washington Post last week and when the latter said it would be so much easier if the Most Recent Unpleasantness was about some great issue like national security instead of. . .Ashcroft piped up and said with a twinkle, "Maybe it isn't about sex, since the President has said he didn't have any." Mantra Trumps Facts Religious Left wacko extremist Colorado Governor Roy Romer repeated the bleeder mantra that Starr did not include in his report the Monica Lewinsky quote which supports Sick Willie, even though the program on which Romer was a guest--an MSNBC talk show hosted by John Hockenberry Sept. 22--had just reported that the quote was in the report twice. Geraldine Ferraro, the former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, lost her bid for a U.S. Senate seat in the New York primary election this month, then told reporters her political career is over. Good! And good riddance! That's one less tired, liberal fraud to pester the nation. Another of Sick Willie's paid professional liars, attorney Bruce Lindsey, told eager reporters Sunday in San Antonio that the efforts by Sick's legal team to negotiate a settlement of the Paula Jones Unpleasantness in absolutely no way imply any admission of guilt by Sick. Of course not. And an Instant Poll showed over 80 percent of Americans strongly support Lindsey and Sick on this matter. (September 28, 1998) Polls We Won't Be Hearing About From Dr. James Carville The Pew Research Center asked Americans in late August what one word best described Sick Willie. Topping the list at 42 percent was "liar." Another 18 percent chose "dishonest" and another 12 percent, apparently put off by such bold choices, said "untrustworthy." The High Cost Of Kool-Aid Somebody at MSNBC has calculated what it's cost Sick Willie's loyal acolytes and supporters in legal fees as, one after another, they've been hauled before this grand jury or that investigating Certain Unpleasantnesses Involving The President, and all with convenient amnesia or remarkably refreshed memories, depending on the needs of the moment. The network put up a graphic the other night showing that Sick's favorite secretary, Betty Currie, has run up over $100,000 in attorney fees and the rest of them have incurred fees of over $23 million over the last four years. New Attack Dog Emerges Late summer brought forth a fresh angry, contorted face in the pack of wacko extremist leftwing liberal bleeder kooks infesting the night-time talk show circuit. . .Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee from Texas. She can demagogue with the best of 'em! Eager reporters asked Bob Dole what he thought of Perot's criticism of Slick Willie and Dole said, "Ross Perot says a lot of things that I think are beyond the pale. . .(he) deals in overstatement a lot, and it doesn't serve any real purpose." This from a Republican presidential candidate who himself served no real purpose, who refused to make character an issue in the 1996 campaign, who openly expressed a fondness for Slick Willie, and who was the most cowardly, inept, and incompetent candidate the Republican Party has fielded in decades. Why anyone but the Clintonistas would seek Bob Dole's opinion on anything completely escapes me. USA Today reported Sept. 28 that Sick Willie has a newly created legal defense fund which has raised $2.2 million in the last six months. Where are the angry cries of outrage? How come Charles Rangel, Ted Kennedy, John Conyers, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, Dick Gephardt, John Glenn and the rest of the wacko Religious Left aren't marching in the streets to protest? Where are the leftie kooks who vilify Paula Jones for having a legal defense fund? Sick's Elmer Elmer Gantry is the one film or literature character I can think of who best represents Sick Willie. Burt Lancaster, who played the role in the film of the same name, even resembles Sick, with those glittering eyes, the head turned just so, jaw jutting, those blinding white teeth, the hypnotic cadence of that sonorous, mesmerizing voice! Perfect! Ross Bulldozes Larry Aside Ross Perot spent an hour September 30 unloading on Sick Willie, and drove poor Larry King half crazy doing it. Perot was the only guest on Larry King Live and was his vintage self. King normally is a strict, controlling presence on his show. He butts in, interrupts, puts words in guests' mouths, steers conversations by subtly injecting his own beliefs and agenda. Rarely can a guest stand up to him. King met his match on this show. This time it was Perot who took over, who steered, who would not be dissuaded or deterred. King frequently found himself literally offscreen, a sputtering, disembodied voice when Perot adopted the amazing tactic of turning in his seat, away from Larry, to face another camera--not the one which usually includes both King and guest--to deliver a stern lecture to America on Sick Willie. Twice Perot held up cue cards showing his e-mail and mailing address and asked Americans to contact him to join a nationwide petition drive urging Sick to resign. Never one to mince words, Perot used terms like "despicable" and "disgusting" and "disgraceful" in describing Sick and his conduct. King grabbed desperately for his personal life raft--his own fervent belief that there are no moral absolutes, that each of us gets to decide what's right or wrong and moral or immoral, based on what's comfortable for each individual--by several times contending that these Unpleasantnesses simply can't be matters of black and white. Perot would have none of it, and scornfully told King that morality wasn't rocket science. King repeatedly tried to get Perot to reply to a question about his political plans. With a singleminded determination worthy of Paul Begala, Rahm Emanuel, John Podesta and the rest of that circuit-riding band of Clintonistas, the jaunty Texan ignored and deflected and turned again to rip Sick Willie. Perot is one of the few public figures in America who'll talk about this sordid episode in blunt language, and the public dialogue desperately needs more of it. Regardless of what we think of Perot, his presence in political debate puts great pressure on the mainstream politicians to address issues they'd otherwise mutually agree to bury. Perot's apparent return to the fray is bracing and encouraging--a wonderful development for ordinary people, a dangerous and terrible prospect for the powers-that-be. His running roughshod over Larry King Sept. 30 was truly a Kodak Moment. Coincidences Or Not, They End Up Dead We're beginning to see occasional public references now to the peculiarly large number of people who have encountered or been associated with Sick Willie over the years and then turned up dead under sometimes "unusual" circumstances. How long will it be before the big slipstream media decide this story is worth some digging? I'd like to see some multimillionaire member of the vast rightwing conspiracy step forward and whisper this in Paula Jones's ear: drop this talk of settling your lawsuit against Sick Willie. Press forward with your appeal. When the case is over, I'll personally fund whatever figure you'd sought from the Clintonistas, and double it for your inconvenience. In instance after instance of testimony released by Kenneth Starr and in Clintonista press conferences and statements, we encounter people being supremely careful and artful in their choice of words. They speak in a kind of special code, one which always later provides multiple interpretations. This code is the mark of clever, cunning, devious people, not the mark of anyone seeking the truth. Let's give the Clintonistas credit for taking this language play to a new level, to an art form. This is the way the world works, be it politics, government, business or almost any profession or human endeavor. That is why every syllable of every word uttered by these people must be carefully examined and analyzed. Few things are what they seem to be when we deal with such grifters and sociopaths. An MSNBC town-hall-styled program the evening of October 4 urged viewers to vote by e-mail or telephone on whether Sick should be impeached. At the end of the program, with over 19,400 "votes" recorded, 68 percent said there should be impeachment hearings, 31 percent said the matter should be dropped immediately. A young troublemaker in the audience somehow got the attention of the show's hostess, Jodie Somethingorother, and when given the microphone told the nation he was really curious about why the Arkansas Bar Association hadn't stepped forward to remove Sick's license to practice law, since it was known that Sick had lied under oath and that's one of the bar association's no-no's for member attorneys. Jody quickly injected her view that Sick would need that license to pay his bills after he left office. Chaka Fattah, identified as a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania, and also live in the studio, said that if Sick Willie were impeached the stock market would drop, the American economy would collapse and thousands of people would lose their jobs. At the end of the program, Jody led the audience in applauding itself. It seemed fairly certain that everyone went home feeling pretty good about himself. (October 4, 1998) Tucked away in the October 12 Wall Street Journal was an article noting that the House Ethics Committee has finally "quietly closed the books on its four-year investigation of House Speaker Newt Gingrich by again chastising him for rules violations" after last year fining him $300,000 for his transgressions. I kept an eagle eye out the rest of the week as I watched television. I checked with our offices all over this great nation. Not a peep has been heard from Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, Charlie Rangel, Rahm Emanuel, Geraldo Rivera, Barney Frank, The Rev. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, and the rest of the wacko extremist Religious Left crowd about the House spending four years and wasting billions and billions of dollars chasing Newtie. Strangest thing. (October 12, 1998) The Clintonistas are desperately working to get any impeachment proceedings limited strictly to the Lewinsky Unpleasantness, and why is transparent. They know if they can accomplish this, the Unpleasantness is over and they've won. "This is about nothing but sex" has been the mantra spun for months. Americans are resoundingly buying in: they love Sick and they don't want any troglodytic judmentalism spoiling the fun of hummers in the workplace. If the Republicans allow this restriction, they might as well mail it in. They can cancel the hearings and go home. It'll be over. (October 16, 1998) *Well, Not That* Big Vice President Al Gore was quoted at a recent Hollywood party telling grunge rock singer Courtney Love** that he was a "really big fan" of hers. Spin magazine said that Love then asked him to name one of her songs, and Gore could not. And You Don't Have To Take A Bath Afterward Former president George Bush was featured on the Arts & Entertainment Network's Biography series October 17 being interviewed by David Frost. It was a sad reminder of what it was like to have a decent, honorable man in the White House. Six-plus years of Sick Willie and the Clintonistas have numbed us to what it felt like not to want to take a bath after seeing the President. (October 17, 1998) Over $20.8 billion in the newly-passed federal budget had to be deemed "emergency spending" in order to evade budget caps in the law. Why is it that when conservatives propose a tax cut the lefties scream their heads off that it's "a raid on Social Security" but when billions of dollars of increased spending are approved it isn't a raid on Social Security? And why would Republicans go along with this sort of scam? Does dealing with Sick infect them, too? Who's Buying Them USA Today printed a short list in its October 26 issue of the top 10 "soft money" donors to the two major political parties. The roster included Philip Morris, Amway Corp., AT&T, American Financial Group, RJR Nabisco, Bell Atlantic, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Freddie Mac, Walt Disney Co., and Travelers Group. Philip Morris led the "donor" list with $1.7 million and Amway was next at $1.3 million. Receipts by party: Republicans bagged 79.4 per cent, or $6.8 million, to the Democrats' $1.8 million. The Chicago Tribune later published a story about labor union contributions that showed an even more lopsided margin for the Democrats. The top 10 unions gave over $13 million to politicians: Democrats got 93.7% of that, or $12.3 million. No real revelations here. It just tells us who's buying them. Escape Hatch Door Rapidly Closing Here's the best advice I can give to the Republican Party. Newtie should call all 228 House Republicans back to Wonderland, D.C. for an immediate urgent meeting. Behind closed doors he should secure unanimous support. Some nut-crunching may be required, but as Lyndon Johnson famously is said to have said, "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will soon follow." Eventually, all will sign on. Newtie should then dismiss the troops, step into a hallway press conference to announce. . .that as of this instant Republican House members are abandoning all matters associated with the Most Recent Sick Willie Unpleasantness, that no Republican henceforth will ever again discuss the Unpleasantness in any forum, public or private. . .that the House delegation is hereby transferring complete authority and responsibility for this matter to its Democratic colleagues, and that each Republican Representative hereby pledges to abstain (should they inadvertently be caught on the House floor when any vote on any aspect of the Unpleasantness is being taken) from voting and to be entirely absent from the House Chambers when any debate or vote thereon is conducted. If given at least two hours notice of such debate or votes, Newtie should add, House Republicans further pledge that they will leave the Washington area and remain in hiding for the duration of the debate and vote. "We have heard the American people speak," Newtie should say. "We have heard the mandate from Heaven. We have heard the American people's full-throated roar of pain, and we are responding to that mandate and that pain." He should turn to Democratic colleagues waiting in the wings and say to them, "He's your president, you decide what to do." Then Newtie, Dick Armey, and all the rest of the non-leadership should resign. Trent Lott over in the Senate, too. This strategy offers the Republicans their only hope of salvation. In one brilliant stroke it allows the party to get the hideous demon off its back, to be sanitized, deloused, purged of the hideous beast that is devouring them. It allows them to disarm the legion of talkshow guests and hosts, the pundits, critics, droolers and Clintonistas who have so effectively and so savagely scourged the Republican Party. It allows the GOP to atone, to emerge from its self-inflicted Hell into the sunlight of. . . getting back to the really important business of the American people. And it saddles the Democrats for eternity (and whatever verdict history may ultimately render) with complete responsibility for one of their own. The Republicans are politicians, after all. They can read polls-- at least now that the elections are over, they can. They can see the election results. How can they not respond to the titanic majorities of fellow citizens crying out for an end to this? (November 4, 1998) OK, I'll confess. I voted for half a dozen Libertarian Party candidates Tuesday. I voted "No" on both referendum questions (on changing the state constitution) and "No" on retaining all judges. Vengeance Within Reach For Democrats The most entertaining spectacle in the coming months will be to watch the Republicans desperately trying to chuck the Sick Willie Impeachment Unpleasantness. However they do it, they've gotta do it. The next two years are going to be worse for the Republicans than Dante's lower circles of Hell, anyway. Shell-shocked, dispirited, leaderless, rudderless, without vision, courage or will, the Republicans will not be able to pass a single piece of important legislation. Sick can (and most assuredly will--for as Dr. James Carville of the Deliverance Institute has said, this is indeed war--and well it should be) veto anything the Republicans do pass, and do so with impunity. Any issue important to the Republicans has already been appropriated by Slick and made his own. The best Republicans can hope for is a stalemate, but to get even that they'll have to keep traitors in their own midst to an absolute minimum. Vengeance is a sorely underrated experience, and now the Dems are going to get some. All hail the Dems! Nothing will come of the hubbub about illegal fund-raising by the Democrats. Why? Because the Republicans don't want their fund-raising practices made public as they inevitably would be in any investigation of the Democrats. Both parties are in this together and ultimately they'll join forces to prevent any public airing of the truth about the extent to which money controls and pollutes both parties. Henry Hyde has sent a list of 81 questions to Sick Willie. The questions concern The Most Recent Unpleasantness. Hyde wants Sick to admit or deny each statement. If Sick has any courage he'll go on national television and rip the list to shreds and dare Hyde to do anything about it. Sick could easily get away with this. The American people are solidly in his camp and will support him all the way. Hyde knows it, too. The list-sending is merely legal and political maneuvering, a game both sides are playing. The Wall Street Journal's liberal columnist, Al Hunt, offered these interesting post-election statistics in his Nov. 12 column: In the Senate 90 percent of incumbents (26 of 29) were re-elected; in the House 98 percent (395 of 401) of incumbents won re-election; political action committees (PACs) gave eight times as much money to incumbents as to challengers; and--guess what!--candidates who spent the most money won 95 percent of all races. Hunt said, "This election is a reminder why. . .the 106th Congress (should) make an overhaul of the sordid system of campaign finance a top priority." (November 12, 1998) Hey! Some Good News at The End of A Dark Brown Week The antichrist, Ken Starr, has sent the House Judiciary Committee a couple more boxes of evidence--a little "Friday Surprise" for the Clintonistas--gathered in the Sick Willie Willey Unpleasantnesses Inquiry, and dropped a 15-count indictment on the head of longtime Clinton crony Webster Hubbell. "The Big Grouper" immediately appeared at a press conference to deny everything and accuse Starr of a jihad against all good and decent human beings. I plowed through the Indianapolis Star's account eagerly searching for the mantra and found it in the tenth paragraph where the Grouper proved again that no matter how many of these blubbering, weepy performances he gives he still can't get it right. Hubbell repeated his charge that Starr is trying to destroy him because he, Hubbell, won't provide incriminating evidence against the Slicks. ". . . nothing the independent counsel can do to me is going to make me lie about them," Hubbell vowed. Grouper's got it exactly reversed: Starr's trying to get him to tell the truth, not lie. And although Clintonistas and Hubbellites are desperate to cast this as a vendetta, turning the screws on key witnesses is standard prosecutorial practice at all levels of law enforcement. The Grouper's already spent some time in prison on matters peripheral to the latest charges. Claims by The Grouper and his supporters that Starr is persecuting an innocent man and making up all these charges out of thin air are simply preposterous. Dateline: Mars And speaking of preposterosity, Bob Dole was on TV the other night shilling his new book and he told his host that he'd always believed that the Republican Party stood for diversity and had historically reached out to all groups of people. He's obviously spent too many years on Mars. Paula Jones finally caved in and took the money. Sick's $850,000 payment to get Jones to drop her sexual harassment suit against him represents still another brilliant triumph for the decades-old Clinton strategy of denial. Sick's handlers--resurrected attorney Robert Bennett among them--were quick to point out that the deal does not include the apology Jones had long sought or any admission of guilt, and that the cash in absolutely no way implied any admission of guilt by Sick Willie. The Clintons' band of liars and deniers will flood the TV talk shows crowing about how this proves their man was innocent all along. The rest of us will just have to listen to it. There's not a soul on this planet outside the coterie of Clintonistas who seriously believes that Sick didn't do exactly what Jones accused him of doing, however. Chubb Off The Hook The big winner in the settlement of the Paul Jones lawsuit is the Chubb Insurance Company, which has been stuck paying Sick Willie's legal bills under a liability insurance policy Sick wisely and presciently bought from Chubb years ago. About half the payoff to Jones comes from Chubb, and allows it to buy out its policy with Sick. The rest of the money will come from the Sick Legal Defense Fund, which not a single wacko radical Religious Leftwing kook has been heard to protest the existence of, because they're thundering hypocrites who are too busy marching in the streets and screaming about the Paula Jones defense fund and the conservative foundation that's provided her legal services. Mark Shields said on the Capitol Gang the other night that the votes are no longer there (in the House) to support an impeachment proceeding. The facts in this Most Recent Unpleasantness are exactly the same as before the election. Only the election results have been added to the mix. If Shields is right, he appears to be telling us that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. I watched about five hours of Kenneth Starr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee investigating every conceivable way to get out of having to consider impeachment of Sick Willie. Obviously one's reaction depends on which side one's on. I thought Starr held up well in the face of fiercely hostile invective--and even, occasionally, questioning--from the committee's pack of mad-dog Democrats. Sick's lawyer, David Kendall, catapulted himself to near the top of my Most Obnoxious Public Figure list with his arrogant, grimacing questioning of Starr. My favorite moment of this segment came when Kendall, ever the demagogue, said that Starr or his "agents" held Monica Lewinsky. . .clearly implying that Lewinsky had been held captive against her will, but of course not precisely saying that, merely laying down the insinuation. Here Starr sharply interrupted to tell Kendall that Lewinsky was in fact not "held." Kendall backpedaled, then tried to cut off the challenge by saying that whatever term was chosen Lewinsky's "mental state" would clearly speak for itself and was on the record. Starr then correctly pointed out that Kendall had said nothing about her "mental state," but had said she was "held." Kendall then resumed his leftwing jihad. Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Sheila Jackson-Lee, and John Conyers were their usual ridiculous selves, and Florida Rep. Robert Wexler seemed to yell and slobber the most in delivering his tirade. Illinois Republican Henry Hyde seems to be playing the Bob Dole role on the committee--the baffled old bull who finds himself in charge because he's stood in line the longest. I feel sympathy for Hyde's having to deal with the likes of Waters, Frank, Conyers and the rest, but he seems to be in well over his head, too, a tired, old fart who's not up to the task. I thought the Republicans generally were passive in their defense and support of Starr. It was interesting that in 14 hours of ripping and tearing at Starr, no Democrat was able to challenge any of the facts Starr's report details. All they could do, since the facts are so against them, was to attack Starr's motives and procedures and second-guess even minor decisions he made along the way. It is to Starr's great credit that he was able to remain civil in the company of such contemptible critics. At the end of the day, I'd bet not a single person in the great American mobocracy changed his position on This Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Sick Willie. (November 19, 1998) The day after Starr's appearance--what curious timing--his "ethics adviser," Sam Dash, resigned, saying Starr had become "an advocate for impeachment." Dash was an attorney in the Watergate investigation. He is a Democrat. Dash's own Democratic colleagues demanded that Starr testify. When he does, Dash plays this card. Starr's mistake was bringing him aboard in the first place. Did anyone enjoy the contrast between Starr testifying before a pack of jackals for 14 hours, subject to questions about any topic, alone at a table surrounded by drooling cameramen and pseudojournalists. . . and Sick Willie, who had his handlers negotiate a time limit (four hours) and a limitation of all questions to only one topic (for his August 17 perjuries)? Charles Bakaly, the public relations representative for Kenneth Starr, was on television November 22 saying that the White House campaign to destroy the credibility and authority of the Independent Counsel has been successfull, but the facts remained. Well, yes--but quick!--somebody tell Charles we're not about to let a few billion facts puncture our cherished delusions. Offer Still On The Table Every last man, woman, and child in America wants to get This Most Recent Unpleasantness Involving Sick Willie behind us. Everyone agrees on that. Polls prove it. OK. Here's a deal I could accept. Let's drop it completely if Sick will agree to give all his remaining State of the Union addresses wearing Monica's blue cocktail (actually, cocktale is more precise) dress. Fair enough? Do we have a deal? Sick surprised some observers by providing Henry Hyde and the Judiciary Committee his answers to Hyde's list of 81 questions. Except they are non-answers. That's no surprise. Sick, in his ceaseless questing to find the real perjurer, had his lawyers work on his responses for a full three weeks. The press, in its ceaseless questing to avoid aggressive coverage of Sick's transgressions, gave the story scant coverage. Journalists can read polls. They're scared, too, right along with the Republicans. They know their readers don't want to hear any more of this. Not a single response from Sick was a simple "Yes" or "No" as Hyde had requested. Instead the committee got 81 carefully crafted legalisms hewing to Sick's time-honored and magnificently successful lifetime strategy of deny and deflect. A few Republicans muttered and grumped. They apparently still haven't gotten the message. The funniest non-answer of all was to a question asking Sick if he had or had not ever taken the oath of office for the presidency. Sick declined to answer that yes or no. Can't Henry and the Republicans hear the whole world laughing at them? Maybe Kenneth Starr will greet Sick Willie right behind the bleachers within seconds of President Gore being sworn in and hand Sick a civilian indictment covering all the Unimpeachable Unpleasantnesses Congress couldn't face up to. I have my candle lit. How about you? Rush Limbaugh recently explained to his radio audience why he hadn't appeared in recent months on nightly television programming devoted to The Most Recent Unpleasantnesses Unjustly Alleged to Involve Sick Willie. He said that with three or four guests on these shows all yelling simultaneously and with no insightful or challenging questions from the hosts, and with time out for commericals and the hosts' babbling, each individual guest would have no more than two or three minutes of uninterrupted time in which to express a viewpoint, and that, friends, was not enough time, and not worth the time. So Rush declined to participate. Limbaugh's description of these programs and the way they're presented is accurate. But the counterpoint is this: The Clintonistas, whose maggoty infestation of these programs for months on end is the stuff of legend, faced the same handicaps any other guest faced on these shows, yet they deemed it an invaluable investment of their time in service to their idol's cause to be on them. For they realized that even two minutes of mantra successfully broadcast in every programming hour's screeching din helped to advance Sick's cause with the millions of twitching, tic-ridden droolers in the viewing audience. The Clintonistas know that their relentless drone of lies, spin, and deflections eventually wins converts. So while Limbaugh and others of delicate sensibilities and no stomach for the shrieking whorehouse of commercial televison were boycotting these shows and sitting at home fuming, Sick's loyalists were lined up fighting for guest spots because they knew that therein lay the path to victory. (November 26, 1998) GOP Has A Gene Problem The Sick Willie Presidency and Assorted Unpleasantnesses Adhering Thereto offer us a snapshot of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. They reveal how woefully ill-suited conservatives are for political warfare. Liberals believe in expanding government. Conservatives believe in shrinking it. All else flows from these two opposing concepts. Indeed these mindsets propel the two groups in opposite directions. Liberals are passionately idealistic and passionately committed to their cause. Conservatives have little or no passion for theirs--or if they do they're clueless about what to do with it. This is why liberals historically work assiduously to populate and control government bureaucracies and local organizations, why they are found wherever minds can be influenced or won--in academe and labor unions, or marching and demonstrating in the streets, for example. Conservatives believe they can win a battle of ideas, and that offering superior ideas is enough to carry the day. And so long as the competition is confined to intellectual jousting in walnut-paneled salons they can hold their own. Liberals know, however, that battles are won in the trenches doing the dirty, grubby work of organizing, voter registration, infiltrating and moving among the people whispering promises. Liberals know that images, perceptions and feelings win battles, that in the modern age of communications ideas have little to no chance in the face of determined spin and manipulation; they know that even one or two minutes of effective lying, demagoguing and spinning on national television will outweigh all the high-toned intellectual reasoning any enemy can put forth. (This is why conservatives stay at home while liberals throng to any spotlight, any microphone.) Liberals know that the very nature of television, the single most powerful form of communicating the world has yet seen, works to prevent the thoughtful, analytical presentation of any idea; this doesn't seem to have yet occurred to conservatives. Liberals believe government should be every citizen's partner, nurturer and sponsor on the road to a better life. Conservatives want government to go away and leave them alone. Conservatives know what they're against but seldom what they're for. In an elemental sense, liberals are active, conservatives passive. Liberals possess far more tribal loyalty than conservatives. Witness the vote on impeachment articles in the House of Representatives. Only five Democrats strayed from tribal ground supporting Sick Willie, and those five defectors were consistent across the range of the four proposed articles. Republican traitors, however, ranged as high as 80 on one article. Democrats are far more loyal to their causes than Republicans. Is it any wonder conservatives in the half-century after World War II were a near-permanent minority, and that when they finally achieved majority status in 1994 they quickly contrived to negate and dissipate that advantage and now stand poised to return to outcast status in the 2000 elections? Conservatives have had the great misfortune to come up against the most brilliant, cunning politician in our nation's history in Sick Willie, grant them that. But their problem is far more fundamental than the bad luck of facing a world-class foe. They're simply not equipped for the contest. It's in their genes. One of the few amusing tidbits to emerge from the Most Recent Unpleasantness in Wonderland is the report that one of Sidney Blumenthal's fellow White House operatives nicknamed him "Grassy Knoll" or "G.K." for short in reference to the perception that Blumenthal is prone to find conspiracies nearly everywhere. By sheer coincidence, Blumenthal is a close friend and confidante of Slick Hillary. Columnist Richard Brookhiser, writing in the December 7 issue of National Review, uses the phrase "Founding Fornicators" in poking ridicule at Sick Willie. I wish I'd been clever enough to have thought of that. Sorry, Guys, Sick's Already Been There, Done That Republican efforts to impeach Sick Willie "will leave the presidency permanently disfigured and diminished. . ." according to a claim made in a lengthy rebuttal report submitted by Sick and his handlers and attorneys. It was great seeing Father Robert Drinan on the Tuesday panel of liberal academics, clerics, and attorneys presenting Sick's defense before the House Judiciary Committee. Drinan told the jihadsters that he, Father Bob, was "leaving it to God to judge" anyone who voted "aye" on impeachment. This was truly a Kodak Moment. Censure Sick Willie? Not on your life! It's the thundering majority of the the American people who support Sick who ought to be censured. Shay Gets Close But Can't Finish Republican Congressman Christopher Shay of New York, said to be one of the handful of moderates in his party wavering over how to vote on impeachment, was a guest on Chris Matthews' Hardball program December 10. Under peppery questioning, Shay admitted he believed Sick has lied under oath, probably suborned perujry by encouraging others (Betty Currie and Monica) to lie and cover up, and obstructed justice. Shay listed half a dozen offenses but said he still was not going to support impeachment because these things had not been proven to his satisfaction. Matthews asked Shay what in his view would be the perfect, proper resolution of This Most Recent Unpleasantness Said to Involve Sick Willie. Shay said Sick should tell the truth and then resign. Matthews replied, "Have you ever called for President Clinton's resignation?" Shay admitted he had not. (December 11, 1998) Impeached! My favorite number is 218, the number of votes necessary to pass an article of impeachment against Sick Willie. (December 19, 1998) A Bucket O' Balls Day! Today's House action approving two articles of impeachment against Sick Willie is one of the most astounding events of my lifetime. Where did the Republicans get the courage to do this? They've defied a tidal wave of loving support and adoration for Sick from the public, they've defied pollsters and advisers who promised them a vote to impeach was political suicide. I leaped out of my chair cheering when the onscreen scoreboard blinked to "218". This is a Life Event for me, personally, the second happiest day of my life (the first is the day Mogo and I were married). Somebody's finally actually nailed this guy! He's indelibly stamped in the history books and no amount of delusion and denial can erase the ugly stain on Sick's legacy. Mogo and I went out to dinner with friends to celebrate. I offered a toast in honor of the House and in joyous celebration of the day's events. A Kodak Moment! A bucket o' balls day! (December 19, 1998) It took former White House aide George Stephanopolous to remind a grateful nation on Impeachment Day, December 19, that it was exactly a year ago to the day that Monica Lewinsky was subpoenaed to testify. Sick's handlers were ready immediately following Sick's impeachment with a series of public displays and photo opportunites designed to show the repentant, chastened, human side of Sick. He was on prominent display this morning at church, Bible conspicuously toted in news camera view, daughter Chelsea at his side. They were surrounded by loyalists who bore aloft signs declaring their adoration of Sick. Word somehow leaked out, though, that one angry parishioner yelled at Sick as he walked past, "Damn you for what you've done to our country! Resign for the good of the world!" No doubt the spoilsport was quickly overwhelmed, dragged back into the church, and torn to pieces on the altar by the angry faithful. Later this week Sick was to gather children with him in the East Room of the White House, there to read them holiday (can't call 'em Christmas stories--that would bring ACLU lawyers howling out of the woodwork) stories. One hopes the event will be recorded on film and none of the children will have reached puberty. Sick and his wife will also be serving food to the poor and homeless at a D.C. soup kitchen. All in all, a week designed to warm the human heart. (December 20, 1998) Shortly after Bob Livingston announced his resignation, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. was quoted on National Public Radio saying that people "don't run for office on their personal lives" and that "no one is electable under that standard." If young Jesse actually believes that, he's running with the wrong crowd. A Bloviatin' Image Of His Dad One thing we can say about Jesse, Jr., though: he has the same remarkable talent for bloviation his wacko leftwing extremist kook father has. Words Guaranteed To Haunt Weird Al joined fellow tribesmen on the White House lawn in a show of support for the fallen idol and told the world Sick would go down as one of the greatest presidents in American history. Bet those words will come back to haunt Al. Sick's impeachment has had no noticeable effect on the mantra chanters infesting TV talk shows. Wacko extremist leftwing kook crackpot jihadsters continue to flood these programs, their whining the same as we've heard for months, years. It's time for these folks to face reality, but don't count on it happening anytime soon. Cambridge University professor and physicist Stephen Hawking was a featured guest this week at a "Millenium Evening" hosted at the White House by Hillary and Sick Willie. PBS broadcast the event to the nation on December 30. As I channel-flipped past it, the camera lingered adoringly on the First Couple as Hillary nodded knowingly at one of the guest's remarks, then cut to Hawking as he told his audience that ". . .by 3.5 billion years ago complex molecules had formed and DNA had come into existence." You know, the stuff the FBI lab found on Monica Lewinsky's blue cocktail dress. The camera did not cut back for a Clinton reaction, but this was a Kodak Moment, surely. The relentlessly obnoxious Robert Novak tried relentlessly last night on Crossfire to get the newly-elected Congressman from the state of Washington to admit he was a liberal. The fella deflected Novak's efforts again and again and again. He refused to utter the "L" word. I swear they've all been to the same training school, because they all say the same thing, almost down to the syllable. Later on the same program, Michael Kinsley, the wide-eyed editor of the Internet magazine, Slate, proudly admitted he was a liberal. Good for Michael! Could this be one of those rare instances where conservatives have actually succeeded at something politically? Could they have completed demonized the word "liberal"? (December 30, 1998) This debate will go on forever: Clintonistas describe Sick Willie's "mistakes" as "lying (or misleading) about an adulterous affair (or "about sex")." Sick's accusers say "lying under oath." Period. Sick's entire defense collapses if that distinction can't be made. My guess is if the Founding Dads could have imagined a person like Sick Willie ever inhabiting the office of the presidency, they would have been a good bit more careful and thorough in defining what they deemed intolerable, and that being a scumbag would have been on the list. But, alas, they could not imagine it and so were not thorough enough. And therein, to the overwhelming joy of Clintonistas everywhere, lies (or misleads) Sick Willie's salvation. I'd vote to make Sick President for Life. I've never been more serious. Our country--73 percent of it in the latest polls, anyway--and Sick are a match made in heaven and a box office grand slam, as Harry Thomasson would say. Lefties closed the year eagerly supporting censure for Sick Willie. Some even wanted to include a stiff fine. No point in fining Sick Willie. He never pays his own way. Fining him would be like fining Barbra Streisand or Alex Baldwin or Maya Angelou or some other wacko leftwing extremist. The Democrat Party was once one even I could admire. It was the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Jack and Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and others. Today it is the party of Larry Flynt, James Carville, Geraldo Rivera, Sick and Hillary Clinton. Those loyal to true Democratic Party principles should be appalled. But are they? (December 31, 1998) "(Father Robert) Drinan also refused to concede that a President could be impeached for murder--murder, that is, committed for strictly private, not governmental, reasons." --Jay Nordlinger, writing in National Review's Dec. 31, 1998 edition about Father Drinan's testimony and responses to questions before the House Judiciary Committee considering Impeachment articles. Back to top
©2010 Twitfits.com

Scoundrels, Knaves, and Fools