Tag: Newt Gingrich

Posted on

Gingrich Shoots a Half-Breed

To understand Newt Gingrich, you need to rent a copy of “The Searchers”, John Ford’s 1954 classic starring John Wayne as Ethan Edwards, a world-weary civil war veteran– and possible thief– coming home to his brother’s farm for a spell. It is hinted that the real love of his life is Martha, his brother Aaron’s wife, and it is implied that Aaron and Martha’s daughter Debbie– born shortly after Ethan left to fight for the Confederacy– might be Ethan’s daughter.

Someone steals the cattle one day and the men set off in pursuit. They shortly come to the realization that the cattle theft was a diversion: the Comanche waited for the men to leave and then burned down their houses and killed Aaron and Martha and their son, Ben, and kidnapped their two girls: Debbie and Lucy.

When they first catch up to the Comanche, Ethan/Newt wants to charge head-on into the camp slaughtering everybody. They are all pretty sure that Debbie and Lucy would die in the assault so the militia commander, Clayton, insists they sneak into the camp first to try to rescue the girls. This leads them into a trap. which they barely escape with their lives. They find Lucy’s body shortly afterwards: she had been raped and murdered. Newt was right. Only Newt was right. All of the other men, we later learn, are either weak or foolish or greedy. Only Newt can really save the girl, and he just wants to kill her.

The militia give up and go home, but Ethan does not. He rides on, searching.

A long time passes.

You see, Newt/Ethan believes that once Debbie has adapted herself to Comanche culture, she will be “no good” any more for any white family. So it becomes clear that he now intends to just kill her, if he finds her.

I don’t know for sure what “no good” means. Clearly, she won’t be a virgin. And it is utterly of a piece with Conservative “character” that demands are made of other people’s virtue that obviously are not made of oneself. But does it also mean that she might have become more like Newt: ruthless and capable of slitting someone’s throat if there was a necessity for it? So you wouldn’t want someone like that in your house. She’s “no good”. But then, why would he want to kill her? Why not leave her with the Comanche?

And let them have her? Are you mad?

They don’t deserve her. They are not entitled to her. They are– hoo boy! Different, damnit!

Unlike Newt, John Wayne’s Ethan actually fought in a war. That makes him someone Conservatives admire deeply but never emulate. War is for other people to fight, and for me to start.

I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t mean that she had become a lesbian, though — hey, this was the 50’s– you never know. It might have been part of that richly textured and nuanced meaning of “no good”.

When they next find Debbie– after about 2 years of hunting for her– Ethan gets set to kill her. He chases her on his horse, catches her, but then decides to take her home instead. That is because even though Newt is ruthless and brutal and convinced he knows exactly what is best for everyone, he always does the right thing. But are they grateful? No they are not. After delivering Debbie back to the white folk, the door of the cabin famously closes on the receding image of Ethan walking away. They just don’t appreciate him. They don’t realize that without people like Ethan, those Comanche would be snatching up all of our sons and daughters and enslaving them with excessive regulations and onerous taxes.

In real life, a woman who was held by the Comanche for several years was, in fact, rescued (she was returned as part of a deal) to her family and community.

She could not adjust and eventually returned to the Comanche.

“The Searchers” in consistently ranked way up there with the best of American film, and is often listed as the best Western of them all. Is it really? If it is, it must be the sweep and grandeur of it’s vision, because the acting is awful, and the story is absolute melodrama at times.

Just one example: when Ethan finally catches up with Debbie for the final time, she rejects him and flees, and he chases her on horseback– I assume this is a stuntman, not Natalie Wood– and catches up to her, and she tries to slash him at first. Then he says, I’m taking you home. She looks into his manly John Wayne eyes and immediately melts and hugs him.

John Ford couldn’t be bothered to take even 30 seconds for the most important dramatic transition in the entire movie? This is apex upon which the entire narrative drive pivots! It’s all over in about 10 seconds.

Even worse: the famous last scene, of John Wayne marching off into the sunset, is far shorter than I bet you think you remember it. Check it out. It’s a fart of an ending. The audiences are already out in the lobby before they “get” that Ethan just not the kind of man who could settle for a first or even a second wife.

So it’s a classic of the epic Hollywood genre, which means, a film that is all surfaces and check-marks: close up, wide shot, pan shot, lighting, make-up, hair, costume. The story isn’t trivial: it’s actually quite rich and complex. Characters are developed. There’s even a bit of grit, an edge, some rawness to the drama. But that was all in the script. What showed up on the screen was a lot of spectacle, and then actors standing on their marks reading their lines.

And please don’t give me that shit that all the movies of this era were like that: they were not! Check “The Third Man” or “Marty”. Or “Seven Samurai” or “Rashomon” or “All about Eve” or “Tokyo Story” or “Wild Strawberries” or “La Strada” or “On the Waterfront”, and so on.

And please don’t tell me that John Wayne was a great actor.  He always only played himself: a mediocre actor playing his own illusion about manliness.

Posted on

The Confederacy in South Carolina

Let’s face it– most people knew very well that the racism was already there– it was always hidden, disguised, sublimated into guns and states’ rights.

But it’s pretty well out in the open now. Newt Gingrich cemented it with his “yeah, so what” defense of his comments about African Americans needing to get off food stamps and into jobs. He announced that he was willing to attend an NAACP conference and tell them all directly. Yes, he said it. He didn’t say poor Americans, and he didn’t say lower class Americans, and he did not even say unemployed Americans. He said African Americans. He said NAACP. He didn’t offer to make statements like that directly to the Southern Baptist Convention.

That was stunning enough. What was even more stunning is that none of the other candidates thought it would be in their interest to disavow Gingrich’s statement, criticize it, or even disagree — openly– with it. Not even Romney, who has struggled so hard to be so absolutely cosmetically correct in all things. Now we know that the cosmetics of race are this: the Republican Party has no problem with a racist candidate and South Carolina has no problem with a racist Republican. You just have to be subtle about it. This was not subtle.

Ron Paul was booed when he said American foreign policy should adopt an attitude of “do unto others what you would have them do to you”. This is a state Republican Party which, pollsters tell us, is conservative evangelical. Well, no it isn’t, but they say they are.

And I know it sounds rude, but just how stupid are South Carolina Republicans. Do they seriously believe that Romney wants to come down there after the election and do some hunting and kill some large mammalian critters with a weapon? Do they hear him say that and go, why, I just know I can trust him to appoint the right guy to the Federal Reserve and make good decisions about entitlements and interest rates and environmental policy, and I’ll bet he can handle those Iranians too. He’ll just hunt them down and stack them in his freezer.

Well, maybe they do.

They all vow to attack Iran. Do the voters of South Carolina go, well, he talks a big stick but we know there are complications to foreign policy and it might not always be in our interests to just go over there and whack someone.

Like Iraq, hmmm.

A woman came up to Gingrich after the debate and thanked him for “putting [moderator] Mr. Juan Williams in his place”.

The so-called “liberal” main stream media has not done a thing with this story yet. My theory is that they can’t believe it either and just don’t have the language ready to deal with it.

Posted on

Al Gore’s Initiative

Can we settle this for once and for all?

It’s damn infuriating to see smug conservatives continue to trot out this old canard whenever they get the chance: Mitt Romney has been going around claiming that Al Gore “took credit” for the Internet. Well, it’s all politics, but the next time Romney looks in the mirror I wonder if he sees the liar that I see when he pulls shit like that.

Al Gore did not claim he “invented” the internet. He said he “took the initiative” in the creation of the internet. Apparently, it seems to shock many people that anyone was “involved” in the creation of such a massively important and successful project.   Do people think it was always there? Do they think it was created by private companies?

Look it up. Even better, here it is, from Wikipedia:

First, the actual original quote from Gore, from a March 9, 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN:

I’ll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I’ve traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.[105]

Yes, he could have phrased it better, but what he actually said– as opposed to the deliberate misquote making the rounds– was true:

Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn noted that, “as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship […] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication.”[53]

So Al Gore was not just on the congressional committee that oversaw the creation of the internet: he played a leadership role on the issue.

Even Newt Gingrich acknowledged as much.

And let’s not forget that Gore served honorably in Viet Nam. Can you name a single Republican running in this election who did? Come on– try it.

Posted on

The Seven Dwarves: Republican Primaries

Of course I wouldn’t have liked any of the Republican candidates anyway, but I doubt that there has ever been a more mediocre group of presidential candidates than Romney, Perry, Bachman, Huntsman, Cain, Santorum, and Gingrich. And never a group of candidates more desperate to say anything they think the audience– the Tea Party– wants to hear. Anything. Anything at all.

It’s not that all Republican leaders are always idiots. John McCain sounded interesting before Bush blind-sided him in North Carolina in 2000. Chris Christie actually sounds pretty interesting now. Patrick Moynihan, who claimed to be a Democrat, could occasionally be interesting, if not tiresome.

Christie believes in Global Warming, thinks there is no such thing as an “illegal” alien, supports some form of gun control, and thought the opponents of the “ground zero mosque” should get a grip. One of the things that most makes him interesting is the kind of sensible attitude that has led him to decide not to run.

Rick Perry is just not very bright. You actually feel bad for him standing up there with no one to help him think of intelligent things to say. Just when I thought he was going to have the courage to stand up for the idea of vaccinating young girls against HPV he turned out to only have to courage to whine about how he would never do it again. I also admire his stand on college tuition for children of illegal immigrants but he’s not only in the wrong party for that one– he’s on the wrong planet.

Herman Cain is clearly only interested in selling his books and his services as a speaker on leader-shit– that’s what it is– this culture of useless and vague aphorisms and “wit” that passes for leadership seminars– , for which he receives $25,000, presumably to explain why he is so brilliant he will be president except that even he would probably giggle at the thought that he was ever in it for anything but the free publicity. He has one good idea: the U.S. should have a goods and services tax– it makes a lot of sense economically. But then, that’s just science and facts and information.

He’s rather run ads like this.  (Has been removed.)

Michelle Bachman? Who on earth ever thought she would be a good candidate for president? Whoever convinced her of it should be arrested and charged with fraud. Even most hard core conservatives will have more than a little trouble electing someone this clueless.

Santorum is a psycho. The man is clearly mentally unbalanced. Prompted to explain his position on homosexuals in the military– he wants to repeal something but he’s not sure what– he suddenly ejaculated “there should be no sex in the military– no sex at all!” He has that nasty, bitter, self-righteousness doesn’t play well outside of church.

Gingrich really wants to be pope. He’s smart to get enraged whenever anyone raises the question of hypocrisy: he was cheating on his wife, who was dying of cancer, at the very moment he was demanding that Bill Clinton be impeached for groping an intern. He also seems to suddenly believe that the separation of Church and State is a myth. He’s very family oriented and expect to see his wife co-governing if he gets elected, the possibility of which seems dazzlingly remote.

And then you have the Mitt. Romney– who is surprisingly similar to Obama in a lot of ways– he even enacted a health care plan in Massachusetts that is very similar to Obamacare– a cold-blooded technocrat– might be better off selling nuance. The more he tries to scoop up those extremist Republicans, the more he diminishes his one asset: the sense of reasonableness and rationality he used to represent. He’s eating away at his own virtues by repudiating all of his moderate positions. He is now uncompromisingly pro-life, uncompromisingly against taxes, uncompromisingly against illegal immigrants, uncompromisingly against the HPV vaccine…. is there anyone in the room who doubts that once he wins the Republican nomination he will announce “just kidding” and go back to those sensible ideas that appeal to independent voters?

 

Posted on

Exquisitely, Completely, Consummately Irreligious American Exceptionalism

The world looked at America, and lo, it saw this: obese children suckling mega-super-ultra-gigantic soft drinks and fries; men in camouflage shooting at helpless animals and beer cans; a city drowning in floods while the government stumbled around like drunken blind crippled men; children on motorized off-road vehicles tearing into the hillsides; cities draining; farmers growing gas; cosmetic surgeries; abandoned factories; Koran-burning pastors; pyramid marketing materialists; bunker-bussing survivalists; drug pushers on the streets; drug-pushers in the doctors offices; poverty and indifference to poverty; screaming hatred at “town hall” meetings.

And lo, America looked at itself in the mirror and did not see what the world saw. America looked at itself and saw that it was EXCEPTIONAL. And that the rules of the world, of fair play and mutual respect and cooperation, did not apply to them, for America was EXCEPTIONAL. And America was chosen by God to be the vessel of his or her grace, for America was EXCEPTIONAL. And he who does not embrace this ideology shall be accused of not loving America and if he does not embrace it, America will hold its breath until it turns blue in the face.

What is truly exceptional is how American politicians like Newt Gingrich have managed to take “I’m better than you are and I can do whatever I want to do because I’m special” and repackaged it as some kind of weird religious-patriotic mishmash expressed in a harmless sounding euphemism: “exceptionalism”.

It’s code. “Manifest Destiny” is back. Look out, boys. This time, they’re after your oil, your fish, and your water. And they’ve invented a new kind of morality to make it right. And they’ll kill you if you stand in their way.

Newt Gingrich has written an entire book which essentially argues that America, the exceptional, is like some titled noble to whom the rest of the world, a collection of lesser nobles, peasants, and slaves, must kowtow.

No, of course he doesn’t put it that way. They never do, do they? But no one should mistake the meaning of “exceptional” for anything else: we get to make our own rules and we have special access to the world’s wealth and resources because God said so.

Posted on

Newt Gangrene: America, America, America

“In America, religious belief is being challenged by a cultural elite trying to create a secularized America, in which God is driven out of public life.”

Never imagine that any kind of scurrilous, scumbag, divisive politics is beneath a Republican. Newt Gingrich has found Jesus. Just in time for 2012. Do even fellow Republicans buy this? Does anyone in the Republican Party ever acknowledge that the movement itself would be better off if it sounded a little less cynical and opportunistic?

Is there anything more that anyone needs to know about Newt Gingrich than that he is willing to stand in front of a crowd of Republicans and make the statement he made above, (at a gathering of the Ohio Right to Life) February 28, 2011?

Nobody can seriously believe that Newt actually believes this. If he does, America is far worse off than even I imagined. But it does magnify something that has become more apparent since 9/11: he doesn’t even care if you believe he believes it or not. It doesn’t matter.

How does one avoid being rude when observing what should be obvious but obviously isn’t? That New Gingrich, ready to make another run at the presidency, studied the polls and decided that Americans– actually, Republicans who vote in the primaries– want a leader with genuine religious convictions so, all right, we can do that. Here’s how: you say “In America, religious belief is being challenged by a cultural elite trying to create a secularized America, in which God is driven out of public life.” You say this in front of “Ohio Right to Life”. Just drink in the applause. Ahhhh. Feels good. It’s so easy. And the money keeps rolling in. And James Dobson is already behind you, on his knees, lips puckered.

It’s like “fiscal responsibility” and “no new taxes” and “strong military” and anything with “America” in the title, on a book– not that anyone will actually read it. They just need to know that you, like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee and everyone else out there on the right, has not only read at least one book in your life but has also written one. Something like “Fighting for America”. Or “Finding the Real America”. Or, “America– the America of Americas”. Or “God and America”. Or “How Immigration is Ruining America” by Nancy McDougal and Sid Hofstetter.

Not that you could actually have ever been bothered to actually write the book. Gosh, that’s not time well-spent for God’s appointed leaders– that’s hack work, for what’s-his-name– the elite intellectual snob we hired just for this kind of work.

But conservatives don’t give a flying leap about whether you actually wrote a book you “authored”. That’s for those effeminate, liberal, snobbish eastern elites. People like Al Gore and Barack Obama. No, by God, a real leader just puts his name on it. Nor do they seem to give a damn about the rankest hypocrisy imaginable (see sidebar).

I suppose people should be reassured that Gingrich has discovered, thrillingly, if belatedly, that 2+2=4. We all look forward to the next miracle: how he will balance the budget, cut taxes for the rich, and increase military spending, without cutting any programs.

Aside from all that, isn’t Gingrich more or less openly saying that America should become a Christian Theocracy? If not, then what is he saying?

It’s really the Christians who have fallen down on this. Where are the church leaders who have any real religion? They would be standing up now, declaring that Christianity should not be exploited and tricked out in this way, and that politicians like Gingrich do more harm than good to real spirituality.

A lot of harm

Do Republicans ever hold any of themselves accountable for anything:

He [Newt Gingrich] also acknowledged having an extramarital affair with Callista Bisek, then a House staff member, while leading impeachment proceedings against Mr. Clinton for lying about his own sexual transgressions. NY Times, 2011-02-28

I don’t think they do hold themselves accountable. I think they believe they are special, touched by god, with wisdom so sublime and transcendent that mortal men cannot even begin to apprehend the audaciousness of their wisdom.

When you think you are so right that those who disagree with you are not mere political opponents but enemies of the state– nay, enemies of God!– foreigners, and subversives, consistency is truly the hobgoblin of little minds.

Posted on

Republicans of Virtue

Who are these noble men who seek to purify the government by removing that festering pustule of delinquency, Bill Jefferson Clinton, from the sacred repository of all that is noble and good? Let’s meet some of them:

Bob Barr – when he is not busy addressing the John Birch Society or White Supremacist rallies, Bob likes to commit a little adultery himself. In all fairness, Bob claims that he doesn’t really understand what those white hoods are for.

Sonny Bono – died, before he could win a single Grammy for song-writing. But that’s okay: in democratic, freedom-loving America, his wife can have his job, ruling the country and impeaching presidents.

Zach Wamp of Tennessee opposes all government spending, unless it goes to his district.

Henry Hyde had a little fling on the side himself back he was Clinton’s age, but don’t let that fool you: he believes in something, not like those atheist, pagan Democrats!

Helen Chenoweth thinks all people who commit adultery and lie about it should be removed from office. Oops. Seems she committed adultery. I guess she didn’t lie about it. “Hi there. I’m Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth and I’m having sex with your husband.”

Steve Stockman of Texas likes to hang around with those militia groups that stockpile arms for the day of reckoning, when blacks and Jews try to take over America.

Enid Green Waldholtz, Utah, got elected with a little help from her father: $2 million worth of illegal campaign contributions. Oops. Let’s not investigate that.

Wes Cooley slightly exaggerated his war record. Seems he wasn’t part of that patriotic special operations unit in Korea after all.

Newt Gingrich. Aside from a few dozen ethics violations, such as trying to hide the income from his best-selling books, and the fact that he, like Dan Quayle, avoided military service, and the fact that he is the most ego-centric and unpopular politician in the country…. oh yes. Don’t forget that he engineered a complete shutdown of the federal government in November 1995, one of the most colossal political blunders of all time, because he was still in a snit over not being invited to exit the front door of Air Force One when it arrived in Israel for the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin.

Governor George Bush Jr. Well, let’s just hope Kenneth Starr isn’t still looking into lifestyles of the rich and elected by 2000…. but then again, Starr doesn’t investigate Republicans. That’s what we mean by “independent”. Let’s just say that George enjoyed his youth and leave it at that, shall we?

Fred Heineman of North Carolina thinks most middle class families earn around $700K.

Dan Burton… oh dear… that adultery thing again. He also raised the art of political discourse to a new high with his formal description of the president as “a scumbag”. Can you spell “statesmanship”?

Bob Dole. Let’s not speculate too much here about Mr. Family Values, but merely note, with dignity and restraint, that Mr. Dole’s first wife’s name is not Elizabeth.

Dan Quayle. War record, Dan? You weren’t one of those despicable draft dodgers were you? Chicken-hawk. Indiana National Guard? Oooo. Did you get a chance to lob a few grenades at Birch Bayh?

Robert Livingston. A good decent man who happened to have committed adultery too. What a shame. Good, decent men like Bob Barr forced him to resign.

Posted on

Newt Gangrene and the Pacs

Newt Gangrene and PACS

This reminds me– during the height of the cold war, the evil Soviet Union, of course, had a TOTALITARIAN government. The United States, on the other hand, was a DEMOCRACY.

In a DEMOCRACY, the people are free to elect the leaders they choose. In a TOTALITARIAN country, the people have no choice: you have to elect whoever the party tells you to elect.

Of course, in a DEMOCRACY, special interests are free to give as much money to politicians as they want to in exchange for special favours, like laws extending copyright protection…. oops! Forget that. That wouldn’t be right! That would mean that we really don’t have a DEMOCRACY at all, that America is actually ruled by wealthy, special interests! Not true. They are free to give as much money to the politicians PAC as they want to. There. That’s better. Then the PAC gives the money to the politician.

Senator John McCain wanted to change that. He wanted new rules to enforce what the old rules were supposed to enforce: limitations on how much “soft” money a politician can receive.

John McCain doesn’t have many friends these days.

I watched Newt Gangrene speak to his PAC tonight, thanking them for helping preserve freedom and DEMOCRACY.

But, hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. So we go to the polls and exercise our choice. Those poor Russians! In our country, we regularly elect the people we choose.

Of course… it is a little strange… during all the years of the cold war, which country, do you think, most often re-elected the same guy who’s been in there for ten, twenty, thirty years already, who is fat and corrupt and tired and bloated and isolated from the the people he represents?

That’s right: the good old U.S. of A.

Posted on

She’s a Femme Fatale: Raging Hypocrites

It was sort of inevitable, don’t you think?

hyde_lap.gif (17035 bytes)

Henry Hyde’s “indiscretion”.

It has just been revealed that the Republican Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, had an affair with a woman named Cherie Snodgrass, about thirty years ago. She was married, and so was he. We have also been informed that Dan Burton, one of Clinton’s harshest critics, fessed up that he has fathered a child in an extramarital affair. And Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho has also confessed to an illicit liaison. Well, let’s not be disingenuous here: they didn’t voluntarily fess up– they were caught. Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, of course, are not with their first spouses anymore. Any details, Newt? Come one, Bob, let’s get this out into the open.

Ah, you say. But isn’t the issue perjury?

burton.jpg (8097 bytes)

The trouble is, for the Republicans, that they have had to justify Kenneth Starr’s report on the basis of the argument that Clinton’s personal sexual behaviour is relevant. And whenever these clowns appear on TV to argue for impeachment, they don’t talk much about legalities: they talk about trust and morality and values and leadership. Besides, Clinton’s perjury occurred during testimony which was eventually ruled “immaterial” by a judge in the Paula Jones case. That’s a pretty thin case for impeachment. But you understand the two-track strategy of the Republicans. They know that the public will not be outraged by the perjury which gives them the legal pretense to impeach, but they think the public might be outraged by the sexual relationship, which, however, cannot be the basis for an impeachment. So they are trying to blur the distinction. You are supposed to be so outraged at Clinton’s personal conduct, that you will consent to impeach him on a trivial legal issue Well, that’s how they got Al Capone. The well-known gang-meister was finally indicted for…. yes, tax evasion!

There is only one solution: Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, and whoever else comes out of hiding soon enough, should all be impeached.

burton.jpg (8097 bytes)

If I were Henry Hyde, who is in charge of the committee for impeaching adulterers, I’d do the honorable thing and impeach myself first, just to show the American Public that the judicial system doesn’t play politics, and that the Clinton thing is not just a partisan Republican pogrom against a Democratic President, but a reflection of the Republican Party’s earnest devotion to purity and decency in government. So long Henry. Nice knowing you Dan. May you find healing and fulfillment Helen. I hope something comes along for you Newt.

The Republicans, by the way, have demanded that the FBI investigate whether the White House had a hand in getting these stories to the public. Think about this. The Republicans, who have just insisted on publishing extremely intimate details about the President’s sexual liaison with a 21-year-old intern, are outraged, I say, outraged, that someone should expose, with no detail whatsoever, the adulteries of some of their own. Who do they think is buying this? It’s too much! It’s insane! It’s a crazy world!

One last piece of craziness: the Republicans are arguing that the public needs to know these details, and that the impeachment proceedings should hear the evidence in public, and that all the information Kenneth Starr has gathered should be released, because it is important that justice been seen to be done publicly.

All of these decisions were made in a closed session of the Judiciary Committee Meeting.

* * *

While the Republicans were busy rationalizing themselves, Lou Reed, former leader of the Velvet Underground, was putting on a performance of his own. Lou Reed’s Velvet Underground was quite possibly the most aesthetically progressive rock band of the 1960’s. Listen to their stuff: you can’t believe it was recorded thirty years ago. It has a visceral rawness to it, the kind of edgy authenticity so-called alternative bands would die for. Nico, the lead singer on some of their most haunting ballads, is now dead, destroyed by years of drug abuse… not. She died in a bicycle accident. Lou Reed has found a second career walking the border between revision and nostalgia.

So where do you think they performed? At some dark night-club in New York? No, in the White House. President Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia was Bill Clinton’s guest this weekend. I wonder if Reed performed one of his better tunes, “Femme Fatale”:

Cause everybody knows (she’s a femme fatale)
The things she does to please (she’s a femme fatale)
She’s just a little tease (she’s a femme fatale)

If you would have told me, thirty years ago, that some day the Velvet Underground would be playing the White House!

Well, … actually, that is kind of what I thought thirty years ago. After all, we knew that we were all going to be fifty some day, and none of us really believed we were going to start listening to Frank Sinatra or Perry Como after we turned 40.

Now if you would have told me that Congress, in solemn session, would be listening in rapt devotion to intimate details about the President’s affair with a young intern– I would have thought you were mad.

Anyway, it’s happened. The most anti-establishment rock artist of the 60’s has played the White House. This has cosmic significance. As soon as I can think of what that is, I’ll try to write about it.

Posted on

What the Media Won’t tell you About Bill Clinton

According to Robert Bennett, Bill Clinton’s lawyer, Kathleen Willey is in the process of negotiating a $300,000 book deal. Coincidentally, she decided that “enough people have suffered” so it was time for her to tell the truth, on national television.

Well, why shouldn’t she? Everyone else is cashing in: Tripp, Kenneth Star, Orrin Hatch….. And no one is cashing in more than the media. The media have made the Clinton scandal the #1 story of the decade. They act as if this story is more important than Cuba, more important than Kosovo, more important than Bill Gates, more important than Iraq. Heavens, I think they might even believe it is more important than Princess Diana!

There is a paradox at the heart of the Clinton Scandal. I haven’t seen any hard numbers yet, but obviously people are tuning in to see the story and buying the newspapers and magazines that feature it prominently on the front page. (Or are they? Only 10 million tuned in to the 60 Minutes interview with Willey: that’s not an impressive number.) Yet poll after poll shows that Clinton’s approval ratings are actually rising. In other words, the average voter loves to read the lurid tales of sex and infidelity (fess up: don’t you?), but when Oral Hatch (don’t you just wish that really was his name?) goes on television and declares that the Willey allegations, if true, should lead to impeachment… they are laughing their heads off. No way!

As I watch some of the television reports on the scandal, and the discussion of the media’s coverage of the scandal, and coverage of the media’s discussion of their coverage of the scandal, I get the sense that some crucial issue at the core of all this is missing. Of course it is. The one thing the media cannot and will not admit to you is that this story is really a tabloid story, a cheap, tawdry scandal of absolutely no importance whatsoever, and not worthy of a serious national media. Picture Dan Rather saying: “And now, we will depart from our usual practice of informing you about wars, economics, and politics, to give you a blow by blow description of the President groping a woman with big breasts.” The question, contrary to what the media say, is not “is it true”. The question is, “is it important, or just juicy?”

How important is this story? How do you measure importance? There is a strong evidence to indicate that the average American voter rates “importance” on a scale based on the answer to the question: how does this affect me?

We have to be careful to exclude self-fulfilling prophecy. To say the story is important because the media are giving it a lot of coverage, is an Alice in Wonderland argument– “the story is important because I say it is important.” In the same way, if the Republicans ever dared to try to impeach Clinton on the basis of these allegations, the real story would be the coup d’état, not the Clinton scandal.

So how does this story affect you? Will it make your taxes go up? Are you more likely to lose your job? Will your children get a better education? Will the world be at peace? Will your access to the Internet be controlled by the government, or Microsoft, or nobody as a result? Will it cause your parents be more likely to end up in a nursing home? Will it improve television? (Not so far.) Will your insurance company be more likely to tell your doctor which treatments he is allowed to give you, because Monica Lewinsky cleaned her dress? Who will lead the Soviet Union after Monica testifies? Should we grant “most favoured nation” trading status to any country that will accept Linda Tripp as ambassador?

The answer to all of the above, of course, is no, unless, as I suggested, the Republicans dare to proceed with impeachment hearings. But those issues are what the people elect a government to deal with, and the voters have loudly proclaimed, again and again, that they feel Bill Clinton is doing the job they elected him to do.

Let’s get one thing clear: the public is not indicating that they don’t care about crimes committed by the president. I don’t think they have heard of anything yet that they would consider a crime, in the substantive sense of the word. Paula Jones has no case, and she knows it, and her lawyers know it. Lewinsky has never complained about her treatment. Kathleen Willey made no complaint. If there was a crime, who was the victim? Who is the plaintive?

The other great omission: last I heard, there were congressional elections coming up this year. The House of Representatives is currently controlled by the Republicans, by a small margin; the Senate, by a slightly larger margin. I have not heard a single newscaster yet remark on the fact that if the Republicans aggressively pursued impeachment, given the current attitude of the electorate, they might just get quashed in November. If I were a betting man, I’d bet you that people like Newt Gingrich and John McCain have given this a lot of thought. Furthermore, impeachment or no impeachment, if I were a Republican, I would be a little worried about the November elections. What if the voters decide to send a real message to Congress?

What does Clinton’s 67% approval really mean?

Most people believe Clinton did it. The media knows the public believes the stories so they think that the public doesn’t care, or that the public shares Bill’s amoral attitudes, and that’s why they continue to approve.

I don’t believe it. I think the public are disgusted with Clinton, but I think they are even more disgusted with the intrusive, harassing, jackal mentality of the media. I think that it means the public is disgusted with Kenneth Starr and Oral Hatch, even as they enjoy reading the lurid details of the scandal.

This is a junk food story: yes, if it’s on the table in front of me, I’ll nibble, but it’s still junk food and if you continue to stick it into my face, I’m going to get very, very angry with you.