|
|
|
Hey Feminists: It's the Lying, Stupid. by Larry Elder As of this writing, the Monica Lewinsky "scandal" changes almost hourly. A fact here. A fact there. But make no mistake about one thing. The Clinton Administration rolled out its defense strategy--attack, attack, and attack again. First go after Monica Lewinsky's character. "That poor child has serious emotional problems. She's fantasizing, and I haven't heard that she's played with a full deck in her other experiences," said Democrat Representative Charles Rangel. Next, make sure the feminists don't start yapping. After all, Lewinsky worked as a low-level subordinate in a power relationship with the President. Can you say "hostile working environment"? And don't forget Kathleen Willey, who allegedly reluctantly testified that President Clinton made an unwelcome sexual advance towards her as she discussed a full-time job with Clinton. And what to say about the alleged "hundreds" of women with whom the President has had relations, according to the Linda Tripp-Monica Lewinsky tapes? Tough spot if you are, say, Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women. Remember the Clarence Thomas hearings? Ms. Ireland blasted away, "Women in this country are angry. We will not be brushed aside. We're going to replace them [the men in the Senate Judiciary Committee] and we're gonna take the power." And what about those dastardly Promise Keepers? "We are here today to announce our 'no surrender' campaign. When Promise Keepers talks about men taking responsibility, they really mean men taking control and women taking the back seat," said Ireland. And what now, N.O.W.? As to Clinton affair(s), the "Los Angeles Times" reports that the National Organization for Women sent a two-paragraph fax: It is "unable to comment responsibly" about the mess. Say what? Unable to comment responsibly? Anita Perez Ferguson, President of the National Women's Political Caucus, bluntly outlined the feminist dilemma, "It's a two-edged sword for us. We are very disappointed in the allegations, but we are also very busy working on all the good programs this administration has put in place for women." So now you know what's what. Maybe the President's a leech, but we give him two thumbs up on child care.. Next the Clinton administration lobs the grenade at independent counsel Kenneth Starr. After all, what does this have to do with Whitewater? A vendetta! A witchhunt! Well, this approach has problems. You see, Webb Hubbell, former Associate General Counsel, pled guilty to overcharging clients. In exchange for leniency, he promised Kenneth Starr to tell everything he knows about Whitewater. And as Hillary Clinton's former law partner, and one who worked on Whitewater matters, Hubbell presumably knew a lot. Lo and behold, Vernon Jordan, the President's close friend, funnels business Hubbell's way, and, shazam, Hubbell gets a bad case of selective Alheimer's. Now comes ex-intern Monica Lewinsky's friend, Linda Tripp, with secretly-recorded tapes--tapes in which Lewinsky alleges that both the President and Jordan tried to get her to change her testimony, and that Jordan helped her find a job. Hmmmm, thinks Starr. Jordan again coming to the rescue of someone with the goods on Clinton. Starr then received permission from both Attorney General Janet Reno and a three judge appellate panel to expand his Whitewater probe to include these allegations of perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice. Serious trouble. Well, say the Clinton defense guerrillas, so presidents screw around. Stop the presses! True, from Warren Harding to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Jack Kennedy. But then reporters played by different rules. The press considered private matters private, and even ignored evidence of rampant fooling around in the Kennedy Administration. The rules changed. In 1987, Gary Hart's presidential aspirations blew up following allegations and apparent confirmation of an extramarital affair. Hart withdrew his shipwrecked campaign, only to re-enter months later, but never reviving his now-dead candidacy. But, say the Clinton defenders, "Wait a sec. What's the link between extramarital affairs and crummy leadership? FDR fooled around, and his greatness remains unquestioned." Fair enough, but in President Clinton's case, the issue becomes one of degree. Again, assuming the allegations true, Clinton engaged in numerous extramarital affairs, both within and outside the White House. This creates the possibility of blackmail and corruption, as well as distractions from office duty as the President scrambles to defend lawsuits and extinguish ever-erupting rumor fires. At some point, this President crossed the line. At some point, we object to a 50-year-old married President having an affair in the White House with a 21-year-old intern. An intern who alleges that the President conducted four other affairs simultaneously, three of whom were White House interns. At some point we say, "Enough." The final Clinton attack is Johnnie Cochranesque. Create a Mark Fuhrman! Blame everything on the "vast right-wing conspiracy," to quote the First Lady of Defense, Hilary Clinton. This makes about as much sense as the O. J. defense--confusion, contamination, corruption. Hey, if the law's on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, pound on the table. Worked for the Juice. But, again, we have problems. First, former White House aide and now ABC consultant, George Stephanopoulos, became the first "pundit" to use the "I" word. Stephanopoulos said that if the charges are true, Congress should consider impeachment. Bulletin: Stephanopoulos, former Friend of Bill, defects and joins right-wing conspiracy. Also, let's remember that Kenneth Starr, the Republican-appointee-with-the-vendetta-against-Clinton, flatly dismissed the highly incendiary charge that former Deputy Counsel Vince Foster was murdered or that somebody moved his body. And who's in the conspiracy? It would have been nice if The First Lady had named names. CNN? Unlikely. Its new news editor recently told staffers to avoid using the term "scandal" in connection with allegations of Clinton campaign improprieties. "Washington Post"/"Newsweek"? Doubt it. They're owned by the same company, and sat on the Monica Lewinsky story for, some say, nearly a year. Not exactly aggressive journalism hell-bent on exposing the Clinton administration. The nightly newscasts on NBC, ABC, and CBS? Don't think so. Clinton-related scandal/stories covered by print but completely ignored by TV are simply too numerous to mention. Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Troopergate, campaign finance scandals, as well as the Paula Jones story itself--the nets never had much interest. "Investors Business Daily" interviewed University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato. Sabato said that the press simply failed to live up to its journalistic responsibilities in pursuing the Gennifer Flowers case, as well as other Clinton-related matters. Think about it. Most Democratic presidents would gladly accept this "vast right-wing conspiracy" as opposition. After all, it failed to stop a scandal-riddled Clinton from winning election twice. His popularity rating defies gravity, as of this writing, standing at an all-time Clinton high of nearly 70%. With enemies that feeble, bring on the war. No, after the Clinton knights get through trashing Monica Lewinsky, blaming Ken Starr, charging a "vast right-wing conspiracy," and arguing "so-what-everybody-does-it," it still comes down to this. The President created his troubles. And the cynics are right. The media only cares because the scandal involves sex. But remember, it's not the sex that keep the Clintonites awake these nights. It's the lying, stupid. Under oath. |
|