 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| White House or "Smoke" House?
by John M. Curtis Copyright August 30, 1998
Denying that the president spends a progressively larger fraction of his daily duties engaged in damage control, the Casa Blanca spin department is doing its utmost to reinvigorate his domestic and foreign policy agenda. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that. Hearing neatly packaged slogans that "the president needs to get back to running the country," is all too familiar. Yet many people rightly question whether resuscitating dicey middle east summits, military excursions or health care issues are nothing more than clever publicity stunts for an administration desperately trying to find its legs. Scrambling to save his mantle of power, president Clinton and company are navigating through some choppy water in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Voting to open up unrestricted impeachment hearings for only the third time our nation’s history, the congress — despite all the partisanship — has historically recorded president Clinton’s black-eye, assuring, if nothing else, that his presidency is indelibly scarred by the scandal. As impeachment hearings near and as the nation waits to weigh the effects of the Lewinsky scandal on the congressional mid-term elections, the White House is seen jockeying for position. Without too much amnesia, the official White House position prior to the president’s 'mea culpa' on August 17, 1998, was that 'it' never happened. Following his 'admission,' the White House made an abrupt about face and now asserts that "the president was legally accurate and his actions don’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense." Hardly what many were seeking in the way of a public apology. Convenient — to be sure — for the White House to make this point, but congress must ultimately decide that issue. Once again, the White House judicial watch is not in a position of lecturing the country on what constitutes an impeachable offense. With mid-term elections now approaching, opinion polls tend to support the White House position driving the debate. After the elections, opinion polls won’t exert the same measure of influence. Once the dust settles and heads are counted, congress will once again be compelled to objectively debate the 'real' issues: Whether we’re a nation of laws or one of privileged exceptions. With so much politics obscuring the real issues, it’s difficult to focus on what’s important, namely, whether the president perjured himself, suborned perjury, lied under oath, tampered with witnesses and obstructed justice. While the president’s apologists would like to excuse his conduct because "it’s only about sex," the fact remains that many Americans sit in prisons for lying under oath. Try telling Mark Fuhrman — the infamous 'rogue' cop of OJ fame — that his felony nolo contendere plea for lying about using a racial epithet was inconsequential because his speech was protected by the first amendment. Where was the American Civil Liberties Union to defend his first amendment rights? While the White House would like to hide behind the 'privacy' issue, or, more recently, whether his behavior meets an impeachable constitutional threshold, the truth remains that, after the elections, congress must adopt a surgical eye when commencing the impeachment proceedings. Despite whether opinion polls indicate that the public doesn’t want a popular president ejected from office, the congress must apply the rule of law and let the chips fall where they may. If applying the same standards to the president results in his impeachment, then the public will have to deal with how his narcissistic indiscretions torpedoed all his sincere commitments to the people who elected him. Yes, the public has a right to their disbelief and anger with a leader who let them down. Compensating now with a barrage of strategically planned publicity stunts to underscore his real commitments to the electorate can’t ignore his escapades with Monica Lewinsky on taxpayers’ time. It’s not enough to dredge up previous presidents’ indiscretions or those of congress to excuse his behavior. That doesn’t make his conduct any more acceptable. As congressman Henry Hyde (R-Ill), the unenviable chairman of the House judiciary committee said, "our job is not to judge president Clinton for having an extramarital affair, but rather to ascertain whether there’s merit to the Starr referral alleging perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice." Ultimately, whether there’s enough votes in the Senate to convict president Clinton is also not relevant. Despite democrats’ protests, the impartial process of evaluating the facts must go forward: The rush to complete the process must be tempered with impartiality and thoroughness. Anything less would be a disgrace. It’s high time that the White House refrain from churning out propaganda and disinformation regarding the Starr referral and allow the House judiciary committee to do its job of fairly evaluating the evidence. Blowing more smoke by escalating attacks on Mr. Starr or exacerbating ugly partisanship only makes matters worse. Despite all the paranoia about right wing conspiracies, when all is said and done, no one wanted this whole mess to turn out like this— but it’s clearly too late to turn back. About the Author John M. Curtis is director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. |
||||||
lowing more smoke than a Texas-style barbecue, the White House looks more like a ‘smoke’ house than a dignified executive branch of government. Since the Lewinsky scandal broke last January, the only department beefed up at the White House is the spin department [the ‘communication’ office], adding a hefty group of legal, political and publicity consultants. Despite recently losing some of its key players, the White House is still bulging at the seams with damage control personnel. Where are all the bureaucrats and experts specialized in foreign policy, health care, education and social engineering? Contrary to what’s portrayed, valuable government time is now dissipated strategizing and planning the president’s defense in the Monica Lewinsky mess. How much precious energy and time does the president now direct toward extricating himself from the quicksand?|
Home || Articles || Books || The Teflon Report || Reactions || About Discobolos This site designed, developed and hosted by the experts at ©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc. |
