Re: Ken Starr
Apologies to all you non-USers - and maybe a few USers too - who don't share the present obsession with Tailgate. I'm heartily sick of even the New Zealand's press's obsession with what local cartoonist, Garrick Tremaine, has labelled Fornigate. Bill /---\ | Bill Rosenberg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \---/
Re: Ken Starr
In a message dated 98-01-31 12:46:00 EST, you write: Meanwhile Dick Morris blames Hillary's lesbianism. Doug donchaloveit He goes out and gets blow jobs because Hillary is (ostensibly) eating pussy. Hmmm, I wonder if he actually thought the entire scene through. Whatever else is going on, it MUST be some woman's fault somewhere. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ken Starr
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, James Heartfield wrote: Permanent scandal is getting to be the norm for the political process in most countries. Yes, and I admit spending longer than usual watching the news because of Clinton's latest, even though it seems to me on a bigger canvas it should be apparant that this kind of 'politics' ultimately benefits the Pat Buchanans of the world the most. Less and less debate about the economy, civil rights, foreign politics, etc.; more and more character assasination, the politics of resentment, the 'pornoization' of politics. Didn't the Nazis step into this kind of atmosphere to bring purpose and morality back into government? Bill Burgess
Re: Ken Starr
In message l03102806b0f789b5b05f@[166.84.250.86], Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Apologies to all you non-USers - and maybe a few USers too - who don't share the present obsession with Tailgate. Don't apologise. The whole world waits with baited breath to see what the President will come up with (if that's not too graphic an image). In Britain the press has manufactured a mirror image scandal around foreign secretary Robin Cook so artificial that one is bound to set prejudice aside and defend the Labour government against its critics. I understand that in the Middle East newspapers are reporting the impending conflict over weapons-inspectors as 'The War of Clinton's Penis' (as reported by Tam Dalyell MP in parliament). The out-of-control character of the Special Prosecutors' Office is an interesting warning for Britain, where parliamentary regulators were given powers higher than those of parliament (previously a taboo in British constitutional theory) for the first time. Permanent scandal is getting to be the norm for the political process in most countries. -- James Heartfield
Re: Ken Starr
In message l03102805b0f90ec15daf@[166.84.250.86], Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes James Heartfield wrote: Permanent scandal is getting to be the norm for the political process in most countries. Replacing real politics, I suppose, a process the U.S. probably leads the world in. I wrote this commentary for LM Online, comparing the US and British scandals. Any criticism - especially on the US side of things gratefully received: Sex scandals James Heartfield explains why hes not prepared to swallow the latest stories coming from the Whitehouse For the last two weeks America and Britain have been in the grip of sex scandals - scandals about US President Clintons alleged adultery and harassment of women, and scandals about British Foreign Secretary Robin Cooks separation from his wife and relation to his lover. This is one instance where LM Online is happy to rally to the defence of Bill Clinton and Robin Cook. Not only are the allegations against them both trivial, but even if they were entirely true they would be of no account. The gravest charges against President Clinton are those made by Paula Jones in a sexual harassment suit that is being supported by the Special Investigator Kenneth Starr. Paula Jones allegations, even if they were true, are at worst the description of a misunderstanding between two adults. But without any direct evidence they are simply unprovable. The attempt to establish a pattern of behaviour by dredging through the Presidents past are a scurrilous attempt to smear Clinton and prejudice people against him - in the hopes that prejudice will substitute for a real case. The latest tittle-tattle standing in for news reporting is the Monica Lewinsky allegations. This parlour room gossip is dressed up as serious allegations on the spurious grounds that Clinton told Lewinsky to perjure herself in the Jones trial by denying an affair. But again there is no proof behind these allegations. Similarly, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook is berated for trying to sack a civil servant so that he could get his girlfriend Gaynor Regan the job. Cook is also challenged for taking Regan along on foreign trips as his spouse. These high moral principles about perjury, perks and civil servants are just an excuse for Conservatives and Republicans to stir up the sexual scandals and keep them in the public eye. According to Hillary Clinton, the allegations against her husband are part of a right-wing conspiracy. It is true that the Right has rallied behind Kenneth Starr, but there is no need for a conspiracy theory to explain the scandals. In fact the descent into scandal has more to do with the failures of the right-wing opposition - in Britain and in America. Rather contesting the policies of Blair and Clinton, the right have latched onto sexual and other scandals to make up for their lack of a political alternative to New Labour and New Democrats alike. But more than the politicians, it is the press that has fuelled the scandal-mania. The British press are pre-occupied with Labour scandals in much the same way that they obsessed on Tory scandals in previous years. Labours honeymoon with the press would seem to be over (though Tony Blair has managed to rise, presidentially, above the gutter- sniping). There is a great deal that the British press could criticise the Blair cabinet for. Labours many attacks on civil liberties, or its refusal to pay the nurses the award recommended by the independent review are an example. But New Labour is rarely criticised for its policies. There is a consensus in Britain that political differences are best swept under the carpet, in case they provoke any real conflict. In America, too, there is no real criticism of what Bill Clinton is doing - except what he does with his fly open. Bipartisanship is the order of the day between the Democratic President and the Republicans in Congress. There the press are equally craven about the Presidents policies. The British and American press both glory in their role as a check on the power of the politicians. But the truth is that the press have manufactured bogus scandals to embarrass the politicians, while going along with all the regressive social policies - from criminalising children to welfare cutbacks. An additional force behind the US scandals has been the role of the Special Investigator Kenneth Starr. The existence of this permanent legal investigator into any and all allegations against the incumbent president is a sneaks charter. Any accusation, no matter how cranky, is investigated, without any end-point ever coming into view. Starr began looking at the Whitewater affair - an investigation into real estate speculation. Now Starr has lumped in the latest sexual harassment scandals. Starr is alleged to be politically motivated. He might well be, but the principal motivation is the office itself. The role of Special Investigator was created after the Watergate era, as a check on the
Re: Ken Starr
James Heartfield wrote: . . . In fact the descent into scandal has more to do with the failures of the right-wing opposition - in Britain and in America. Rather contesting the policies of Blair and Clinton, the right have latched onto sexual and other scandals to make up for their lack of a political alternative to New Labour and New Democrats alike. You could also interpret scandal-mongering as a straight-forward strategy to delegitimize government and feed the attitude that nothing constructive can come from government. This attitude is the most powerful brake on social reform, in my view. I agree that we could interpret this strategy as a second-best from the standpoint of conservatives, who might prefer to institute all manner of conservative reforms. It is also true that in the U.S. the conservative agenda appears exhausted if you set aside very ambitious but politically impractical projects like destroying social security or replacing the income tax with a flat tax or sales tax. . . . Congress. There the press are equally craven about the President's policies. They approve of his policies, as you seem to say later. No craveness required, except when it comes to offering objective criticism or evidence which sheds bad light on such policies. . . . The way that Kenneth Starr has crippled the US political process should be a warning of what the future in Britain will be like. The Special Starr is going down unless he lays hands on much better evidence than appears within his reach thus far. So this affair may put a stop to this sort of thing rather than the converse. Given where Clinton's approval ratings have gone in the past week, if he boinks a few more women the Republicans may lose control of Congress. Michael Moore had a George Bush-a-like president start a war against Canada in his straight-to-video classic `Canadian Duck'). That was 'Canadian Bacon', eh? MBS == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
Re: Ken Starr
At 10:16 31/01/98 +, you wrote: In message l03102806b0f789b5b05f@[166.84.250.86], Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Apologies to all you non-USers - and maybe a few USers too - who don't share the present obsession with Tailgate. Don't apologise. The whole world waits with baited breath Right. And in Bolivia the title to a recent article read: "In the US: Clinton's genitalia again in the center of the politica the arena" And a prominent radio host, also a Jesuit priest, is taking just too much delight in reporting the story. Tom Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ken Starr
In a message dated 98-01-30 10:17:09 EST, you write: f Starr indicts the young Ms. Lewinsky, it won't help him politically, and politics may be all that matters in light of the dicey state of facts bearing on legal proceedings. Sigh, I can't believe I mentally exchanged Lipinski for Lewinski -- brain damage -- too much pollution. Anyhow, Max, I agree, this may not have been as planned as a conspiracy, but it is certainly moving in Clinton's direction. The 'bad boy' who the right wing was supposed to be able to use to make their conservative contentions look good just is not cooperating. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ken Starr
At 03:20 PM 1/30/98 EST, Maggie wrote: Sigh, I can't believe I mentally exchanged Lipinski for Lewinski -- brain damage -- too much pollution. Anyhow, Max, I agree, this may not have been as planned as a conspiracy, but it is certainly moving in Clinton's direction. The 'bad boy' who the right wing was supposed to be able to use to make their conservative contentions look good just is not cooperating. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it's more useful to see this is as yet another example of how truth is so much more strange than fiction. If this last week was a movie, who would believe it? That the president would be more popular _after_ this broke (70+% according to the latest snap poll I saw)? And that the insanely cynical media pundits would be upset that the public was more interested in Clinton's policies than his pants? I mean, those rallies that Clinton attended in the Midwest, would any director have the chutzpah to put them in their movie? Even Rob Reiner would've balked. And what about characters like Monica "90210" Lewinski, Ms. Tripp, and her right-wing crazed book agent, who'd represented Mark Fuhrman? According to something I heard on the radio, at one point Tripp's agent even tried to get Fuhrman to write a book about the Foster suicide--although at this point, given how much "proof" most news reports are relying on, who knows if it's true (another example of something it'd be hard to believe in a satire). If a movie included Monica's mom as someone who'd written a book denying that she'd had an affair with a famous opera singer, would't a critic say, that's totally unbelievable and it's also a really ham-handed use of symbolism? For that matter, who would believe characters like Bill and Hillary? "Wag the Dog" is looking more tame every day Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications P.S. It's too bad Hunter Thompson is past his prime; he couldn't ask for better material.
Re: Ken Starr
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . Concerning Maggie's suggestion that this is all a Billary plot to discredit Ken Starr - it may be attributing a bit too much PR skill to them to think they planned it, but the poll numbers seem to be spinning their way. From another list... Another leading indicator is Jay Leno's monologue, which took the usual liberties with Clinton's reputed escapades but trashed Starr's operation as a waste of everyone's time and money, in the sense that all he has done is reveal, albeit outside of legal channels, that Clinton is dishonest and philanderous, which everyone knew before they voted for him. This seems to dovetail with the popular reaction. I wonder if Leno's people study polls. They were similarly ahead of the curve on the UPS strike. If Starr indicts the young Ms. Lewinsky, it won't help him politically, and politics may be all that matters in light of the dicey state of facts bearing on legal proceedings. Although Clinton is a dubious object of defense for obvious reasons, I think there is a more general stake for the left in opposing the entire structure of anti-Clinton legal (sic) machinations by the Right, which began to set up shop before he was even inaugurated. Clearly any more progressive government would face similar threats. The public's view of Starr et al. could also influence this year's mid-term elections. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
