Howling Dog Graphic
Point. Click. Search.

Contents: Archives:

Search this weblog
Search WWW
Howler Graphic
by Bob Somerby
E-mail This Page
Socrates Reads Graphic
A companion site.

Site maintained by Allegro Web Communications, comments to Marc.

Howler Banner Graphic
Caveat lector

TRASHING BUSH-BASHING (PART 3)! York searched Google to find Bush-hatred. With Clinton, it was right on TV:


YORK TAKES THE CURE: At National Review, Byron York was upset. He wrote a piece, “Annals of Bush-Hating,” complaining that current critics of Bush were wackier than anything seen by Bill Clinton. For some reason, we can’t call up the piece on the NatRev site (or on Nexis), but Rich Lowry summed it up pretty well. According to Lowry, York had “dipped into the anti-Bush fever swamps and come back with evidence of ‘Bush-hating’ to rival anything directed at his predecessor.”

But then, it had been stock RNC spin for months: Those crazy Bush-haters are far, far worse than anything directed at Clinton. Why had this pleasing new spin now been crafted? Simple: People had begun to gripe when Bush’s critics were called unpatriotic, so this was the handy replacement attack—Bush’s critics are just crazy/loony. The pleasing point is now being offered wherever pseudo-conservative misdirection is sold.

But can York and Lowry really believe that “Bush-hating” rivals the Clinton variety? If so, we think these worthies need a good dose of the cure that we call HOWLER HISTORY.

Of course, Clinton-hating was mighty, ubiquitous. There’s just no way to sum it up here. But how wacky, how crazy was America’s discourse only a few short years ago? Our thoughts drifted back to a slimy episode. We think it went something like this:

GENNIFER’S SECRET: How ludicrous had press culture become by, let’s say, the summer of ’99? Press culture had become very ludicrous. By that time, Clinton-accuser Gennifer Flowers was running a tangy, for-profit web site, and the inventive cable TV show, Hardball, invited her on the air to discuss it. Early in her half-hour session, Flowers referred to the Clintons as “murderers.” Her host, Chris Matthews, claiming surprise, questioned what Flowers had said:

MATTHEWS: Murderers?

FLOWERS: I—I—well, there is a Clinton death list if anyone would like to go to my web site and take a look at it.

MATTHEWS: Well, we have your web site here, But what will they find if they go there in terms of murder? I didn’t know that one.

Why didn’t he know what was on his guest’s site? Needless to say, no “press critic” ever asked. But the session now took a turn that was partly comic, but was mainly an assault on American values:
FLOWERS (continuing directly): Well, there are—there are a number of deaths associated with Bill Clinton and the, and his administration and his operatives. And, and there’s a, there—I would just suggest that they go on and take a look at it, because—
Poor Matthews! As he examined the murder charges, we got a look at the repulsive standards now driving the Washington “press corps:”
MATTHEWS: And who did he try to kill that you know of? Give me one hard case.

FLOWERS: Look—well, I would tell you that Jerry Parks, who was the head of his security when he was involved in the campaign, was shot five times and on a major thoroughfare in Arkansas because, according to his son, he had claimed to have videos and photographs of Bill Clinton with other women, as well as Hillary Clinton.

MATTHEWS: Right. But you don’t know there’s any connection.

FLOWERS: I don’t know for—I didn’t hear Bill get on the phone and call and place the order to have this man killed, no.

MATTHEWS: Well, that’s not—you sort of need evidence like that to accuse even this guy, a guy you don’t like, perhaps, of murder, don’t you?

Apparently no, you don’t, not on Hardball. Here was Flowers’ reply:
FLOWERS: Well, I—well, I think if it looks like a chicken and walks like a chicken, perhaps it’s a chicken. I mean, come on.
Sadly, when it came to accusing Bill Clinton of something, the “perhaps it’s a chicken” standard of proof had become the norm on cable. “I mean, come on” now counted as argument. But how bad did Flowers’ performance get? Her accusations of multiple murder continued throughout her half-hour session; she returned to the topic three separate times. But drink in, if you will, this comic exchange when Flowers claimed that Clinton’s White House staff was trying to get her engagements as a nightclub singer cancelled:
FLOWERS: Well, let’s get something straight. I have been a victim. I mean, I don’t—

MATTHEWS: OK, tell me why.

FLOWERS: Well—oh, well, that’s another show as well. I mean, I continue to try to work in my career of 30 years and keep getting shut down by these people to the point of having the White House call and say, “We don’t want her to sing there.” Now that I can prove to you.

MATTHEWS: Who—who made that call?

FLOWERS: And I want to make one more point to you, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Bruce Lindsey? Or who made the call?

FLOWERS: I want to make—

MATTHEWS: I have no idea. Who was it, somebody close to the president?

FLOWERS: Yes, it was. I want—


FLOWERS: I want to—I want to make a point.

Flowers returned to her murder allegations. Then, the buxom balladeer resumed her discussion of those phone calls:
MATTHEWS: I have no idea who, who called from the president’s office. Who called from the president’s office? I can list all the people that worked for him. Podesta, I can list George Stephanopoulos, I can list everybody who works in the White House. Name a name of somebody there—I have no idea who it was. You say somebody called from Bill Clinton land to kill your gigs out in, out in Vegas. Who called on the president’s behalf?

FLOWERS: They certainly did.


FLOWERS: They certainly did. I—You know, I don’t have that name in front of me, but I’ll be glad to call your, your producer back and give him that name.

MATTHEWS: I’d love to get the name.

Apparently the name was never supplied, because Matthews never announced it. And wouldn’t you know it? It never turned up on Flowers’ web site, either.

For the record, the “who’s-on-first” quality of these exchanges suffused the murder discussions as well. Despite repeated claims that Clinton was knee-deep in murders, Flowers could cite no evidence of same, and she said she didn’t know that Jerry Falwell had repudiated his role in the “Clinton Chronicles” tapes—tapes which she cited as her source of knowledge. (Falwell—a deeply pious American cleric—had been pimping the tapes before Flowers.) Matthews—completely surprised by Flowers’ accusations—explicitly said, right there on the air, that he dissociated himself from her comments.

Judged by any rational standard, Flowers’ outing was a disaster. In any sort of a rational world, the yellow-haired yodeler would have had a tough time getting back on any news show. But this was not a rational world; this was American cable “news,” and this was the summer of 1999. And so, precisely because she behaved inexcusably, Flowers turned up just two weeks later on Hannity & Colmes, a program with even lower standards than those observed on Hardball. In fact, Hannity & Colmes rewarded Flowers for her egregious misconduct on Hardball; they booked the sultry chanteuse for the program’s full hour. Would her hosts avoid her murder charges? Hardly—almost instantly, Sean Hannity invited Flowers to recite the accusations again. (Repeatedly, the fake, phony host feigned deep concern at his guest’s complete lack of evidence.) And the clowning continued in the deeply troubling Case of the Cancelled Nightclub Engagements. Sixteen days after Flowers said that she’d call Matthews back and give him those names, “Who’s On First” was enacted again:

ALAN COLMES: Let’s talk about you making charges that the Clintons or people acting on their behalf have made calls to stop you from getting jobs. Who?

FLOWERS: Well, it started a long time ago—

COLMES: But tell me who.

FLOWERS: It actually started with the book deal, when I was being approached by some major houses for some major money, by the way. They received phone calls suggesting that they not do business with me.

COLMES: Who made the calls?

FLOWERS: Sometimes I know who the calls are from, and sometimes they don’t say.

Mercifully, Hannity said it was time for a break. Soon after, Colmes spent two more minutes pursuing those names. He asked eight questions on the topic. The song-and-dance ended like this:
COLMES: But I want—can you chase that back to somebody who we know? A lot of people—people in the White House, they’re well-known people, who would be behind this?

FLOWERS: Well, I think there are probably a number of people that can—

COLMES: Can you name one?

FLOWERS: Well, I would suspect that, you know, his operatives, people that are close to him.

Oh. At this point, even Colmes gave up quest and pursued a new line of discussion.

To state the obvious, these cable outings were simply remarkable. Flowers repeatedly accused a sitting president of murder, and accused his aides of ruining her career, while engaging in conversations about how she knew that would have been over-the-top as examples of slapstick. But what was most remarkable here? It was the utter lack of any comment from anywhere else in the press corps. In the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz had recently scolded the national press corps for its conduct in covering John Kennedy’s death. But he mentioned the Flowers appearances in passing, noting only that “CNBC’s Chris Matthews even trotted out Gennifer Flowers for the umpteenth time” to comment on the Clintons. Her accusations weren’t even mentioned. How low had the press corps’ standards sunk? Absurdly bogus accusations of murder no longer rated a word of comment. But then, the press corps had long accepted such conduct from Matthews. During a Hardball interview in May, he had goaded Kathleen Willey, another Clinton accuser, into saying that a certain journalist had tried to intimidate her into recanting her claims. [Note: In his final report, independent counsel Robert Ray called Willey a liar, saying that he had considered charging her with perjury.] When Willey refused to name the offending scribe, Matthews blurted the name out for her. As it turned out, the accused scribe had definitive proof of his innocence, and Matthews was forced to apologize on the air. But in the meantime, a deranged viewer had appeared—with a shotgun—at the home of the accused scribe; luckily, the intruder was arrested before damage was done. But did this slow Hardball’s accusation machine? Hardly. Just one week later, Matthews began accusing nuclear physicist Wen Ho Lee of “g[iving] away the entire nuclear capacity of the United States” to the Chinese. He based his claims on a string of New York Times stories which the hapless paper would later retract—but not before Lee himself received a wave of anonymous death threats. Matthews’ wild accusations, by the way, went well beyond the misguided claims which actually appeared in the Times’ bungled articles. But on Hardball—and elsewhere on American cable—accurate paraphrase was almost verboten. The attack-and-accusation machine spun on, cable hosts driven wild by ten blow-jobs.

Those laughable interviews with Gennifer Flowers? They were just a minor, tragicomic example of the press corps’ Clinton-hating machine. In his deeply troubled recent article, York searched out obscure web sites to claim that “Bush-hating” is worse, so much worse. But the Clinton-hating was right on TV, where a crazy half-hour only earned you more airtime. Disgraceful frauds like Matthews and Hannity stroked their thighs as their pleasing guests ranted. And it wasn’t just Clinton who was actively hated—you and your values were being trashed too. And guess what? The troubled York had nothing to say; butt-boy Lowry was MIA also. These men are disgraceful, laughable frauds, eager to sell off your most sacred birthrights. Nothing—nothing—will stop their propaganda. They want to fill their pockets with cash, and they want to get clapped on the back by the assortment of fake, phony spin-pimps who run them. Today’s Bush-hating is far worse, they say. But they’re lying. It’s their one basic skill.

BOYS WOULD BE BOYS: Alas, poor York! He searched through dusty corners of Google, horrified by the hatred of Bush. But you didn’t have to conduct lonely searches to find the gruesome, inexcusable Clinton-hating. Consider the clowning on August 23, 1999, when a group of predictable “all-star” butt-boys gathered on Special Report. A few days before, Clinton had described how he’d fallen in love with his wife when they both were students in law school. In response, Hume posted a photo of a young Mrs. Clinton—a photo which he found unattractive. For the next several minutes, Hume’s panel staged the kind of discussion that was increasingly a stain on the “press:”

HUME: The picture he paints of Mrs. Clinton is of a sort of a femme fatale. Now [posting the picture] that’s about what she looked like then [group laughter]. And one—one can’t help but wonder about this [group laughter].
Apparently, the photo didn’t evoke Pamela Anderson, so Hume’s all-male panel enjoyed a good laugh. After speculating about how the Clintons were getting along in their marriage, they returned to that decades-old photo:
JUAN WILLIAMS: The problem, Tod [Lindberg], is that nobody can believe, one, that she was this beautiful woman in college—anyone who’s seen the pictures—and, two, who can believe that she didn’t know that this guy was a skirt-chaser all along?

JEFF BIRNBAUM: Well, I should point out, about the love-in-college part, that love is blind [group laughter]. But that also—

HUME: Well, he never said she was beautiful. He said she was “compelling looking.” And that she may well have been.

Hume gained another round of appreciative chuckles. Only Lindberg took a pass on mocking Mrs. Clinton’s appearance. But Lindberg, a conservative, is a serious, decent person. The other all-stars rushed, real fast, to make their low caliber known. (Williams, of course, was the “liberal.”)

Seen anything like this on TV lately? If so, pass it on to poor York.

FROM OUR “PLANET OF THE PUNDITS” FILE: Try to remember, these pundits aren’t human. You can throw them food and laugh at their antics, but try not to get up real close. This past Wednesday night, Jerry Nachman helped brilliant Matthews preview California’s gubernatorial debate. Soon, Nachman was saying how brilliant Matthews is at judging such encounters. (Nachman is Matthews’ MSNBC boss.) Matthews started by asking who was going to win that evening’s debate:

NACHMAN: Arnold is…He is going to do very, very well tonight. I think the problem is that where you live, and the people you deal with, the pundits still think because he’s a Republican in general and an actor in particular, he is going to belly up tonight. He’s not.

MATTHEWS: Well, don’t me put me in that category, Jerry. Don’t even try to put me in the category with a bunch of liberal pundits that think with conventional wisdom.

NACHMAN: As a matter of fact—

MATTHEWS: I happen to know this guy, and I think he is a business conservative. He is a practical guy who came up with nothing in this country, and I think he is a fascinating political figure, regardless of your politics. But here is what I want to know—

NACHMAN: Yes, but—you are also the guy who correctly gave George Bush three out of three falls in the debates against Al Gore.


NACHMAN: Al Gore’s best friends gave Bush two out of three falls, so we know what a Republican can do even if he is outclassed in forensics by the Democratic opponent.

Wow! According to Nachman, Matthews “correctly gave George Bush three out of three falls in the debates against Al Gore.” The humble Matthews quickly agreed. But what did Matthews really say about those debates? Here’s what he really said, on MSNBC, just as soon as Debate I was over:
MATTHEWS (10/3/00): Not long ago, maybe it was a year or two ago, I saw Al Gore in a marathon, a 26-miler. Tonight was a marathon event. He was in training for tonight. He was overpowering. He had the stamina. He had an encyclopedic ability to talk about any issue…Al Gore did not sweat, as I thought he might. Al Gore was effective in dominating the format. He dominated the time, and I have to say he dominated the debate.
Does it sound like Matthews thought Bush won? The next night, he scolded all those “liberal” pundits for refusing to say what had happened:
MATTHEWS (10/4/00): I couldn’t believe the number of people who chickened out last night. It was clear to me—and I’m no fan of either of these guys entirely, and I can certainly say that about the one who I thought won last night, that’s Al Gore—I thought he cleaned the other guy’s clock, and I said so last night. All four national polls agreed with that…I don’t understand why people are afraid to say so.
Nor did Matthews think that Bush won Debate III. Here was his next-day assessment:
RON INSANA (10/18/00): Chris Matthews talks to us tonight as he does just about every night as we approach Election Day…Do you think the debate last night changed anyone’s mind either in the [electoral] college or out there amongst average citizens?

MATTHEWS: Well, that’s a hard thing to figure right now, Ron, because clearly Gore outperformed Bush…The voters, I think, may still be drawn to the personality of George W. Bush more than they are to Al Gore’s. The next three days or four days will tell us who won this debate. We don’t know yet.

On the Today show that morning, he had called it “a draw.” But eventually, Matthews selected a more pleasing tale. Reason? The cable crowd loves to be told that Bush really won, and the fake, phony Nachman now fakes along too, pretending that Matthews said as much in real time. Our question: Do you know of any sector like this one? Do you know of any American sector so overrun with complete, total frauds?

NEXT: Part 4! Walter does Sidney!