Monday, March 23, 1998

Week of 03/23/1998

"Uh.. No Comment?"
How Democrats Slide Into Hypocrisy
- by David Matthews 2

If you go through my past articles in the archives, you’d probably see me bashing both liberals and conservatives, even though I seem to be harsher towards conservatives. That isn’t hard to do, considering the arrogance and self-righteousness of groups like the religious wrong, who seem to have their hands into the GOP like a ventriloquist controls a dummy. Their egos make them the perfect target.

But being a political cynic first and a Libertarian second, I have an unusual advantage in that I can be utterly brutal to both Democrats and Republicans. And while I have focused a lot of my brutally honest rants on President Clinton, he is only a shadow of the Democratic Party, and a weak one at that.

No, this week, my focus, my scorn, and my brutally honest rant shall be about the Democratic Party. And it appears they are deserving this one.

Last Sunday (03/15), Kathleen Willey took her case to the public in an interview with "60 Minutes" about her fateful encounter with President Clinton. She described in detail how President Clinton kissed, fondled, and groped her while in the White House. She says that she wanted to slap him but decided against it only because he’s the President.

Make no mistake, her account of the event is a heavy blow to Camp Clinton’s endless defensive pattern of "deny and defame." We’re not talking about the allegations of some second-rate fluff reporter with aspirations of being Bill Clinton’s secret mistress. (Or so Camp Clinton wants us to believe.) We’re not talking about some big-haired girl from Arkansas being pandered to by anti-abortion activists looking to "get" the President. (Or so Camp Clinton wants us to believe.) We’re not talking about some political opportunist with aspirations of being the reincarnation of J. Edgar Hoover by prying to people’s lives with hidden microphones. (Or so Camp Clinton wants us to believe.) And we’re certainly not talking about some young 24-year old former intern who supposedly has a fatal attraction to powerful authority figures and can only speak through a high-priced attorney addicted to the limelight. (Or so Camp Clinton wants us to believe.)

No, Kathleen Willey used to be PART of Camp Clinton. We’re talking about a former supporter, and a former contributor to the Democratic Party. And we’re not talking about just an innocent kiss or some squabble over gifts or a conversation with perhaps some spicy talk. We’re talking about allegations on the caliper that brought Bob Packwood out of the Senate almost in disgrace!

I would find her account of the events to be credible, because it would be a day that Mrs. Willey would not want to exaggerate or omit, even though she would probably love to forget the day. It was for her the worst day in her life. She and her husband were in debt up to their eyes. They were on the verge of losing everything they had. She would find out days later that her husband, rather than endure the pain of defaulting on their debts, committed suicide early that evening. She was at the White House to beg for a paying job so she could keep from going into default, and she instead allegedly got groped and molested by the President of the United States. Do you think after what happened that she would be willing to exaggerate on the events of the day?

But, you know, credit has to be given to Camp Clinton in their speedy reaction to these turn of events. It used to take years for Camp Clinton to respond to requests for information. It took two years for the Rose Law firm records to be discovered in the White House residential wing. Now the slightest morsel of information on people speaking out against Clinton gets made public within minutes. Remarkable turnaround time, if you ask me. Of course, it probably does help if the information being released is intended to hurt Clinton’s accusers, not Clinton.

Following the "60 Minutes" interview, many groups that used to support Clinton were forced to backpedal on their stances. The National Organization of Women, a staunch Clinton support group, had to come out leaning against Clinton on these allegations. Even the Reverend Billy Graham, who served as the religious inspiration of presidents for decades, had to cast doubt on the effectiveness of President Clinton in the wake of these allegations.

Even the Republicans had to restrain themselves in their zeal to avenge themselves from Iran-Contra and Watergate. I think I can safely say that when Republicans debate over HOW they want to impeach Clinton, that they’re getting just a little too anxious over this situation.

So where are the Democrats?

You know, I almost feel sorry for them. After all, they’re in the proverbial "rock and a hard place" situation. Clinton is their champion - the man with a dream that can only be shadowed by the dreams of Karl Marx and Josef Stalin. Any measure remotely liberal in origin becomes Clinton’s personal crusade. Clinton mastered the art of "stealth taxing" and speaking in 100% pure methane. Given the choice between Clinton and the power-hungry Republicans, the Democratic Party quickly, and understandably, chose Clinton.

And yet, Kathleen Willey was one of them. Not only that, but an alleged victim of sexual harassment, one of their own causes and creations. Their defense of Anita Hill against the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made sexual harassment a household word.

Like I said, I almost feel sorry for them.


No doubt, would the accused be a Republican, the Democrats would be more vocal on this issue than the air-fluffed members of the media. Case in point has to be how they were responsible for the removal of Bob Packwood from the senate. They refused to have the issue die in committee and forced Packwood to either resign or endure an embarrassing impeachment trial where the allegations were already made public.

Remember folks, Packwood was also considered a staunch defender of women’s issues.

So what do the Democrats have to say for themselves?

"Uh.. No comment?"

Their silence, however, does them a terrible disservice. Caught between their champion and their cause, Democrats run the risk of defaulting into the ranks of hypocrisy by their non-choice.

Worse yet, this kind of hypocrisy sends a very dangerous message to the public - that very real charges against elected officials can be negated in the name of partisan politics. Their silence negates their earlier crusades against Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood. They cannot now afford the luxury of picking and choosing how they want to implement the cause they themselves created.

At the very least, vocally deciding to weigh in the evidence first and suspend unsubstantiated rumors and allegations from both Camp Clinton and their critics will go far to salvage the party’s credibility. Declaring themselves to be at least neutral until the facts are brought in would be better than the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" statues that they appear to be with their silence.

Whatever they do, they must do it soon. This is, after all, an election year. If the Democrats want to stop their losing streak and still have a chance of recapturing either the House or the Senate from the Republicans, they must decide which is more important - their allies, or their morals.

No comments: