Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:06:34 EDT

Looky here:

Zoe Lundgren, House Judiciary Committee member, speaking for 100% of the House
Democrats, promotes this notion: The case is actually Partisan Republicans vs
the Constitution instead of the State vs. Clinton. Of course, she didn't say
so directly. She was presenting "3 Yardsticks" of determination for
impeachable conduct at a press conference, but as she read them (with
selective follow-up references to the Nixon impeachment hearings of 1974) I
didn't hear any mention of Presidential conduct. Instead, she focused on the
Committee's. "We must be VERY careful that the Constitution is being upheld
and not subverted as APPEARS to be happening now," she warns at a press
conference. "We don't want the APPEARANCE of partisanship, which we SEEM to
have now."

100% of the House Democrats is not partisan?

I have to give her credit. As a promotional twisted syllogism, this will
work. Stating to the Press that airing of the Clinton testimony via tape and
transcripts will be CONSTRUED as anti-Constitutional and partisan is the same
as stating indirectly that it IS, a strategy of suggestion that has proven
successful for the public Clinton defense (or offense, I can't tell the
difference anymore).

So the concept of anti-Constitutionalism will be mass marketed over the
weekend in a last-ditch effort to prevent the release of the tapes. If enough
public hew and cry is generated, it might work. Just watch. Zoe and many of
her compatriots were hastening home to hear the voices of their respective
constituencies, who overwhelmingly (no doubt) will object to the release of
the tapes.

Transparent. What you'll hear Monday: "The public protests airing of the
tapes (this information having been garnered over the weekend from floods of
constituent callers and/or polls). Releasing the tapes now appears to be

(Also start counting how many times a you hear these terms spoken by a House
Democrat: FAIR and UNFAIR. That and APPEAR in all its forms. Most of the
claims made by Zoe today were not against any clear subversion, but against
the APPEARANCE of unfairness, partisanship and unfairness . . . which,
ironically, is exactly what she promoted to the Press! Interestingly, she
never mentioned Clinton's name.)

Very, very clever.

Out on the proverbial limb,