B Y J A M E S C A R V I L L E
MAN BITES DOG An inside look at how to judging by all the mud wrestling going on in Table Talk since my last column, the subject of "Independent" Counsel Kenneth Starr ain't exactly a snoozer issue. Thank you to all those Salonites who were slugging it out on my behalf — and on behalf of the President's right to a fair and impartial investigation. I also thank those of you on the other side of this issue for putting in your two cents. Your opinions are more than welcome, if not always wise. One thing, though: I encourage you to come up with some new slurs when you're going after me. I've got high standards when it comes to low blows. You gotta get a little more clever, a little more nasty. Just listen to my wife attack me on her radio show. You'll get the idea. I better back up for those of you who are coming into this debate in medias res. (You see, in this great country of ours, they even teach Latin to swamp hicks!) A couple of weeks ago I announced that I was going to get off my can and do something about this travesty of justice called the Whitewater investigation. I announced that I was going to start raising money to buy television ads expressing my deep conviction that Kenneth Starr is a right-wing hack who has proven himself incapable of conducting a credible nonpartisan investigation of the president or anyone else. The chattering class ate it up. The elections were over and every producer, reporter and editor in America was looking for sexy political stories to pounce on. I gave it to them on a silver platter. Now, don't get me wrong. None of this is a game. I am dead serious about letting the American people know why I think the president is getting a raw deal. But that doesn't mean we can't examine the media mechanics at work here. I was able to whip the Washington media into a frenzy because, despite my Cajun accent, I was speaking a language they understood. If I had started squawking about putting together a 400-page treatise on Starr and his outrageous conflicts of interest, no self-respecting Washington media insider would have given this story any play. Instead, I told them I was starting to raise money to put up some feisty attack ads. That got their attention. Money-raising and attack ads are two of the more combustible elements in this city. Soon reporters wanted to know whether I was getting marching orders from the White House. Reporters started peppering the president's press secretary, Mike McCurry, with questions about me. Was the president discussing Starr with me? Did the president approve of my efforts? Was he egging me on? McCurry told them the truth: The President wasn't in cahoots with me. That profound proclamation was enough to fuel a cycle or two of news stories and op-eds — most of which did me the honor and favor of repeating, at least in passing, the case against Starr. The feeding frenzy started all over again when I told a New York Times reporter that I would hold back on running ads if Starr would stop giving partisan speeches and attend to the investigation at hand in an expeditious manner. My phone started ringing off the hook again. Reporters wanted to know whether my statement was a signal that the White House was finally cracking down on this Cajun crackpot. Let me be clear about this, since there is still a lot of confusion. The White House is not coordinating my efforts. I am neither seeking nor receiving their blessings. Bottom line: I am not backing off. Sometimes when you want to shed light, you have to generate some heat. I may tinker with the thermostat from time to time, but I'm not going to turn off the burners. Unless Starr takes a drastic turn, I will continue to raise money through direct-mail solicitations. We will continue to shed light on the gross injustices being perpetrated here. We will continue to gather research on Starr's ties to right-wing Clinton-haters. And now we come to the most absurd chapter of this uniquely Washington tale. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, is now trying to instigate probes into my anti-Starr efforts. (Just to give you some context, Bob Barr is the stunning hypocrite who led the fight for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act despite the fact that he's been married three times. As Margaret Carlson of Time Magazine asked, which of those marriages was he trying to defend?) Congressman Barr asked Henry Hyde, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to hold hearings, under the premise that I'm obstructing justice. I say, break out the Bibles and call me on up to the Hill. There's nothing I'd love more than for them to give me another free platform to make my case to the nation. Henry Hyde is an eminently reasonable and decent man. Frankly, I'd be shocked if he initiated these ludicrous hearings. But whether he does or not, this episode has been remarkable. It is a sad day when a member of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives shows such callous disregard for this nation's constitutional protections. As any constitutional scholar will attest, my efforts are well within my First Amendment right of free expression. The right wingers on the Judiciary Committee may not like the political views I am expressing, but that's exactly why we have a First Amendment in the first place. Speaking of the First Amendment, next week I'll be telling you all about a fabulous new film called "The People vs. Larry Flynt," directed by two-time Academy Award winner Milos Forman. I have a small role in the film. I play a Southern prosecutor who, like Barr, seeks to rein in a man even if it means trampling his First Amendment rights. Tune in two weeks from now and I'll tell you what I learned. Glad that Carville is going to keep hounding Kenneth Starr? Or do you have a few choice words for him that not even Mary Matalin has thought of? Mix it up in Table Talk. |
