|
Jewish World Review Oct. 11, 2000 / 12 Tishrei, 5761
Chris Matthews
Watching the fictional TV show, I was struck with the
awe we feel for the office of the presidency, this personal
emblem of our nationhood and the democratic values it
upholds.
Why did the first Gore-Bush debate fail to examine each
candidate on how he views this sacred trust, how he
would choose to honor it?
The questions Tuesday night dealt with issues of policy
prescription drugs, taxes, education, Yugoslavia.
Overlooked was the issue of the presidency itself.
Let me put a sharper point on this: Neither the vice
president nor the Texas governor was asked how he
would guard the nation's highest office, and the White
House itself, from the scandalous misconduct of the
so-recent past.
Before this campaign is over, I would like to hear the two
men's prescription for that sensitive matter of state.
Bush's timidity is most disturbing. As the challenger, he is
the candidate best positioned to condemn what's gone
wrong under Clinton, the freest to promise reform.
Given the chance, he did neither. Asked if there were "issues of character" at
stake in this election, Gov. Bush said that he was "disappointed" in how
President Clinton and Vice President Gore conducted their "fund-raising
affairs."
Is that all he has to say about the worst political scandals since Watergate?
To refresh memories, I am referring to the Clinton-Gore scheme of 1995-96 to
evade federal campaign-spending limits by exploiting the White House to raise
tens of millions of dollars in "soft money." I'm talking about the scores of
"coffees" Gore hosted personally in the White House and the Old Executive
Office Building, the night-after-night use of the Lincoln Bedroom as a Motel 6
for millionaires randy to pay cash for the cachet of sleeping on the bed of the
Great Emancipator.
I am referring to the vice president's conduct during those seven months in
1998, when the president lied to the country about his relations with a young
White House intern. Why, during that long national purgatory, did Gore not
confront Clinton? Why, once the truth of the charges was made manifest by the
DNA on Monica Lewinsky's dress, did he drench Clinton in even higher
praise?
Why, on the day of the president's impeachment, did he talk like a paid political
hack, saying the man whose misconduct created the mess deserved face space
on Mount Rushmore?
Gore should be forced to choose: Either defend this desecration of the White
House or vow to end it.
I would prefer, personally, that he did the latter.
Better yet, he and Bush both should be asked to forswear the following:
No "finance-related events" at the White House on their watch.
No sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom for contributors.
No fund-raising calls from the White House by the president, the vice
president or anyone.
No sexual exploitation of White House staffers.
If they both agree to these rules, we Americans will have reasserted our
two-centuries-old reverence toward the president's house. If either or both
refuse, we will know who we are dealing
10/03/00: Bush-Gore and the ghosts of Kennedy-Nixon
|