September 11, 1998
Yesterday Speaker Newt Gingrich set the ground rules for discussion of Kenneth Starr’s report. He said, in part, "With the concurrence of the Minority Leader, the Chair would take this occasion to make an announcement regarding proper decorum during debate in the House, including one minute and special order speeches specifically regard to references to the President of the United States." He then quoted from Thomas Jefferson’s manual which is part of Rule 42, "Members engaging in debate must refrain from language that is personally offensive toward the president, including references to types of unethical behavior." The rule covers references to "alleged criminal conduct personally." The restriction extends also to referencing material that would be "personally abusive of the president that would be improper if spoken as the member’s own words."
This restriction does not apply to the Senate and not all members of the House were supportive of a policy which they interpreted as in violation of their right of freedom of speech. Gingrich’s statement went on to quote from a 1909 report which stated that "freedom of speech in debate in the House of Representatives should never be denied or abridged. But freedom of speech in debate does not mean license to indulge in personal abuse or ridicule." While maintaining the "right to criticize official acts of the president is beyond question, but this right is subject to proper rule requiring decorum in debate." Gingrich ended by asking cooperation of all members in maintaining a "level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings of the House."
What’s THAT all about? We get a clue from Rep. James Traficant, (D-OH); who promptly followed the Speaker with, "From the military to the Oval Office America now has a new moral standard: don’t ask, don’t tell. Don’t ask. Don’t tell. What’s next, Mr. Speaker? Can’t ask? Won’t tell? Beam me up! The First Amendment was never intended to hide truth. The First Amendment was intended to promote and preserve truth and justice. It’s no wonder that values and morals in America have gone to hell!
"Just think about it! Congress has aided and abetted this whole process when they removed God from our schools. Now we face the test - the test of morals and values."
Evidently what the Congress is faced with is how to handle a situation that is obviously going to revolve partly around material so degrading and so explicit that it would be pornography if found in a movie. It is a problem illustrated by some of the e-mail I am beginning to get. I have been writing about "sexual perversion" in the White House for almost a year and with the August 17th speech by President Clinton, followed by Kenneth Starr’s report, suddenly the public is beginning to wake up to the fact that there is more to this story than merely a routine cheating on the wife. Something else is going on.
We have had an abundance of clues that we may be facing an X-Rated procedure if and when Clinton is impeached. In the tapes released in 1992 by Gennifer Flowers, and referenced in the book "Slick Willie" by Floyd G. Brown, Clinton laughs when Flowers refers to his "oral sex abilities." In her complaint Paula Jones told a story which, if true, would disqualify Bill Clinton from being a dog catcher. As TIME magazine reported in its January 13, 1997 issue, Paula provided "graphic detail" of her encounter with then Governor Bill Clinton: "Clinton complimented her hair and her ‘curves’ then began slipping his hands up her legs, pulling her close to ‘nibble’ her neck. ‘I will never forget the look on his face,’ said Jones. ‘His face was just red, beet red." Jones said she exclaimed, "What are you doing?" and pushed away from him. Clinton then walked over to the sofa. According to Jones, as he sat down, he lowered his trousers. ‘Kiss it,’ he said. Horrified, Jones said she jumped up and announced, ‘Look, I’m not that kind of girl!" A story that sounded implausible 2 years ago is beginning to sound true.
Paula Jones was vilified in the media for her "outlandish" statement and eventually, based largely on Clinton’s testimony, her case was thrown out of court. Linda Tripp was vilified in the media for her "outlandish" statements, which she apparently has been able to back up with tapes on conversations with Monica Lewinsky.
Then we have stories of Governor Clinton at national Governors’ meetings claiming that oral sex is not adultery -because it is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments. This explains his bizarre statements of recent months, and especially his August 17th statement when he said his responses to the court were "legally correct" but "misleading." This is based on a ploy claiming that when asked:
Suddenly, after seven months of denial, Monica Lewinsky was given immunity and testified before Starr’s Grand Jury, which seemed to cause Clinton to suddenly admit that he did have an "improper relationship" with Monica Lewinsky. Was his sudden change of heart prompted by a real fear that perhaps the American public, while willing to ignore a normal sexual encounter, is not ready to consider the possibility of a bone fide sexual pervert occupying the Oval Office?
I have begun to get e-mails which are illustrations of the difficulties Newt Gingrich is addressing with his policy of trying to "maintain proper decorum" while discussing presidential actions which may include hard core sexual perversion. After one column, in which I referred to Clinton’s sexual perversion, one reader, an ardent Clinton apologist, wrote angrily, "Clinton's sexual perversion in the Oval Office - Now we're back in the Oval Office, thought it was in the study! Oh, well. And as for it being ‘perversion’ -- it was no doubt sexual, but perversion? Who knows what went on except for Bill and Monica - and ‘perverted’ to me means something abnormal -- like sex with animals, etc. I think what they had was a perfectly normal --albeit immoral, since he was married -- relationship, but I don't buy "perverted," the author just threw that in to make it all sound real nasty."
Another reader wrote "Mary, Could you fill us in on the "CIGAR" incident? I've heard it on Rivera, Rush, Hardball and I don't know where ever, but no one will tell what happened with the cigar and Monica. Do you know what happened? If you do, PLEASE fill me in. Would sure appreciate it through e-mail or in one of your columns............"
I responded yesterday to a question by a young 20 something friend about the meaning of some of the happenings in the news and explained that it appeared they were trying to figure out a method of discussing lurid sexual exploits, while maintaining the decorum of the Congress. She was flabbergasted to hear that Clinton has said in the past that oral sex is not "having a sexual affair."
So, what exactly in 1998 America IS deviant behavior? Bill Bennett, author of the "Book of Virtues" coined the phrase that we are "defining deviancy downward." Is there any consensus left about "proper" and "improper" sex? Apparently to some folks sexually perverted behavior no longer includes anything much short of bestiality. Many Americans have bought into a sexual view, pushed energetically by Bill Clinton, that homosexuality is not a sexual aberration, but a respectable lifestyle. Somehow, even if the average life-span of a homosexual in America is 40 years shorter than that of a happily married heterosexual and sex among and with children is being touted as another "right" of children, they are now not even considered "perversions" by the captains of defining deviancy downward?
Bill Clinton has actually been trying to defend a notion that oral sex, and presumably homosexuality, is not "sex" if it is not the form of sex that creates babies. Only creating babies is "wrong," and that’s not wrong as long as they are aborted. That seems to be his message in denying any sexual affair with Monica and claiming his denial was "legally correct." And, remember the trial balloon about Hillary being a lesbian, sent up on a Los Angeles talk show by Dick Morris, who steered the Clinton ship through the Bimbo Eruptions of 1992? Was that a mistake, or an effort to see how far the average American is will to go in tolerating sexual deviancy?
The first orders Bill Clinton issued after election as president was to attempt to force the military to OK homosexuality. He had to settle for the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy. He also rescinded Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy which forbade US funds being used for abortions in foreign nations. In recent months he and his apologists in the media have pushed, and to a large extent they are still pushing, a notion that a leader’s morals are no one else’s business.
The people who accepted that notion now are wondering if they can believe anything Bill Clinton tells them, after finding out that he had lied to them directly when he shook his finger at the camera and said, "Listen to me! I did not have sex with that woman…Monica Lewinsky." And, they are probably about to hear what Monica Lewinsky said to the Grand Jury. In Monica’s last day of testimony, which received little publicity, she provided an affidavit to an all female group. It was assumed that she was providing intimate details of her sexual rendezvous with Bill Clinton. That is probably somewhere in the report.
It is obvious that Speaker Newt Gingrich is concerned about what will happen when, and if, the average American and the members of Congress actually get access to the material in the Kenneth Starr Report. That could happen as early as today.
When Americans of the heartland see it, they may better understand why Rep. Dan Burton used the word "scumbag" when referring to the President of the United States.
The next few weeks could get pretty nasty.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com