SalmonRiver Gazette

Nine out of Ten Americans Disapprove
of Starr's Performance

Today (3/4/98) the Associated Press (AP) published the results of a survey on how the American public view the performance of Whitewater special-prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Only about one in ten Americans rated Starr's performance favorably. I think this indicates that most Americans are on-to Starr. It took long enough. But I think part of the reason we gave Starr so much lee-way was we honestly believed he was doing his job. After all, if the President was innocent, he would come through it OK, right? But after he expanded his investigation to include Monica Lewinsky.... And then he brutalized the young woman's mother! (Like he had ANY reason to believe that her Mom had sex with the President!) I think that our collective patience has just about worn out.

To be sure, Starr has his supporters, but even Republican Senator Arlen Specter, of Pennsylvania, concedes that "many people think he is out to get the President." Duh! Part of the reason people might think that is his aura of vindictiveness. Lawrence Walsh, a former special prosecutor himself, said "You don't use grand jury subpoenas just because you're angry."

Then there's former U.S. Attorney Henry Hudson. The AP identifies him as "a republican and a friend" of Ken Starr. Mr. Hudson thinks his friend has done a good job but that he "slipped" when he subpoenaed people just for talking about his staff. Mr Hudson acknowledges that investigating Monica Lewinsky has diverted Starr from his original Whitewater inquiry. And he adds "I have no doubts he regrets asking the Attorney General to expand his mandate."

I'm sure he does and perhaps he even regrets having anything to do with this witch-hunt in the first place. You see, Starr has openly stated that he would like to sit on the Supreme Court (a lofty but noble goal). Based upon his performance to-date, I would say he has a better chance of sitting on "The People's Court."

We all know (at least nine-out-of-ten of us anyway) that this entire investigation was created to hurt and defeat (then first-term) President Clinton. Starr's only chance was to score a quick victory and derail the President's bid for a second term. Fortunately, Bob Dole came to the rescue and Mr. Clinton swept the nation. But that still left Starr and his lavish taste for pissing-away public money (this one guy has spent over $40 million to date! How much more? We don t know yet.) Well, in all fairness, Starr did realize the President was innocent and as much as admitted so when he resigned last year. But Starr has burnt all his "Supreme Court Bridges" on the Democratic-side of the aisle. He couldn't very well ignore his masters' fury when they found out he had given-up and started packing for Malibu.

Is Ken Starr an honorable man who just got caught-up with the wrong bunch of fellows? Up until this week, I might have said "Yes." But now the Justice Department has begun to review allegations that "Starr had concealed perjury" while working for General Motors. YIKES!!! Isn't that dangerously close to what he claims President Clinton was doing?

Nonetheless, instead of convicting Ken before the Justice Department has a chance to indict HIM (unlike the people who are hounding the President) I will try to keep an open mind. After all, you're innocent until proven guilty. Right Ken?

Daniel Sherer

Last Modified: Sunday, 29-Feb-2004 01:27:39 EST