ministration and more serious debate ofrnmajor issues of national policy, but thernRepublicans failed even to make goodrnpolitical use of the myriad moral flawsrnthey uncovered. The Clinton scandalsrnbarely rippled the stagnant surfaces ofrnlast year’s presidential campaign, and incrediblyrnthe Dole-Kemp ticket bubbledrnbeneath the political waves while thernship of the Clintonian state sailed proudlyrnon.rnOne of the main reasons the Republicansrnmuffed the scandal issue is that thernparty has handled them in ways that arerntransparently political and utterly void ofrnany pretense of moral seriousness. Mr.rnClinton, his wife, and the gang of desperadoesrnwith whom he has surroundedrnhimself and his administration havernserved mainly as the butts of conservativernand Republican gloating. Onlyrnseldom has a conservative or partyrnspokesman expressed anvthing approximatingrnauthentic moral outrage. Mr.rnClinton and his camorra may have beenrnuseful for the conservative bumper-stickerrnindustry and televised soundbites forrnRepublican congressmen, but never havernthe Republicans or the several conservativernpundits who have ranted about thernClinton wickednesses managed to cloakrnthemselves in the moralistic pomposityrnof a Sam Ervin or a Frank Church in anrnearlier era of scandal-hunting.rnYet there may be rather darker reasonsrnfor Republican ineptitude in making thernethical and perhaps legal failings of thernClintonians an effective political issue.rnThat reason is that the Republicansrnthemselves do not have hands that arernparticularly clean.rnThus, Representative Dan Burton ofrnIndiana, chairman of the House GovernmentrnReform Committee, which is examiningrnallegations of improper campaignrnfundraising, turns out to have beenrna bit of a high-roller himself when itrncame to rolling in the campaign clover.rnIn April, it was revealed that Mr. Burtonrnis the proud consumer of considerablyrnmore campaign cabbage from foreignrndonors than from those of his ownrnHoosier State.rnDonors from Indiana fetched up onlyrna lousy $42,490 for the grand purpose ofrnreelecting Mr. Burton, but their zeal forrnhim was dimmed by the generosity ofrnthe congressman’s foreign constituents.rnThe boys from South of the Border—rnthe Indiana border, at least—gave himrn$67,550; that sum came from Florida,rnor, more precisely, from the pockets ofrnCuban and Nicaraguan exiles who nowrninhabit the Sunshine State. Mr. Burtonrnalso hshed up $14,000 from Puerto Rico,rnnot to mention what press reports say isrn”thousands more” from Sikh-Americansrnand Pakistani-Americans. All told, 84rnpercent of his large individual donationsrncame from outside his state. Mr. Burton,rnas it turns out, is an assiduous foe of FidelrnCastro and was a strong supporter of thernNicaraguan Contras of yore. Nothingrnwrong with that, but now that we knowwherernhis campaign funds came from, itrndoes raise the chicken-and-egg problem:rnWhich came first, Mr. Burton’s commitmentrnto Latin American anticommunistrncauses, or campaign funds from LatinrnAmerican anticommunist causes?rnA federal grand jury has been scrutinizingrnMr. Burton, but he’s not the onlyrnRepublican who needs it. House SpeakerrnNewt Gingrich, now reduced to a politicalrncipher, has also managed to keeprnthe quality of his character in the eye ofrnpublic controversy. Not only did thernHouse for which he speaks conclude hernhad committed ethical lapses and finernhim the tidy sum of $300,000, but Mr.rnGingrich, after some months of hemmingrnand haggling, contrived to pay it byrngetting a loan from good ol’ Bob Dolernhimself. This loan is supposedly so arrangedrnthat all legal and financialrnniceties (including appropriate interestrnpayments) will be observed, but the dealrnis just a bit too cute. Why, if Mr. Gingrichrnreally needs a loan, can’t he just gornto a bank or some other professionalrncommercial lender? Mr. Dole himself,rnwhose pathetic television ads for VISArnhave managed to make him an even biggerrnass since losing the election than hernwas when he lost it, is now a member ofrna major Washington law and lobbyingrnfirm. Does the money he’s lending Mr.rnGingrich come from his new firm’srnclients, and if so, will those clients somedayrncall on Mr. Dole or Mr. Gingrich?rn”Some da’, and that day may neerrncome, I will call upon you to do me a servicernin return,” says Mario Puzo’s DonrnVito Corieone to Amerigo Bonasera, thernhapless undertaker whose burning thirstrnfor vengeance on his daughter’s attackersrnat last pulls him into the Godfather’srnweb of crime after a lifetime of resistingrnit. The Godfather knew how the woridrnworks, that no one—even he—ever getsrnsomething for nothing. After four yearsrnof ridiculing and ranting about Mr. Clintonrnfor the ethical vacuum in his heart,rnthe Republicans still have got nothingrnfrom it, but the jury, grand or not, is stillrnout on what they will have to give in returnrnon the day the new godfathersrnthey’ve chosen to serve call in their favors.rn—Samuel FrancisrnT H E ROCKFORD SCHOOLS caserncontinues, but for the first time since thern”People Who Care” lawsuit was filed inrn1989, there are signs of hope. As chronicledrnby Tom Fleming in these pages inrnFebruary (“Here Come the Judge”), thernRockford public schools have been underrnfederal control for the past three years,rnthe result of a discrimination lawsuit thatrna mercenary Chicago lawyer has transformedrninto a class-action desegregationrnsuit. So far, $100 million has been spentrnon “remedies,” with another $125 millionrn(that we know about) yet to come.rnOn February 17, over 700 people gatheredrnat the Rockford Women’s Club tornhear Tom Fleming and Rockford CongressmanrnDon Manzullo urge them tornunite and retake control of their cityrnfrom the feds. According to local columnistrnChuck Sweeny, the forum—”LetrnMy People Go!”—was one of the largestrnpolitical events in Rockford’s historv.rn(Rockford’s only protest against the VietnamrnWar, in contrast, garnered only 400rncitizens.)rnCongressman Manzullo began thernevent by explaining the legislation hernhas introduced to restrict the taxingrnauthority of federal judges (explainedrnin detail in his February article forrnChronicles, “Judicial Taxation WithoutrnRepresentation”). Some members ofrnthe audience took a more radical approachrnand criticized his bill as “enablingrnlegislation,” arguing that the Constitutionrndoes not give federal judges thernauthority to levy taxes under any circumstances.rnWhile commending CongressmanrnManzullo for his legislative efforts. Dr.rnFleming made it clear that the answersrnto Rockford’s problems can only bernforged in Rockford. Our current situation,rnhe argued, is an extension of thernschool consolidation that has occurredrnthroughout this century. From oneroomrnschoolhouses to city-wide districtsrnto state and now federal control—thernprocess has increasingly placed citizensrnat the control of educational “masters”rnlike the one appointed to “oversee” therndestruction—pardon me, desegregationrn—of Rockford’s schools. To thun-rn8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn