THE SOCIAL GRACES

Stranger things have rarely happened. Last week Rush Limbaugh called for Republicans to step back and let the media lead the charge against the President on Indonesian contributions. As proof, perhaps, that even a talk-show host can grow, Limbaugh acknowledged that the G.O.P.’s credibility is tainted by accusations of extremism and that the press is doing a fine job of making Clinton look like the world’s slowest learner for not quickly producing every document associated with the affair.

But when Limbaugh praises the media, the media should check the clips. Yes, the amount of money sucked up during the latest campaign is revolting, reminiscent of the days of envelopes stuffed with cash. And that a pile of it came from Indonesians gives an old subject new life. But there’s something terribly out of whack when three major newspapers base breathless exposes on a March 9, 1993, letter to the President from Mochtar Riady that gives his views on foreign policy, including normalizing relations with Vietnam (which George Bush had begun) and getting President Suharto of Indonesia invited to the G-7 summit (which Clinton didn’t do). In fact, what was news was that all Riady got in reply to his missive–and a huge contribution to the Democrats–was a half-page kiss-off. That’s a very bad ratio of quid to quo. If Bob Dole had been so cavalier about Dwayne Andreas’ interest in ethanol subsidies, Andreas might have charged Dole full market price for that Bal Harbour condo.

The press is also shocked that Mochtar’s son James Riady, during a number of Oval Office visits, described by the White House as basically social, praised Clinton’s stand on China and urged him to visit President Suharto of Indonesia (as did others and he did). Most social encounters in Washington are part backslap and part business, and these had more of the former than the latter. But because reporters are trying to compensate for charges that they favor Democrats, they are more willing to buy the G.O.P. line that foreign-policy decisions are as open to influence as domestic ones, like tobacco regulations, and this simply isn’t true.

What got the New York Times into a lather over these visits was Bruce Lindsey’s characterization of them as social calls. According to a Times story by Jeff Gerth and Stephen Labaton, Lindsey withheld information about the Riady meetings despite the recommendations of White House lawyers Jane Sherburne and Mark Fabiani. A Times editorial then called on Lindsey to resign. But while Sherburne was quoted in Gerth and Labaton’s story, Fabiani has never confirmed the account. Sources close to Sherburne say that she never felt she had been overruled or lied to by Lindsey and that the Times torqued up a conflict.

The standard for having -gate attached to an event has gone from “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up” to “It’s not the cover-up, it’s the quality of the disclosure.” If a document isn’t released fast enough, it will be used against you even if it is exculpatory. When the President is running a salon for fat cats, the burden is on him to show that he’s not buying what they are selling. But in the process the press should not overblow each revelation week by week. If it does, the public will tune out, as it did in Whitewater. This is not to say that the White House doesn’t smell like Gucci Gulch. Nor should it go unpunished if it takes in improper contributions (and let’s hold the Republicans or Dole to the same standard). The fascination with the latest White House paper chase only gives Republicans cover for avoiding the larger issue of campaign-finance reform. Just eight Republican Senators voted for it last session. No wonder Limbaugh is telling the media to keep up the good work.