banner

andelman.com

   
   

  Andelman.com 
|

  Mr. Media  
|

  Rachel 
|

  Big Black Spider 
|

 Articles 

Bob Andelman

Bio


Hotbot Search
  "By Bob Andelman"  

Northern Light Search
  "By Bob Andelman"  

Guru.com
Hiring Information
  for Bob Andelman
 

Order Books
By Bob Andelman


 ARTICLES
 Latest Work
Profiles
Retail
First Person
Murder, I Wrote
Real Estate
Tampa Bay
Meetings
Radio
Business
Sports


BOOKS
 Reviews 

The Corporate Athlete
(Hardcover)

The Corporate Athlete
(Paperback; Jan. 2001)

The Corporate Athlete
(Audiotape)

The Corporate Athlete
(Official Web Site)

The Profit Zone

Built From Scratch
(Hardcover)

Built From Scratch
(Official Web Site)

Mean Business
(Paperback)

Mean Business
(Hardcover)

Mean Business
(Audiotape)

Bankers as Brokers

Stadium For Rent
(Paperback)

Stadium For Rent
(Online)

Why Men Watch Football  

Why Men Watch Football
(Online Soon!)

Big Black Spider
With the
Orange Orange Eyes
(A Story for Kids!) 



Mr. Media Archives  
The Latest  
1998  
1997  
1996  
1995  
1994  

More Andelmans  
 Mimi  
Rachel Photos  

Write To Us!  
Bob
Mimi
Rachel

Hitometer
(Since Oct. 7, 1999)

   

Bob Merkle for U.S. Senate?

"Mad Dog" on the Loose

By Bob Andelman

 

(Originally written in August 1993 for Tampa Bay Weekly)

 

There's a story former United States Attorney Bob Merkle tells as a part of his stump speech that neatly sums up his campaign for the Republican nomination for U. S. Senate.

"My wife told me that my two daughters were in the backyard one day. The younger one was crying and the older one said, 'What's the matter, Rita, why are you crying?' No answer, continued sobs. Finally, my wife stuck her head out the window in exasperation and said, 'Why are you crying?' Rita said, 'Nobody loves me.' And Teresa laughed and said, 'That's okay. Nobody loves daddy, either.'"

He's an engaging speaker, with lots of colorful experiences and characters to draw on. He's a little heavier than perhaps he was when playing college football at notre dame. His cheeks are red and chubby, not unlike those of Florida's junior senator and former governor, Bob Graham. Small audiences make loud noises in support of his candidacy.

Why did you decide to run and why did you get in the race so late?

Well, there's two ways of looking at that. I'm not late in the sense I filed before the deadline and I'm certainly in the race before the votes have been cast. I'm late only in the sense that you've got to have several million dollars to make a race. The reason that I filed when I filed and not a year later is I had the Carlos Lehder case to prosecute, among other reasons. In fact, I was approached a year earlier by the National Republican Committee in Washington, asking me if I'd be interested in running and I said no. Lehder had to be convicted and I -- rightly or wrongly -- perceived myself to be the best prosecutor in the office. It was a very difficult trial, it took seven, eight months, the jury was out for five days. So I didn't think anyone was going to hold it against me.

But politically, it hurt you because your opponent, Connie Mack had already lined up major Republicans to support him and could not turn back and say, "Okay, Bob, I'll support you."

Yeah, I know. But I think Mr. Mack is in for a surprise.

Take a look at it objectively. Mack has been campaigning for the better part of a year and he's spent a couple million dollars. He still couldn't even muster 50 percent of the vote among Republicans! Sure, he was the selected candidate (but) I know, contrary to Republican statements, that there are other arguably qualified Republicans who wanted to be candidates and they were actively discouraged by the party.

My late entry into the race is not going to be a handicap. In fact, It highlights the main distinctions between myself and Mr. Mack. Mack is perceived as the money candidate. He has not had anything to say of substance at all. His campaign is one of slogans and I think that's a smart decision on his part or his manager's part because his record has been very lackluster, to say the least.

This is your first run for elected office. Above the Senate there's only one elected office. Why not start a little lower, work your way up, get a little experience?

I always aim high. (And) I don't lack experience. I'm more experienced than anybody in the field. Don't forget I was a presidential appointee in 1982. A lot of people don't understand what a U.S. Attorney does. My job is to enforce all the laws of the land. I had responsibility in areas such as health care, the environment, civil rights, crime, you name it. The whole fabric of our social life was my responsibility. I probably know more about the federal laws and the problems of them than anyone else in the race. I was an administrator, a conciliator, a leader. I had to work with diverse federal, state and local agencies. ... To do that, I had to be an effective administrator, I had to be good at dealing with people. That's why, among other reasons, I served under three different attorney generals.

Do you see yourself as a more traditional Republican candidate than Connie Mack is?

I see myself as the more modern Republican. Mack is a guy who, in my opinion, has not had an original thought in his head since he got into public life. He rode on Reagan's coattails in 1982. He is preaching a knee-jerk, conservative philosophy which is not the product of any independent thought on his part. Most of what he says you could probably find in the Heritage Foundation pamphlet, "A Guide to the Conservative Platform."

I am a conservative man. I am fundamentally conservative in my approach to government. But by the same token, I think the problems of our day ... require that we all grow. There are certain things that require bi-partisan approaches. The environment, for example. The environment is something that we are stuck with. It's either going to be good for us or it's going to be bad for us. ... The breakup of the family, which has been accelerating rapid in the 1980s is a time-bomb waiting to go off in society. It's a direct predicate to drug trafficking, it's a direct predicate to crime.

I believe society has an obligation to address the root causes of these things. The question that separates liberal from conservative in the traditional sense is, how do we do it? I do not believe the govt is the repository of compassion, to the extent that the old-time liberal approach to welfare has been ineffective. I think it has served to discourage private initiative, private compassion. It's served to discourage responsibility in private enterprise. It's served to encourage the attitude, "That's not my problem."

***

Do you think you have a credibility problem in Tampa and St. Petersburg?

Only with a couple of editorial writers.

You've had a jagged history with the press. Was there a point at which you think the press turned against you?

I have always taken the position that I have not maligned the press. I have always said, "Ask them." Only they know.

After the Italiano trial last year, in which Governor Martinez testified for the defense. Every time the St. Petersburg Times has written an article about that, it says, "Merkle has accused (Martinez) without bringing charges." I didn't accuse anybody. That was sworn testimony in court under oath. The chief judge in that trial commended me for the manner in which that trial was conducted. I didn't put Governor Martinez on the stand; the defense did. The Republican party paid the governor's expenses, which is highly unusual. I did my job of cross-examination. The press, rather than focus on what was happening in the trial, was helping the defense attorney make his claims on the courthouse steps. So much so that the Times editorialized at least twice -- perhaps three times during the course of the trial -- that I should be fired because of my insolent, arrogant and unfair manner in the courtroom, culminating with an editorial cartoon showing me physically pummeling a witness on the stand. Now, you know, this is an attack directly on my integrity, my ability, my reputation. The very same day the Times ran (the cartoon) the Tampa Tribune carried an article in which they interviewed the jurors in the trial right after the verdict. The jurors commented on how professional and gentlemanly I was -- and courteous -- toward Governor Martinez. So why do they do those things?

Maybe it's because they believe their own clippings.

***

Carlos Lehder's name popped up a lot today. What do you make of him as a man?

Carlos Lehder. (Merkle takes a long pause.) I described him several ways to the jury. I described him as a man whose life demonstrated, ultimately, a total absence of any love or regard for others. He used people, discarded them. Some people described him as brilliant but, I think, in the final analysis, he was not so brilliant. He was reckless. He made stupid mistakes, he alienated a lot of people. And he himself fell victim to drugs. But for that, he might well have succeeded beyond the time that he did. We had evidence we didn't use in the trial. He became almost an embarrassment in his own world. Just imagine, if you will, a meeting of the Medellin Cartel, most of whom don't smoke, or anything else. Carlos Lehder is sitting there, doing drugs. These are hard-eyed businessmen who didn't appreciate that.

Lehder -- I described him also as an empty suit. He hid behind his charm,
which he did have. He hid behind the money and his guns. He was not a real
courageous guy. He had bravado. But he was an empty suit.

Did you have an opportunity to talk to him, face-to-face, the way we are now?

No, I never talked to him. He yelled at me several times.

Occasionally, I would come into court and sit down. Nobody would be in court and Lehder would be sitting across the way. Lehder turned to (my assistant) and said, "That agent is here. He said he was here and now he's gone. (My assistant) said, "Well, maybe he's sick." And Lehder said, "I hope he's got AIDS."

Lehder suggested after his conviction that you had used him for political gain. I imagine there's a number of people who may have looked at it that way.

That accusation is pure claptrap. Those who suggest that are engaging in what psychologists would call projection. They're projecting their own crass motivations.

I was working 16 hours a day, minimum, seven days a week. Away from home. If anybody thinks I would do that for some political purpose -- I can't even believe that kind of accusation.

I would say this: I perceive that it's not going to hurt me when they compare the performance of Mr. Mack and my performance during the exact period of time, being paid by the same employer -- the taxpayers -- they're going to see that I was working doubletime, overtime, and Mack -- who was making more money than me -- missed 41 percent of the votes. So just from the prospect of which public officials are going to roll up their sleeves and work for you, Mack's going to stand in my stead.

The St. Petersburg Times did a profile on Mr. Mack and the reporter said Mr. Mack never sweats. Well, if I missed work half of the time, I might not sweat, either.

***

When the Nelson Italiano trial ended, you got the conviction, Italiano went to prison. You were probably feeling pretty good, receiving a lot of positive attention. After a few months though, the Supreme Court made a decision which reversed the mail fraud conviction and Italiano was booted free. How did you feel to know he was out?

I think the Supreme Court decision was an unwise decision. I can understand the philosophy of it -- it's a very rigid, almost pristine approach to the issue taken by a conservative majority. But it effectively ignored decades of precedent in every court in the United States and had a certain surreal quality to it which, while perhaps being comfortable in the ivory tower of conservative thought, did not translate well into the real world. And, compounding the problem in regard to Mr. Italiano particularly, the Times always (writes about) "The Nelson Italiano trial, in which Merkle made accusations against Governor Martinez and the conviction was overturned." Period. No explanation. The way it's put, the way it's written, suggests that Merkle's misconduct was the reason for it being overturned. And it had nothing to do with it.

It was my recommendation (before leaving office) that Mr. Italiano be re-indicted because the evidence was overwhelming. The jury was only out three hours.

Do you have a sense that there is more corruption going on, either in Hillsborough, Tampa or Pinellas?

Its a problem. It's endemic.

Is something going to happen here in the near future?

I can't comment on that. You see, one of the things I decided early on -- and I think properly so, it's a question of ethics -- there are things I knew as U.S. Attorney which I could capitalize on for political pureposes. But I can't. And I'm not going to say anything.

When I say that, that's not to suggest there's going to be some giant case, or anything like that. ... I do know there will be major cases coming into the public's eye over the next six months, which I basically developed, worked up.

***

Do you think of yourself as a smart man?

Oh, yes. Indeed.

Are you a calculating man?

I reflect. I am calculating in the sense that I do not act irrationally. I consider what I'm going to say, I consider what I'm going to do. For example, when I made the statement I made about Martinez and Mack. ... carefully thought out, carefully written. The words may have been strong but they were not the product of anger or spoken in anger. They were meant to say exactly what they said, to accurately describe what I know to be the case.

I have no effective way of rebutting the accusation that "Merkle's a hothead" and "Merkle should think before he speaks." I point to my record. I'm not a hothead. I do think before I speak. And I could not have accomplished what I accomplished in the U.S. Attorney's Office if I were the caricature that a lot of people accuse me of being.

***

Let's talk about Joe Magri, your former chief aide and the man you hoped would succeed you as United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida. The thing that strikes me about the situation is this: How many people in the United States Government get to name their successor?

It's not the issue of me naming my successor at all. The issue is whether politics is going to be used as a weapon of reprisal. Attorney General Meese's assurance to me was not predicated on any right of mine to name my successor. It was predicated on legitimate law enforcement concerns and that this particular U.S. Attorney's Office -- because of certain salient facts -- must be protected against political reprisals. And it was not protected. That's the issue. Joe Magri was the first assistant in my entire (term) in that office, basically. He deserves equal, if not more credit than I for the accomplishments in that office.

The statements which have come out about not knowing Mr. Magri was interested are flat disingenuous, to put it very mildly.

Do you think Meese was too far out of the decision-making loop by the time this came up, making him unable to back up his assurances to you?

There are things about that that I am not willing to comment publicly on. I will at a later time.

How do you feel about Ed Meese's term in office as Attorney General?

I never criticized Meese. I also pointed out that my dealings have been limited to law enforcement matters. I always found him to be very amiable, very supportive of me. And I think the political criticism of the Department of Justice has ignored the reality and, to that extent, been unfair, to the U.S. Attorneys across the country who do 90 percent of the work. I would agree that there was a tremendous demoralization in the department in Washington. And there were some effects in the field. I found, in the last six months, a lack of coordination at the top, the Noreiga case as an example. When I find out from the press the offer to Noreiga is on the table.

How do you feel about the oft-repeated charge that Meese is morally bankrupt?

I think Meese is fundamentally a very decent man. I really do. He struck me as being an extremely nice person, without a mean bone in his body. Maybe he was disorganized. Maybe he was careless. ... My perception is that he was not the dynamo at Justice. He was a figurehead in many respects.

How did Meese compare with his predecessor, William French Smith?

In many respects, my contacts with Meese were more than with Smith. Both shared somewhat of a distance from the day-to-day operations although Meese was more involved in the criminal aspects of the department.

***

Were you ever face-to-face with Panamanian strongman Manuel Noreiga?

No.

Would you describe Noreiga in terms similar to those you did Carlos Lehder?

I think Noreiga -- at least from what I've read about him -- there's a lot of difference. Noreiga is not a man of any charm, whatsoever. No grace. And, apparently, a brutality that Lehder is capable of but it's more on the surface with Noreiga.

Do you think Noreiga will ever stand trial?

I consider it a very likely possibility if he's not killed by political opposition or the survivors of those he has destroyed or if the administration doesn't cave in.

The situation has been quiet for awhile; I wonder if the further we get away from the announced indictment if its become less and less likely he'll be tried.

I wouldn't say that at all. The situation in Panama is not going to get far away from the conscience of the American people. It took us 7 years to get Lehder.

Are there more big fish we'll be getting after Lehder? Are they becoming more touchable or more untouchable?

I think they're becoming more touchable. The rhetoric down there suggests the contrary but they're becoming more touchable. They are more clearly perceived as at odds with the people of their own countries down there and the fact that Lehder was convicted and didn't get out. I think that has to be an inducement to further efforts along those lines.

Do you think the Vice President has actively fought drugs or has he been paying lip service to the South Florida task force?

I believe he's actively fought drugs. From what I know - you've got to recognize, the Vice President occupies a very sensitive position. A lot of people criticize ... but I think the other side of that coin is that the Vice President lent the prestige of his name and his office, which served to focus nationally on a problem a lot of people didn't want to recognize existed. I think he deserves a lot of credit for that.

Let's say you beat mack. Who do you see as your opponent on the Democratic side?

I'm not even going to venture to guess. I'm focusing on Mr. Mack. I have a very tough race with Mr. Mack. It's going to be close. When I beat him, if that's in the cards, then I'll worry about who's next.

If you beat him, do you see yourself drawing heavily from Democrats as well as Republicans?

It is my belief -- I'm in the toughest race I'll have right now and I will handily win the general election. And I don't think Mr. Mack has a chance in the general election.

If you beat Mack, you've got a Republican Party that's been up in arms with you ...

It won't be the first time they've shot themselves in the foot.

Are you someone who can bring them back together?

Let's put it this way. I am not in the business of running a devisive campaign. The inflammatory rhetoric has been coming from the other side. ... I don't plan, after I win, on going around the state and extending olive branches. I am able, and have in the past, patched up wounds, been conciliatory. But what you're seeing in the Republican Party is great disaffection with the way the Party has been run. Their real animus against me is they perceive I'm going to upset that applecart. And they're right.

I'll be conciliatory, but it's not going to be on their terms.

Did you ever experiment, in high school or college ...

I don't have any problems like that. That is not an issue in this campaign. I have not addressed that in regards to Mr. Mack.

How do you feel about the constitutionality of drug and/or AIDS testing in the work place?

I believe it's constitutional. Drug testing -- there's a split of opinion in the courts about this. But it's a balancing of interests, just like anything else. I do not believe that the federal government has a right to mandate drug testing.

For its own employees?

Not a blanket mandate. There has to be some official considerations to pass constitutional muster. If you have employees involved in national security, national transportation, public safety, air traffic controllers, you've got an obligation to the public. People who take those jobs do not have an entitlement to those jobs so they can't say that a fundamental right is being deprived of them. They go into those jobs with the knowledge that they're going to be subject to that kind of scrutiny.

I'd pee in a bottle anytime. And have always been able to do so. ButII don't believe patriotism is that sublime. In private industry the experience is that drug screening is good if done compassionately, with the recognition that the drug user is a threat to himself, fellow workers and the economic survival of the business itself.Don't eliminate the person; eliminate the problem.

You graduated Notre Dame in '68. That was not quite the height of the war. How did you feel about Viet Nam then and how do you feel about it now?

Well, I tried to go. I was in ROTC in college. I was in football. I tried to sign up for the warrant officer program but couldn't pass thephysical (because) I injured my leg and my back.

You were willing to go -- how do you look back at it now?

I've had some close friends that did go and I've seen the problems they suffer. Had I gone, I probably would have come back feeling that I'd been screwed by a government, and a people that really wasnt supportive.

Who do you look to for political inspiration?

Lincoln. Theodore Roosevelt. Even Eisenhower.

You still smoke in a time when a lot of people are giving it up. How do you feel about all the legislation banning ...

That really isn't relevant. I hope we don't see that in this interview.

But people are voting on it in the Senate and in the House -- smoker's rights, smoking bans, government subsidies.

I hope they raise taxes 100 percent on cigarettes and that will certainly give me incentive to quit smoking.

I don't smoke heavily at all. In fact, I'm going to quit. I am quitting.

I don't particularly dig zealotry in an area. I can see some people are allergic and I have no prob with smoking and non-smoking areas. I don't object to not smoking on an airline. But there are a lot of people whose perfume or cologne is a lot more offensive than cigarette smoke.

I don't think smoking should be a federal offense, let me put it that way.

If it doesn't hapen for you on the sixth -- if Connie Mack wins -- have you thought about what you might do?

I really haven't thought about it. I've always just lived my live kind of a day at a time. ... That goes back to your question, "Am I a calculating man?" I don't chart out my life.

Have you had an opportunity -- either formally or informally -- to devise a plan or program that would keep people who commit crimes, violent, white or blue-collar, in prison longer? Do we need more prisons?

There's no question in my mind we must imprison violent criminals. We must imprison persons convicted of drug-related offenses. And we must accomplish a status quo in the system whereby that sentence is definitive, it is equitable and it is something other than an accepted cost of doing business as a drug trafficker. And it has to have a deterrent factor. The statutes that we have now are amply strong enough with regard to imprisonment. It's just a question of putting them into practice. We don't have enough prosecutors, we don't have enough judges. ...

end

 

©2000, All rights reserved. No portion may be reproduced without the express written permission of the author.


Wash Wear Smile


Free Andelmania E-Newsletter!

Want to hear the latest about the Andelmans? Join our mailing list!
You'll get updates about the family and professional news, too.
Enter your email address below, then click the 'Join List' button:
Powered by ListBot


banner


Try Link-O-Matic for instant hits!