|
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.
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:
|