If it weren't for them bringing John Huang out of the closet about a week before the 1996 election, Clinton may have won in a landslide; as it is, he got just short of 50% of the vote. If JW had somehow been able to force him out about a week earlier, the election could conceivably have gone the other way. Although there's no way Dole would have a majority of the popular vote, a +4% to Dole and -4% to Clinton would have gotten Dole the electoral votes of Arizona (8 votes), Florida (25), Kentucky (8), Missouri (11), Nevada (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (21), and Tennessee (11). Clinton won 379-159 in the EC. The 93 votes I just noted would have made it 286-252. A +5, -5 swing in Pennsylvania (23) would have put Dole over the top.
I believe, and the poll numbers leading up to the election mostly show, that Clinton lost about 5% in the final week or so of the campaign, mostly because the truth about the China connection was beginning to come out, and because Ross Perot was hammering on the topic mercilessly (and getting covered by the lib press, who thought it would attract Dole voters to Perot, when it was really attracting Clinton voters to Dole). Another week of pounding on the China connection could easily have moved another 5%.
During this time and about the next 2-3 years, JW did its best work. Starting at about the time of Elian Gonzalez, I believe Klayman & Co. made a conscious decision to attempt to inject themselves into anything that even remotely looked like a publicity opportunity. They also started wasting time (in retrospect) on a weekly talk show, an annual cruise (are you kidding me?), and in general institutionalizing themselves.
They started losing focus, and winning fewer victories. Most of the 60 victories you cite either occurred before this time or were the result of momentum built up previously.
To name just a few examples, I don't think they have done enough to nail Al Gore on his e-mails, Carol Browner on her erased hard drive the day she left offfice, and Hillary on Filegate. I don't think they ever will, because they are too busy chasing after relatively inconsequential matters they can't possibly influence.
It's a d*** shame.
… For example, he's trying to pressure the IRS into looking at the tax exempt status of groups posing as Islam organizations but are really fronts for HAMAS. ….
Don’t reckon ol’ larr would want the IRS to look at all tax exempts, now do you. It would be nice to know what goes on behind closed does in all of them.
Judicial Watch Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, Washington, D.C.-based watchdog, frequently promotes itself as an organization committed to bringing lawsuits to expose government corruption. But its tax forms show that it spent only 5.8% of the $12.4 million it raised from donors and foundations in 1998 on litigation. ........
.....The Form 990 reveals that while Judicial Watch spent more than $9 million on its education/fund-raising mailings, it spent only $718,626 pursuing its lawsuits--almost $280,000 less than it paid American Target Advertising, run by conservative direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie, to design and run its direct-mail campaign. ......
Name ONE case he has won in court. Not a RULING, but an actual case.
Would you like to link us to where they are listed or documented? Or, did you misunderstand the fluff on ol’ larr’s web site where he says he’s involved in over 60 cases against the Clinton Administration?…. Judicial Watch is currently involved in over 60 cases against the Clinton Administration and other corrupt government officials.
Now come on and tell us