[Mb-civic] Madness in Congress Edition

[Michael Butler]

Pretty "spot on " ..and very entertaining
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/> ..MD
The Top 10 Conservative Idiots
(No. 190)

 March 21, 2005
Madness in Congress Edition

 It's been a particularly bizarre week on Capitol Hill. Congressional
Republicans (1,8) first prevented Democrats from saving ANWR, and then
attempted to turn poor Terri Schiavo into their political plaything.
Congress also approved another $80+ billion dollars for Iraq despite recent
revelations that War Profiteers (6) like Halliburton are consistently
over-billing the Pentagon. Fortunately this isn't getting in the way of
George W. Bush (2,3,4) who's currently fighting a losing battle on Social
Security as well as telling fibs about government propaganda. Elsewhere,
David Horowitz (5), Tom DeLay (7), and John Rowland (9) give us all a good
lesson on Republican morals and values. Don't forget the key
<javascript:openWin('/top10/key.html');> ...

 Congressional Republicans
The story of Terri Schiavo is a sad one. She exists in a vegetative state
and is kept alive by a feeding tube. Her parents want her to remain that
way, her husband of twenty-one years wants to remove the feeding tube, and
the courts have become involved. But last week Republicans on Capitol Hill
lost their minds and decided to make a political issue out of Schiavo's
case. 

First they issued a subpoena <http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=593023>
which in theory prevented the courts from taking further action in the case,
but also raised the possibility of Schiavo being wheeled in front of a
committee so that Republicans could use her as a political prop. Senate
Majority Leader Dr. Bill "HIV Can Be Transmitted Via Sweat" Frist took to
the Senate floor to dispute
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1533567,00.html>  the
diagnosis that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state - based on a
video that he had spent "an hour or so looking at" - which caused raised
eyebrows among medical experts and ethicists. Tom Delay called the case "an
act of medical terrorism," demonstrating once again that Republicans will
play the terrorism card on just about any issue. John McCain suggested that
Terri Schiavo should divorce her husband, despite the fact that Republicans
are constantly harping on about the sacred bond of marriage between a man
and a woman. 

But all this rhetoric is put neatly into perspective by the revelation that
Senate Republicans circulated a talking points memo
<http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Schiavo/story?id=595905&page=2>  last week
explaining why they should try to make political hay out of Terri Schiavo.
The memo stated that the "pro-life base will be excited" and that it is a
"great political issue - this is a tough issue for Democrats." Excited?
Great? Do these ghouls have no shame whatsoever?

George W. Bush 
Over the past couple of weeks Our Great Leader has been pottering around the
country on his "Abandoning Social Security Helps America" Tour (ASSHAT), and
unfortunately his little jaunt is already suffering from poor attendance and
cancellations. The majority of Republicans in Alabama's congressional
delegation said "thanks but no thanks" to an invitation to join the
president during his stop in Montgomery
<http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050309/APN/50309
0981&cachetime=3&template=dateline> , and Bush was forced to cancel his trip
to Sarasota 
<http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050311/NEWS/50311
0518/1060>  after even Rep. Katherine Harris - she of the perpetual Bush
brown nose - decided that having the Chimp stop by would be more trouble
than it was worth. (Harris then pretended that she had nothing to do with
the cancellation.) 

Meanwhile Republicans were busy making excuses
<http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050310-114934-7336r.htm>  for Bush,
saying that he'd received "bad advice" on the Social Security issue,
therefore putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of, um, someone else,
I guess. Quote of the week came from an unnamed Republican senator in the
Washington Times, who said, "The message coming out of the White House is
that we'll fix Social Security by raising your taxes and cutting your
retirement benefits and, to get something passed, we'll forget about the
personal retirement accounts we promised." He then said that's like telling
voters, "Never vote for Republicans again - we lie." Sounds about right.

George W. Bush And Friends
Of course, one of the problems Bush is having with his plan for Social
Security is that he doesn't have a plan. Yes, Dubya's tour is just a big
waste of everybody's time. "I have not laid out a plan yet," said he
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20050316/pl_n
m/retirement_bush_dc>  last week, adding, "...intentionally." Aha! I get it.
It's all a cunning plan to confuse everybody - and the plan seems to be
working perfectly. "I'm interested in coming up with a permanent solution,"
Bush said. "I'm not interested in playing political games."

Oh really? Tell that to Congressional Republicans who, according to
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-16-gop-townhalls_x.htm?csp=
34>  USA Today, will be "chucking the open town-hall format" when they try
to sell Bush's plan - or lack of a plan, rather - to pissed-off constituents
over the coming weeks. It seems that Republicans were so taken aback by loud
protests at recent town hall meetings that they have decided to take a leaf
out of the Bush playbook and bypass most of the public entirely, instead
focusing on "newspaper editorial boards ... Rotary Club lunches, senior
citizen centers, chambers of commerce meetings and local businesses," where
they will parade "panels of experts from the Social Security Administration,
conservative think tanks, local colleges and like-minded interest groups to
answer questions about the federal retirement program."

Not that Bush and his radical conservative friends are "interested in
playing political games," you understand.

 George W. Bush 
Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6832586/>  Tim
Russert on Meet the Press back in January that "President Bush has ... made
it clear that he believes there ought to be a bright line between those who
are journalists and those who are advocates for particular issues." He was
referring of course to revelations that journalists are secretly being paid
fat cash <http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1401211,00.html>  -
taxpayer cash - to promote Bush administration policies, and that the Bush
administration has been producing videos - propaganda pieces
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41077-2004May19.html>
featuring fake reporters - which are distributed to news organizations who
broadcast them as if they're real. So where does Our Great Leader really
stand on the "bright line?" Let's find out! Here's part of the transcript
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050316-3.html>  from last
week's presidential press conference. Some of the names have been changed.

 


> Q: Mr. President, earlier this year, you told us you wanted your
> administration to cease and desist on payments to journalists to promote your
> agenda. You cited the need for ethical concerns and the need for bright line
> between the press and the government. Your administration continue to make the
> use of video news releases, which is prepackaged news stories sent to
> television stations, fully aware that some - or many of these stations will
> air them without any disclaimer that they are produced by the government. The
> Comptroller General of the United States, this week, said that raises ethical
> questions. Does it raise ethical questions about the use of government money
> to produce stories about the government that wind up being aired with no
> disclosure that they were produced by the government?
> 
>  CHIMPY McCOKESPOON: There is a Justice Department opinion that says these -
> these pieces are within the law, so long as they're based upon facts, not
> advocacy. And I expect our agencies to adhere to that ruling, to that Justice
> Department opinion. This has been a longstanding practice of the federal
> government to use these types of videos. The Agricultural Department, as I
> understand it, has been using these videos for a long period of time. The
> Defense Department, other departments have been doing so. It's important that
> they be based on the guidelines set out by the Justice Department. Now, I also
> - I think it would be helpful if local stations then disclosed to their
> viewers that that's - that this was based upon a factual report, and they
> chose to use it. But evidently, in some cases, that's not the case. So,
> anyway.
> 
>  


Uh, so as long as the Justice Department - that's Bush's Justice Department
- says that it's okay for the administration to create these pieces, then
they're going to keep creating them? What about lazy news stations who don't
tell their viewers that they're watching propaganda? What about the bright
line? Let's continue...
> 
> Q: The administration could guarantee that's happening by including that
> language in the pre-packaged report.
> CHIMPY McCOKESPOON: Yes, I don't - oh, you mean a disclosure, "I'm George W.
> Bush, and I" - 
> Q: Well, some way to make sure it couldn't air without the disclosure that you
> believe is so vital.


> 
> CHIMPY McCOKESPOON: You know, Ken, there's a procedure that we're going to
> follow, and the local stations ought to - if there's a deep concern about
> that, ought to tell their viewers what they're watching.


Okay - I get it. When Bush says he "believes there ought to be a bright line
between those who are journalists and those who are advocates for particular
issues," he's talking out of his lying ass.
David Horowitz 
David Horowitz made a first-class monkey of himself last week when it was
revealed <http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160001>  that a story he'd
been touting to "prove" liberal bias on college campuses turned out to be a
load of old rubbish. In a nutshell, Horowitz claimed that a University of
Northern Colorado student was asked to write an essay on "why President Bush
was a war criminal" and received a failing grade when she instead wrote an
essay on why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal. Liberal bias! Liberal bias!
At least, it would be if the story wasn't complete bullcrap.
A spokesperson for the university said, "the test question was not the one
described by Horowitz, the grade was not an F, and there were clearly
non-political reasons for whatever grade was given." After a lot of bluster,
Horowitz admitted <http://mediamatters.org/items/200503180001>  that "Some
of our facts were wrong," but - you'll like this - "We were right." So let
me get this straight - he tries to make a point about rotten liberals on
campus, uses a story which is apparently completely false, and then shrugs
and says well I'm right anyway and the facts are irrelevant? How utterly
fascinating. 
Funnily enough, Horowitz is now accusing Media Matters, the University of
Northern Colorado, the Associated Press, and the student involved, of such
things as lying, slander, misrepresenting the facts, dishonesty, and
tampering. Hmmm... blaming other people for exactly the things you've been
doing... Is that one of these new-fangled conservative values?
War Profiteers 
Last week the House of Representatives approved
<http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=3232>  yet another $80+
billion request by Our Great Leader to fund the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. That's about $300 billion or so we've spent on these wars since
Bush came to power. Impressive. Of course, all the money is going to a good
cause, right? I mean, surely its worth cutting child services, education,
and health care in this country so that the Iraqi people can elect an
Islamic theocracy, thus severely punishing the people who attacked us on
9/11... wait a second, that doesn't sound right.
Anyway, there's no need to worry at all about where this money might be
going because helpful corporations such as Halliburton will be taking care
of it. Why, just last week it was revealed that Halliburton had bought
liquefied petroleum gas from Kuwait for $82,000 and then charged the
Pentagon $27 million to transport it into Iraq. In fact, Pentagon auditors
reckon the amount of overbilling
<http://nytimes.com/2005/03/14/business/14cnd-halliburton.html?hp&ex=1110862
800&en=ddf21ca3ee29b90d&ei=5094&partner=homepage>  by Halliburton on fuel
imports alone adds up to $108 million dollars.
So as you can see, destroying Iraq was the smart thing to do. Not only do
companies with extremely close ties to the Bush administration now get to
make vast profits off the backs of the American taxpayer, we also get to cut
programs at home for those who need them the most! It's a win-win situation!
Tom Delay 
The noose appears to be tightening around House Majority Leader Tom Delay
and while he may not be sweating just yet, he's certainly starting to glow.
According to 
<http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/03/17/tom_delay/index_np.html?
x>  Salon.com, "Three of his closest aides in Texas are standing trial for
criminal campaign-finance violations," and when it started to look like he
might have to stand trial himself, Delay tried to change a House rule (which
was originally created by the Republicans) so that he wouldn't have to step
down from his leadership position. Now it's starting to look like Delay may
be involved in all kinds of freebies-for-favors
<http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/230003-3043-021.html>  activities. Tsk
tsk. 
Fortunately, he's got a good excuse - it's not his fault, it's those rotten
partisan Democrats out to get him. Never mind the ethics violations, the
rule-changing, the abuses of power. Never mind that Delay is in control of
the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. "Waaah! Those mean
Democrats are picking on me!" Well I've got four words for Tom Delay: suck
it up, asshole.

Congressional Republicans
Last week, after a long battle, the Senate voted
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1529175,00.html>  to allow
oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The
final vote tally was 51-49, with Democrats more united than Republicans on
the issue. Of course, the Republicans would never have passed this if they
hadn't performed an end-run
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html>  and
slipped the provision into the budget resolution, thus preventing the
Democrats from filibustering. The Republicans argue that opening ANWR to
drilling will reduce our reliance on foreign oil, despite consistently
voting against alternative energy plans which would do the same thing
without digging up large chunks of environmentally-sensitive protected
wilderness. 
So here's the plan: Republicans should be forced to pledge that from now on,
every single drop of oil obtained from American land goes directly into the
American marketplace. Because if we're ruining ANWR in order to export this
oil, why, surely that would be downright unpatriotic. Meanwhile, there's
still plenty that can be done to stop the Republicans from ruining the
environment for profit. Head over to Barbara Boxer's website
<http://ga4.org/campaign/boycott/step1.tcl>  to continue the fight.
John Rowland 
More from the Morals and Values file: last week federal prosecutors urged a
judge to double 
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4873134,00.html>  the
former Connecticut governor's prison sentence, "saying he has misled his
probation officers as part of a yearslong pattern of deceiving state
officials and the public," according to the UK Guardian. The prosecutors say
that John Rowland (R-Naturally) tried to hide a retirement account worth
more than $400,000 from the judge. Rowland resigned last year and was
charged with trading political access for favors (see Idiots 161
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/04/161.html>  and 139
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/04/139.html> ) - he now faces up
to three years in prison.
Funnily enough, the prosecution's recommendation for a longer sentence
includes a quote from a 2000 speech in which Rowland himself said, "When
that trust is violated, the damage becomes in some ways permanent because it
is immediately part of our popular culture and part of the public's
perception. The public needs to know that offenders are punished under our
system of government." But like all good Republicans caught with their pants
down, Rowland knew exactly what to do - last week he blamed a "former top
adviser." Couldn't see that coming, could ya?
Charles and Patrick Linton
And finally, 15-year-old Patrick Linton recently walked out of school
<http://www.nbc4i.com/education/4271505/detail.html>  - with the full
support of his father, Charles - after his school read the Pledge of
Allegiance in a foreign language. "This is America, and we got soldiers at
war," said Patrick. "When you're saying the Pledge in a different language
which nobody understands, that's not OK." Charles Linton backed him up with
some marvelous hyperbole, saying, "It's like wearing a cross upside down in
a church." Never mind the fact that the Pledge was read in a different
language each day - Spanish, French, Russian, German, and Latin - as part of
Foreign Language Week.
"I looked around, and I was like, 'What's going on?'" Patrick said. "We're
at war right now, and our schools are supposed to be patriotic." Actually,
dumbass, schools are supposed to be teaching you stuff. Like how there are -
believe it or not - other countries in the world, and - gasp - some of them
don't speak English. So take that, Spain, France, Russia, Germany, and, um,
Latinland. How dare you not support the troops and have stupid languages
that Patrick Linton can't understand?
There is at least one small flicker of amusement in this tale of utter
ignorance, though - the fact that Patrick's father has to suffer the name
"C. Linton." See you next week!