......Give Bush As Much Respect As The GOP Gave Clinton. He's Earned It.
STUPID BUSH JOKES..."If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." AP,12/18/00. Some years ago, Bush told a group at a D.C. dinner that when he became president he would have a 119 number for dyslexics. He thought that was a joke, too. --Politex, 12/18/00
In only a few days, Bush has set the tone for his administration. He says what it takes to get the backing of the American people, then he does pretty much the opposite. While Bush is talking bipartisanship, just as he did as governor, his actions are highly partisan, just as they were as governor. Keep in mind that most Democrats in Texas are like Republicans elsewhere. Thus, it's not surprising that Bush has tried to get near-Republican John Breux into his cabinet. Besides, his real purpose in his failed attempt to get Breaux was to destroy the Democrat co-control of the 50-50 Senate. What he wants to do is to pick off Dem members of the Congress to strengthen his Republican legislative hand while claiming to be bipartisan. Deceitful? You bet, but no more deceitful than what he's done in Texas during his six year tenure, and no more deceitful than in his acceptance speech the other night. His first message of fake bi-partisanship was delivered in the chamber of the Texas House. He picked the legislative setting, which is controlled by Democrats, as a symbol of bipartisanship, but the only Democrats he invited to his speech were Republicrats who actively backed him during his presidential campaign. While the House Republicans were all invited, most of the Dems were pointedly not.
Calling the Bush team's failure to invite Democrats "phony" and "hypocritical," Democratic State Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston, said , "[Bush] speaks of being a bipartisan guy, but I think certainly the majority of Democrats in the Texas House would not consider him a bipartisan. He tends to be bipartisan when you agree with him." According to reporter Jake Tapper, "Bailey says there's just under 10 or so conservative Democrats in the state House and Bush 'uses them as window dressing to claim bipartisanship while the overwheming majority of Democrats are just left out in the cold.'...'It shows you how good that they are at presenting impressions,' adds [Garnet] Coleman, vice chairman of the Texas House's public health committee and a member of the appropriations committee. 'The impression was that the Legislature -- more than half the members of which are Democrats -- were standing there and applauding him. But that is an incorrect impression,' Coleman says. 'It was an image of solidarity. But the reality is, it wasn't solidarity from the standpoint that Democratic members of the Legislature who did not receive an invitation or were not invited were not part of the applauding crowd.'...
"Bush indeed made a big show out of his being in a house of Democrats. After being introduced by Democrat Speaker of the House Pete Laney, Bush referred to the chamber as 'a place where Democrats have the majority, Republicans and Democrats have worked together to do what is right for the people we represent. We had spirited disagreements, and in the end, we found constructive consensus,' Bush said. 'It is an experience I will always carry with me, and an example I will always follow. The spirit of cooperation I have seen in this hall is what is needed in Washington, D.C.'... But Coleman says that this is just how "bidness" is done in Texas, where committee chairmen could be members of either party. "That's the tradition of Texas governors," Coleman said. "It was the tradition under [former Gov.] Anne Richards. You have to reach across party lines. The committee chairs who make decisions on your proposals could be a Democrat or could be a Republican. That's the fallacy of the whole argument that [Bush] understands how to reach across lines."
"But Democrats who have been critical of Bush and supportive of Vice President Al Gore didn't get invitations to Wednesday night's speech. In addition to Coleman and Bailey, other Democratic representatives less eager to work with Bush -- like Rep. Elliot Naishtat, chair of the human services committee; Rep. Yvonne Davis, chair of local and consent calendars; Rep. Tracy King; and Rep. Manny Najera, sources say, all failed to receive invitations to the bipartisan love-in last night in their own workplace...'If they would have had it at a campaign headquarters, or out on the street, or in the governor's mansion I wouldn't have expected to have been invited,' [Dem Rep.Glen] Maxey says. 'But if the point was to show the nature of the bipartisanship that happens in the Texas Legislature, they should have issued an invitation to everybody, not just the people who worked on their campaign or a few selected Democrats.' Najera, a Democrat from El Paso, says he 'certainly' would like to have been invited to the speech, but wasn't surprised when he wasn't. On Election Night, he attempted to enter a Bush event that he had tickets for, but was turned away at the door by a Department of Public Safety officer who told him, he says, 'that this function is for George Bush supporters only.' 'Maybe they didn't get to our level' when it came to doling out the seats, Najera says. "I can't imagine how many friends have come out of the woodwork -- look at the amount of money the president-elect was able to raise. I imagine he more or less had to -- I don't want to use the word 'cater' -- but to invite them. Maybe it got full."' Others are less forgiving. 'Regarding the many of us who were not invited to his speech last night in the House chamber, I hope that soon-to-be President Bush is more generous when he invites members of the Texas Legislature of both parties to visit him at the White House,' says Naishtat. 'And my sentiments are similar in respect to his efforts to reach out to Democratic members of Congress. I hope he is more inclusive than he was last night.'" Don't hold your breath. --Politex, 12/16/00
Art Harris ( discusses the possibility of "unfaithful" electors in CNN chat room)
December 15, 2000
Art Harris is a two-time Emmy-award winning correspondent and writer
for CNN's Sunday/Monday night show, CNN & TIME.
Chat Moderator: It took 35 days to select the electors for this presidential election. With all that has happened, and Vice President Gore himself calling for unity, how likely is that we could see any of these electors switching their votes?
Art Harris: We have been looking into that, and Republican party leaders say it is highly unlikely. But they are taking some extraordinary measures that I've never seen them do before to ensure each Republican elector, all 271 of them, four more than Vice President Al Gore got, will vote for who they are supposed to vote for, George W. Bush. And to let them sleep easy at night, since this is so close and the Constitution allows electors to vote how they wish, it's been up to the party to keep them excited, pep-talked, and loyal. So they are planning dinners the night before the vote and some are hosting breakfasts the morning of the vote. Here in Georgia, the Republican Party state chairman plans to round them up and bus them to the State Capitol where they will dutifully march in and write down the name George W. Bush for president.
OK, here's a question for Mr. Harris: With the possibility, however slim, of electors bolting for Gore, and Gore's winning the popular vote, why the heck is Bush getting money and the title "President-Elect"?
Art Harris: It's not the first time that a president has lost the popular vote, but won the White House. In fact, there was hardly any protest when it happend the last time back in 1888 when, Grover Cleveland, the Democratic incumbent, lost the White House to Republican Benjamin Harrison. This year, because it is so close and there has been so much frustration, resentment, and anger churned up, the question has been raised by Democrats mostly: Could some Republican elector or two or three get religion and come on over to the other side? Experts say doubtful, but possible.
Chat Moderator: Historically, have there been any elections where there have been cases of "faithless electors"?
Art Harris: In fact, it has happened nine times before. We interviewed, and I believe some of you may have had a chance to chat with him last week on CNN.com, the only living elector who actually switched parties, a North Carolina dentist named Lloyd Bailey. Back in 1968, he was pledged to Richard Nixon and lots of political pundits were shocked when Nixon, a Republican, won North Carolina and made party in-roads into an alien land of barking, yellow- dog Democrats. He was an elephant in the cotton patch. That didn't bother Bailey until Nixon began picking his Cabinet. And as he told CNN, as an ultra-conservative member of the John Birch Society he just couldn't abide by some of Nixon's cabinet choices or picks for the Supreme Court. He felt they were too liberal, and his conscience, he says, made him vote for George Wallace, the third party candidate, and his running mate, General Curtis LeMay, who you all may remember wanted to nuke Hanoi. Afterwards, Bailey was an outcast among fellow Republicans, but he says his county went for Wallace and he was just following his conscience. But his jumping ship stirred up so many in Congress that it called a special session to debate Bailey, the Constitution, and whether to let his vote count. In the end, they let it stand.
Question from Demil: What would be the consequences if an elector defected?
Art Harris: In some states-- actually 25 states--have laws on the books that bind electors to vote the way the party votes, and some even threaten fines if they stray. Some even require their vote be thrown out. If that did happen, Congress, under the Constitution, has the power to allow that vote to count or not. Of course, Vice President Al Gore has said he won't accept any Republican defectors, but the Constitution says he doesn't have a choice.
Question from Nanette: What on earth might happen if Gore were selected in the electoral balloting?
Art Harris: Let's speculate. Say one Republican elector jumps ship maybe because he or she wanted the attention to get on CNN.com and a big book deal. No harm done, no foul. History gets made, headlines get written, but no real consequence. If two jump ship, it would throw the election to Congress and the House of Representatives, which is majority Republican, would pick the president while the Senate would choose the vice president. If three defected, God only knows! Technically Gore could be president. While procedures are in place under the Constitution, such a thing has never been tested. But as one Republican elector told me, it is about as likely as a comet slamming into earth; another has said that any Republican who did it had better get an identity change or into the witness protection program. Let's just say there is enough peer pressure and party loyalty after such a hard fought election, that party leaders expect every elector to be fired up just to have the honor to vote for George W. Bush. Or you could say, to paraphrase them, "if you can't trust an elector, who can you trust?"
Bush has named the lawyer that represented him when he needed to get out of jury duty in a Travis County DWI case to be his counsel in the White House. Al Gonzales was the lawyer who spoke for Bush inside the Travis County Court House in 1996 while Bush was speaking to reporters outside. Inside, Gonzales was telling the judge and the lawyers on both sides that Bush, as Governor, would be unable to serve on the DWI jury, while Bush, outside the court house, was telling reporters that it is every citizen's duty to serve on a jury and he would be proud to do so. In the last week of the campaign we learned that Bush was unwilling to serve as juror because his own DWI conviction would have been exposed, possibly wrecking his chances at a run for the presidency. Since, in 1996 Gonzales said Bush coulden't serve because of his office, rather than his previous DWI conviction that he didn't want to be made public, the prosecutor of the DWI case now has said that Bush, thorough Gonzales, used his office for a personal coverup. --Politex, 12/15/00
NEWSWEEK: HOW BUSH PREPARED TO STONEWALL HIS JURY DUTY WHILE SAYING IT WAS HIS DUTY TO SERVE
JURY QUESTIONNAIRE (HERE) SHOWS BUSH DIDN'T TELL THE TRUTH
PROSECUTOR SAYS BUSH USED HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL COVERUP Defense Attorney Terms Governor Bush's Reason Not to Serve on Jury "Laughable," Because "Everybody Understood [Bush] Just Didn't Want to Answer Questions About Drinking and Drugs"
While His Lawyer Worked to Get the Governor Out of Jury Duty Inside the Courthouse, Outside, Bush Was Telling the Media That He Was "Glad to Serve"
AUSTIN, Tex. -- Travis County's lead prosecutor on the 1996 drunk driving case in which Gov. George W. Bush was called as a potential juror now believes he was purposely misled by Bush and his attorney in an effort to avoid service. Ken Oden, a Democrat who has been the Travis County Attorney for 16 years, charged Saturday that Bush's failure to answer some of the questions on his jury questionnaire, coupled with his lawyer's efforts to get Bush excused because he might someday be called on to pardon the offender, were part of an effort to deceive prosecutors and others. [Bush's lawyer, Al Gonzales, was later appointed by him to the Texas Supreme Court.] Bush 'used his position as governor' to avoid having to answer potentially embarrassing questions about his past, Oden told Salon. 'I feel I was directly deceived....'
"At the time Bush was bounced from the jury pool, it was widely believed that he was looking to avoid questions about his hard-drinking past that would surely have come up during jury selection. The Houston Chronicle reported at the time that Bush's dismissal by the court was 'a development that allowed him to avoid potentially embarrassing questions about whether he had ever climbed behind the wheel after drinking....' During the 1996 jury selection process, Oden says, Lastovica, Gonzales, defense lawyer Wahlberg and Judge Crain met in Crain's chambers at the request of Gonzales. In chambers, Gonzales presented his pardon argument. A few minutes later, Lastovica presented the information to Oden for approval. Gonzales' pitch was a 'legal argument relating to his [Bush's] position as governor that none of us had ever heard,' recalled Oden. 'My response was, 'That's an unusual argument.' In 20 years of prosecuting in a town full of government officials, I'd never heard that position before.' 'Our position was that as a matter of courtesy to the governor we would not oppose his request for release from service. At that point, not knowing that he hadn't answered the questionnaire, or having other motives, he was released,' he said....
"The aggressive stance Bush took to avoid service stands in stark contrast to the just-folks story that he was feeding the media. When he first reported for jury duty at the Travis County Courthouse on Sept. 30, Bush told Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News, 'I'm glad to serve.' Bush added, 'I think it's important. It's one of the duties of citizenship.' He also told KVUE-TV in Austin, 'I'm just an average guy showing up for jury duty.' And in video footage shown by KVUE in 1996 and again on Friday night, Bush had some additional comments on his feelings regarding the case. The KVUE reporter asked Bush if he didn't 'really just want to give the guy a pardon and go home?' Bush, who has presided over a staggering 145 executions as governor, answered, 'No, I probably want to hang him and go home.' For the record, Maine abolished the death penalty in 1887, 89 years before an inebriated Bush was apprehended while driving near Kennebunkport." --Robert Bryce, 11/5/00
DEAR POLITEX...The majority decision by the conservative members of the Supreme Court
has implicitly utilized Roe v. Wade in the most notorious manner by
performing a forced abortion on Lady Democracy. Their ignoble and
cynical act has stained the venerable Constitution with the blood of
this abortion and forever branded the conservative justices of this
Court puppets of partisan Republican politics. The result handed to the
country, despite a popular vote against such an abortion, is a
brain-dead, illegitimate President. The Country will no doubt endure
this illegitimate President for four years, as we endured his elitist
father for four years and his feckless uncle Ronnie for eight. We must
be watchful however as those that delivered the abortion have only just
begun their cynical crusade. When they invoke the words God Bless
America, we should all be thinking God Save America. --A Bush Watcher, 12/15/00
St. Petersberg, Florida. November 11, 2000--The president of the Florida Holocaust Museum said Saturday that George W. Bush's grandfather derived a portion of his personal fortune through his affiliation with a Nazi-controlled bank. John Loftus, a former prosecutor in the Justice Department's Nazi War Crimes Unit, said his research found that Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a principal in the Union Banking Corp. in Manhattan in the late 1930s and the 1940s. Leading Nazi industrialists secretly owned the bank at that time, Loftus said, and were moving money into it through a second bank in Holland even after the United States declared war on Germany. The bank was liquidated in 1951, Loftus said, and Bush's grandfather and great-grandfather received $1.5 million from the bank as part of that dissolution. "That's where the Bush family fortune came from: It came from the Third Reich," Loftus said....Money flows into American politics today, he said, from "a series of multinational corporations behaving like pirates. They don't care about ideology; they care about money." Loftus' speech left many in tears. "I am absolutely shocked," said Nancy Krauss of Punta Gorda. "I wish this would have come out before the election. My husband voted for Bush. I don't think he would have voted for him if he would have known." --Herald-Tribune, 11/11/00
Here's what we wrote at noon on Tuesday, ten hours before the U.S. Supreme Court elected Bush president by a vote of 5-4: "Scalia has put the U.S. Supreme Court between a rock and a hard place. The court would never have taken on this second Bush appeal if not for the fact that Scalia needs Bush to become president so he can become Chief Justice. And now that Scalia has taken them to this place, they find that nothing they can do will work. To get a solid vote that would be acceptable to the nation, they would like to set standards for manual counting and send the case back to Florida in hopes that the count will come out in Bush's favor, making him legitimate in the eyes of many. (Not us.) The problem there is that 33 states used the same standard of no one standard in these very same presidential elections. Based upon the court's decision, either Bush or Gore could then demand recounts in any of those states that had a close vote. Now, THAT would create real chaos. The other alternative, however, is simply to give the election to Bush in a clearly political split decision by making some legal incantations over the political pot and accepting that the court's credibility would be pretty much destroyed for a generation or two."
At the time, we didn't know how right we were. As you know, what happened was that the U.S. Supremes sent the case back to the Florida Supremes, 7-2, saying that the counting standards must be specific in order to be uniform. The Scalia 5-4 majority, however, said there was no time to do so, making the 7-2 vote to remand moot. In other words, the 7-2 vote along party lines was just shoddy window dressing. The 7 justices were trying to keep their credibility as a court by coming up with a verdict that 5 out of 7 held was unworkable. But wait, there's more, and this is the real outrage. We didn't think the court could reject the Florida manual counting standards because it would call the same non-specific standards in 33 other states into question, throwing the entire election into chaos. The way the Scalia majority got out of that one is amazingly deceitful. What they wrote was that their decision to declare the election over and Bush the winner is based on their view that Florida standards for manual counting are too vague, but their decision may not ever be used to challenge the equally vague manual counting standards in any other state. Why? Because they said so, that's why. Here are their exact words, given without further clarification by them: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." One observer translated this into English: "States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation." Now that's outrageous. --Politex, 12/14/00
BUSH WATCH: THE NOVELby Jerry Politex
I drove my silver Audi down Mesa Drive, the spine of Cat Mountain, hung a left at the cat's tail, drove quickly up the hilly, winding 2222 in low gear, took a right onto Balcones Drive, and came to a stop in the rear parking lot of Che Zee.
Another sunny, warm early spring day in Northwest Austin, Texas. The lunch crowd was pretty much thinned out by now, so I had choices of parking spaces. I got out of the car, the turbines winding down, and stood by the rear entrance to the restaurant, a pretty-good place for not very expensive Southwestern food. I didn't have long to wait.
He came into the parking lot in an old, rattletrap Nissan pickup. Paint worn off in places, rusty, dusty, squeaky. I recognized him from the description the moment he got out. Looked to be in his fifties. Grizzled. Kind of rusty, dusty, and squeaky. A stringbean of a guy with pale white skin, reddish hair, which was short but unkempt. He was wearing a black polo shirt with the tail out. Denim shorts that had shrunk to a tight fit over his bony hips, short enough for the front pockets to stick out of the frayed cuffs. A pair of old, once-white but now gray, paint-spattered tennis sneakers. Austin casual for a yuppie restaurant, ten minutes from the glass buildings of the city's burgeoning silicon gulch , a world of high tech hopes in buildings springing up like overnight mushrooms.
"Name's Wayne," he said with a crooked, good-natured smile, coming across the parking lot with his arm outstreatched like a spear, eager to shake my hand. "Recognized you right away, Politex. Good description."
'toons...
news...
polls...
stories...
cheney...
gore...
nader...
archives...
site map...
us...
e-mail...
taxes ...
education...
health...
environment...
foreign policy...
social security...
supreme court...
other issues...
Nader.....
Flynt, CNN, Drudge.....
More Flynt, BBC...
Daily Headlines Page. 30-50 New Stories Each Day.
Today's Electoral College Map....
'76 DWI....
'96 License....
'96 Statement....
Jury Duty....
Military Records....
AWOL