Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 147)
Crooked, Lying Edition
guess the GOP don't like it when a Democrat fights back! Crooked,
Lying Republicans (1,2) almost wet themselves when John Kerry
went on the offensive last week. Meanwhile, Ed Gillespie (4)
has been out and about insulting the families of 9/11 victims,
George W. Bush (5,6), spent the week wasting everybody's time,
and Donald Rumsfeld (7) was discovered to be... well, ghoulish
is the only word to describe it really. Finally, Clear Channel
(8) set off the hypocrisy alarm, and the Cheneys (10) are
opposed to banning gay marriage - no, they're for banning
gay marriage - no, they're into lesbian porn. Enjoy, and as
usual, don't forget the key!
In an off-the-cuff moment at a union rally last week, John
Kerry commented on the negative attacks directed at him by
Republican operatives, telling a worker that "these guys
are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've
ever seen." Within minutes, mouths began frothing
and heads began exploding all over Washington, DC. House Speaker
Dennis Hastert took "great umbrage" at the comments.
Bush campaign chairman Mark Racicot called them "unbecoming
of a candidate for the presidency of the United States" (presumably
if Kerry had called someone a major
league asshole, that would have been okay). Rep. Mark
the comments "disgusting and despicable" on the
floor of the House. And everywhere the cries from the right
were the same: Kerry should apologize. Is there anything more
embarrassing than a Republican crapping in his pants over
someone making a rude comment about the GOP? I mean, John
Kerry wasn't even talking about George W. Bush, and even if
he was, the comment would still be entirely accurate. But
apologize and stood by the remark. How'd ya
like them apples, Republicans? "If you ask me, he's getting
off on the wrong foot in this campaign by name-calling,"
blustered Dennis Hastert. Which is presumably why Rep. Jack
Kingston went on to call Kerry, "Ted Kennedy on a South
Beach diet." But if there was one unifying cry from the
Republicans, it was this: For shame! This negative campaigning
must cease immediately! Yeah, right...
Lying Republicans (again)
Team Bush released their first set of negative ads against
John Kerry last week, building on their campaign of fear by
accusing Kerry of seeking to raise everyone's taxes by $900
and suggesting that under Kerry, America will be destroyed
by suspicious-looking swarthy men:
mean, for goodness sake, does anybody really believe that
John Kerry is going to weaken the fight against terrorists?
He couldn't do any worse than Our Great Leader, who decided
to ignore terrorists until they crashed some airplanes into
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and then ignore them
again while invading Iraq under false pretences. The Bush
ads also claim
that John Kerry "would have sought U.N. approval before
defending America." That's funny, I thought the war in
Iraq was all about liberating the Iraqi people, not defending
America from Iraq's deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
At least, that's what the GOP told me last week. The fact
is, Team Bush has so far seriously
distorted and lied about Kerry's positions and voting
record in the Senate. And now they're the ones complaining
about negative campaigning? Looks like the GOP just can't
handle the truth.
So John Kerry's plan is to "weaken the fight against
terrorists," eh? Then what the hell was the White House
doing when it turned down the chance to kill known terrorist
Abu Musab Zarqawi - a Jordanian militant who has been blamed
for 700 deaths in Iraq - and turn down the chance not once
but three times? NBC News recently revealed
that the White House had the opportunity to strike Zarqawi
in June 2002, October 2002, and January 2003, and each time
they refused a plan to take him out. Why? According to former
NSC member and terrorism expert Roger Cressey, "People
were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow
Saddam than to execute the presidents policy of preemption
against terrorists." Interestingly, the White House is
beginning a "media blitz" this week to argue that
"the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was essential to combating
global terrorism and making the United States safer,"
to the Washington Post. Hmm, really? According
to NBC News, "Military officials insist their case for
attacking Zarqawis operation was airtight, but the administration
feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut
its case for war against Saddam." So they let the terrorists
go, and now Zarqawi is reputedly responsible for 700 deaths
in post-Saddam Iraq. And this is combating global terrorism
and making America safer... how?
Meanwhile, the row about Bush's earlier campaign ads - showing
the burning World Trade Center Towers and the body of a firefighter
being carried from the wreckage - continues. First it was
that the firefighters featured in Bush's ad were actually
paid actors (don't worry, the dead body was a real firefighter),
then RNC chief Ed Gillespie decided to attack the families
of 9/11 victims who found the ads distasteful. Those who protested
the ads were only a "small segment of those who are very
anti-war, not only anti-war in Iraq but were opposed to the
military removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan," said
to the New York Daily News, "He cited a press
conference by an anti-war group called 9/11 Families for Peaceful
Tomorrows and noted the event involved Moveon.org, which is
running ads bashing Bush." I get it, so not only do these
families have no feelings at all, they're also part of the
vast left-wing conspiracy. Uh, bullshit, according to victims'
relatives who are not involved with Families for Peaceful
Tomorrows. "I'm not anti-war on terrorism, and I'm pro-Bush
and everybody knows it," said Jack Lynch, "I still
think that neither party... should be using images of 9/11
for political gain." Sorry Jack, I have a feeling you're
going to be sadly disappointed.
First he opposed
the 9/11 commission, then he supported it. Next he said he
was only going to give the commission an hour
of his time, then last week he relented.
"Nobody's watching the clock," said White House
press secretary Scott McClellan. And while an hour is "a
reasonable period of time to set aside for a sitting president
of the United States," McClellan also said that, "Certainly
a sitting President has many great responsibilities to tend
to; none more important for this President than acting to
prevent attacks like September 11th from ever happening again
on American soil." None, that is, except for the lure
of cow milking and pig racing - Dubya did manage to
find time in his really-hectic-but-I-guess-I-can-fit-in-five-minutes-for-the-9/11-commission
schedule to visit
the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo last week. But never
mind that. Scott McClellan also told the press last week that
"I certainly hope that people don't politicize [the 9/11
commission report]. This is too important to become politicized."
Hmph, a bit late for that now, isn't it?
And so it was onward and upward for Bush and his "too
important to become politicized" 9/11 antics. Last week
Our Great Leader visited Eisenhower Park on Long Island to
attend a ground-breaking ceremony for a 9/11 memorial - and
then held a $1.6 million fundraiser
in the very same park that very same evening. According to
the Washington Post, "Big money-raisers munched
on filet mignon as they waited for a handshake with the president."
How tasteful. Interestingly, workers at the park spent a good
portion of the day making sure that Dubya's feet wouldn't
get muddy - apparently the Secret Service gave orders
that "The president's feet are not to touch the dirt"
when he appeared at the ground-breaking ceremony. And so "large
crews drawn from all county parks" were assigned to lay
down asphalt and wood chips. What can I say? I guess George
W. Bush may have blood on his hands, but at least he doesn't
have shit on his shoes.
Last week we noted a quote by Tommy Fee of Rescue Squad 270
in Queens, who said of Bush's 9/11 campaign ads, "It's
as sick as people who stole things out of the place."
Well this week we can reveal the name of at least one of the
people who "stole things out of the place" - step
forward Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. According
to USA Today, Rumsfeld apparently has "a shard
of metal from the jetliner that struck the Pentagon on a table
in his office and shows it to people as a reminder of the
tragedy." You know, just in case people forget what happened.
"Hey Mr. Rumsfeld, what's that?" "It's a shard
of metal from the jetliner that hit the Pentagon on 9/11."
"What? A jetliner hit the Pentagon on 9/11? I don't remember
that." "It sure did." "And you have a
piece of it?" "I
sure do." "Jesus,
Mr. Rumsfeld, you sick bastard."
Hypocrisy alert! Clear Channel Communications, who recently
Howard Stern off several stations nationwide, seems to be
picking and choosing its battles in the face of the FCC's
recent indecency crackdown. It turns out that Britney Spears'
latest tour - that's Vegas-marrying, Madonna-frenching Britney
Spears - is actually being sponsored by Clear Channel.
The stage show apparently features male dancers' heads "being
pulled into Spears' crotch" and "writhing couples
in beds held center stage while silhouettes of rutting performers
[play] on screens above." But then, Britney Spears hasn't
anything bad about George W. Bush, has she?
Just one more quick example of the lying, crooked behavior
of the Bush adminstration this week - it was revealed
last week that "The government's top expert on Medicare
costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers
about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that
could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed
Medicare prescription-drug plan," according to Kinght-Ridder.
Now that's what I call open government! The White House told
Congress that their Medicare plan would cost $395 billion,
heading off a revolt among conservative representatives who
said they would vote against the plan if it cost more than
$400 billion. But apparently "the administration's own
analysts in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
had concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost
upward of $100 billion more than that." So they told
the guy in charge of that estimate, Richard S. Foster, that
if he revealed it, he would be fired. Now what was that about
returning honor and integrity to the White House? I seem to
have a vague and distant memory of somebody saying that once...
And finally, there are more cracks appearing in the coalition
of conservative Christians and moderate Republicans which
got Bush close enough to steal the election in 2000. Last
week the Log Cabin Republicans began an anti-federal marriage
focusing on TV ads which show Dick Cheney talking about his
position on gay marriage during the 2000 vice-presidential
debate with Joe Lieberman. Says Cheney in the ad, "That
matter is regulated by the states. I think different states
are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate.
I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy
in this area." That's odd, I could have sworn Dick was
supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
last week. Must be one of those "flip-flop" things
I've been hearing so much about lately. In related news, Lynne
Cheney's 1981 "lesbian romance novel" Sisters
just got a much-needed facelift,
debuting as a play at the New York Theatre Workshop last week.
The play was of course not entirely serious, and with dialog
such as "Let us go away together, away from the anger
and the imperatives of men. We shall find ourselves a secluded
bower where they dare not venture. There will be only the
two of us, and we shall linger through long afternoons of
sweet retirement..." to work with, it's easy to understand
why. So there you have it - the Cheneys, one a staunch supporter
of keeping gay marriage a matter for the states, uh, I mean,
strongly in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning gay
marriage, the other an acclaimed author of soft-core lesbian
porn. Do I need a punchline for this one? See you next week!
a Conservative for Next Week's List