BuzzFlash
presents Southern Style
by Rebecca Knight
In Their Genes
By Rebecca Knight
June
21, 2002
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
- Aldous Huxley
Sometimes I wonder if Republicans have some sort of genetic defect, a selective memory disorder, or the inability to store their own words for future reference. They consistently take a strong stand on an issue, but totally reverse that stand when the political breezes shift. This seems to be perfectly logical to them. Can they not distinguish fact from fiction? Maybe they think we are not paying attention and they will be able to get away with it. Whatever! These are the people who gave us Richard Nixon and Watergate, Ronald Reagan's voo doo economics, Iran/Contra, McCarthyism, and Newtie.
On a message board the other day a right-wing nut actually posted this: "The Democrats would rather condone the crimes of their own and demonize the Republicans for following the federal laws and regulations of office." Yep, Watergate and Iran/Contra have left his brain! Remember how the Republicans whined about "the rule of law" constantly during the Clinton impeachment? I guess the rule of law only applies to Democrats, but not Republicans.
A good joke: A first grade teacher is explaining to her class that she is a Republican. She asks her students to raise their hands if they, too, are Republicans and support George W. Bush. All but one little girl raises their hands. "Mary," says the teacher with surprise, "why didn't you raise your hand?" "Because I'm not Republican," says Mary. "Well, what are you?" asks the teacher. "I'm a Democrat and proud of it," replies Mary. The teacher cannot believe her ears. "My goodness, Mary, why are you a Democrat?" asks the teacher. "Well, my momma and papa are Democrats, so I'm a Democrat, too," Mary responds. "Well," says the teacher in an annoyed tone, "that's no reason for you to be a Democrat. You don't always have to be like your parents. What if your momma was a criminal and your papa was a criminal, too, what would you be then?" "Then," Mary smiled, "then we'd be Republicans."
Remember when President Clinton said this? "I am going to focus on this economy like a laser beam. I will work non-stop to turn this mess around and create new jobs and lower the deficit and fix the things that are wrong."
And the Republican responses were:
"The banks will fail. Clinton's plans will only worsen the recession."
--- Dick Armey, Degree in Economics"Clinton's pie-in-the-sky fantasies will crash our economy."
-- Phil Gramm, Degree in Economics"A guaranteed disaster, without a doubt."
-- Newt Gingrich
When their predictions turned out to be dead wrong, what did they have to say? They gave Clinton/Gore credit, right? Not a chance!
It was because of St. Ronald of Reagan!
"This is Reagan's recovery!"
-- Dick Armey, Degree in Economics"Reagan laid the groundwork, but Bill Clinton is trying to claim all the credit."
-- Phil Gramm, Degree in Economics"Bill Clinton did not contribute anything to this recovery."
-- Newt Gringrich
Yes, that is logical, right? Let's see, Reagan had been out of office how long? Only about four or five years, and they totally skipped right over Bush 41 as if he did not exist.
During the 2000 Presidential Debates George W. Bush made many sweeping promises. Let's take a look and compare words to deeds.
Campaigning Bush:
"I also want to go to Washington to get some positive things done. It is going to require a new spirit. A spirit of cooperation. It will require the ability of a Republican president to reach out across the partisan divide and to say to Democrats, let's come together to do what is right for America. It's been my record as Governor of Texas, it will be how I conduct myself if I'm fortunate enough to earn your vote as President of the United States."
Well, Mr. Bush, actions speak louder than words. Bush has attempted at every turn to marginalize Democrats. Most recent evidence of this is the revelation that Republicans are "black listing" lobbyists with any connections to the Democrats.
Campaigning Bush:
"I think people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that -- well, I think that's part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say we each need to be responsible for what we do. People in the highest office of the land must be responsible for decisions they make in life. And that's the way I've conducted myself as Governor of Texas and that's the way I'll conduct myself as President of the United States, should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote."
Held responsible? Okay, then cooperate with Congress on the 9/11 investigation, the Enron investigation, and the energy task force documents!
Campaigning Bush on the military and war:
"We can help build coalitions but we can't put our troops all around the world."
"Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops."
"And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
"I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."
Aren't we doing the exact opposite of almost all those statements? He is proposing war against as many as sixty nations. That would certainly put our troops all around the world and decrease morale. Aren't we currently nation building in Afghanistan? What is the obvious exit strategy? America needs to know.
Campaigning Bush on the budget:
"I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security. One-quarter of the surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills."
The surplus is gone. 43% of the surplus went for the Bush tax cut. Social Security has been raided and we are back into deficit spending and amassing gigantic national debt for our children and grandchildren. Fuzzy math, anyone?
Oh, I feel so sorry for Bob Barr. He is really suffering. He needs $30 million to recover from "loss of reputation and emotional distress" during the Clinton impeachment. He wants Clinton, James Carville, and Larry Flynt to cough up the cash. But Bob, wasn't it a little embarrassing to have this news come out on the same day that you were championing a bill that would cap damage awards for "pain and suffering" at $250,000? I guess the national liability insurance crisis applies to everyone else, but not you. Bob, what would you do if the Clintons counter-sued for "loss of reputation and emotional distress" over the way you vilify them? They probably have a very strong case!
And wasn't it amazing to watch ole Bob on Crossfire being questioned by James Carville, of all people, about the GAO investigation into the trashing of the White House that Barr championed at taxpayer expense to the tune of $200,000? Gee, we really needed to spend that money to find out there were damages of $20,000 at the most. Hey Bob, Carville really gotcha on that one! Especially when you agreed that the list of destruction he was reading was horrible and it turned out to be a list from when Bush 41 left the White House!
Keep in mind that Bob Barr receives hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak before NRA gatherings, has spoken before the racist group the Counsel of Conservative Citizens, and in divorce proceedings pleaded the fifth when questioned about infidelities. Is this man just strange or a hypocrite?
The Republicans are having a whopping good time passing around a story that Al Gore stole a Lincoln bust from the Vice Presidential offices and had to return it. The facts don't bear out their foolishness. The GAO report (1) states that the Lincoln bust was inadvertently packed along with Gore's personal items. Of course, Gore did not do his own packing and when the mistake was discovered, the bust was returned. But you can bet that the facts won't stop the Republican lie about Al Gore and the Lincoln bust.
Good ole Trent Lott is a fine example of a Republican with selective memory loss. Seems it was okay for him to question Clinton's decisions on military actions in 1998 when he said this: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. Both the timing and the policy are subject to question. I am opposed to endangering the lives of brave American men and women in the military for action in Iraq that will not effect real change in that nation."
Oh, but he whistles a different tune now! "How dare Sen. Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field."
Hypocrisy, thy name is Trent Lott.
How many recess appointments has Bush made? I can think of quite a few, including characters with less than desirable backgrounds and that seems to be perfectly fine with Republicans. I have heard no criticism. They sure didn't like it when Clinton used that option!
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: "If Clinton makes a recess appointment, then I have to say, it's a finger in the eye of the Senate. I think you'd find there would be an awful lot of repercussions from that."
Hmmmm? Any repercussions threatened for Bush doing it?
Republicans are having hissy fits over the lack of progress on the Bush judicial nominations. Charges are flying that Democrats are using partisan tactics in not approving the Bush nominations. I guess the genetic defect in Republicans has allowed them to totally ignore the fact that judicial shortages are directly related to their failure to approve the Clinton nominations.
Look at the statements made by Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania!
Then: "A number of my Republican colleagues are not likely to rush President Clinton's lifetime judicial nominees through the confirmation process when they think there is a chance another party could occupy the White House in January."
Now: "The delays are the result of rank partisanship by Tom Daschle."
Republicans recently persuaded the Senate Judiciary Committee to refrain from questioning nominees about illegal drug activities, political campaign contributions, and criminal records. During the Clinton years, the Republicans vilified Clinton and members of his administration in moralistic tones regarding the same topics. But now, THEIR nominees are above reproach and shouldn't be questioned at all!
This is a strange malady that strikes Republicans. It is very curious. Perhaps it should be investigated. Yes, Congressional hearings should be held. Scientists and theologians should do studies.
Dear readers, if you have examples of this apparent genetic disorder, please e-mail them to me. Especially if you have contradictory direct quotes. Those are the best examples of all. We must work to determine the contributing factors. Is it environmentally related or is it truly a genetic disorder?
* * *
GAO
Report on White House Vandalism: scroll to page 44
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
* * *
Rebecca Knight is a native Tennessean, who grew up in Nashville. She currently resides in a small town about sixty miles outside of Nashville. Ms. Knight observed the political struggles of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam era, the Watergate era, and the cold war. Her political awareness evolved throughout those years. The debacle of the 2000 election intensified her interest in political activism. She may be contacted via e-mail at tennessee_gal655@yahoo.com.
© 2002 by Rebecca Knight
