-Caveat Lector- http://www.washington-weekly.com/jul16-01/story2.html The Washington Weekly July 16, 2001 Issue Mr. Nice Guy Bush Is Killing Them With Kindness By EDWARD ZEHR The conventional wisdom during the first few months of the Bush administration was that Dubya was on a roll. Then came the switch in control of the Senate, thanks to the treachery of Sen. Jeffords, who had been negotiating with Democrats to switch parties even before he ran for re-election as a "Republican." With Democrats now appearing to control the agenda -- thanks in no small part to the massive propaganda barrage laid down by the mainstream press -- the conventional wisdom is that Dubya is being rolled by the Democrats. That remains to be seen. Such perceptions are usually exaggerated, but conservatives are beginning to complain that Bush is continuing to make nice even as his opponents kick and gouge and hit below the belt. The impression this creates is one of fecklessness and drift. The president has not been making use of the bully pulpit, they complain. In fact, it is beginning to seem that what we have heah, is a fail-yuh t'communicate. You did see that film, didn't you? You know, the one in which the old chain gang cap'n, frustrated by his inability to get his message across, saps the convict, played by Paul Newman, upside the head with a blackjack and kicks him down a hill into a culvert. I believe that is called nonverbal communication. Dubya's critics on the right are beginning to complain that some such action on his part is long overdue. Now George Dubya Bush is not the world's best communicator -- at least he's no Ronald Reagan -- but neither is he tongue-tied. His problem is that, every time he opens his mouth, his critics in the mainstream press let loose a fusillade of insults and catcalls, even as they pretend to report the news. What Bush needs to do is get them to quieten down for a spell so that we can hear him. He also needs to send a message to the other party. The time-honored way to get the attention of a jackass is to lay into him with a two-by-four. I'm only speaking figuratively, of course, but the point is, a president must be seen to lead -- it doesn't do to let the other party seem to control the agenda, even if that impression is misleading. People will begin to wonder who is minding the store. Of course, the president's real problem is the mainstream press. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review noted in a recent editorial that, "Eighty percent of the editors and journalists in this country call themselves "progressives" or old-fashioned "liberals," thus it is hardly surprising that they are currently waging a dirty war against the Bush administration, even as they brazenly deny it. "How long did it take most of us to discover that President George Bush's first summit meetings with Russia's Vladimir Putin and the chiefs of the European Union were genuine successes?" asks the Tribune-Review editorial. That would depend upon where we get our information. Most mainstream pundits have yet to acknowledge the success of the president's European trip. But the main thrust of the editorial is that Democrats plan to "open the trapdoor" on the Bush administration "by painting his chief policy advisers as corrupt in an attempt to drive them out of government." Sen. Joseph Lieberman (a.k.a. "Holy Joe") "plans to use his chairmanship of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to accuse [Dubya's senior advisor Karl] Rove of slanting the administration's energy policy because he owned stock in Enron," says the Tribune-Review." (Enron is an energy company based in Houston, making it an ideal paper-mache devil for the demagogic party to wave around). The Washington Post, quotes a "Democratic official" as saying that the "sheer breadth and width of Karl Rove's stock holdings make this a target-rich opportunity for us." Sounds kind of like the "politics of personal destruction" to me. Say, wasn't the Post supposed to be against that sort of thing? I guess that position is "no longer operative," as they used to say in the Nixon administration. Amazing what a difference a change of administrations can make to the most deeply held "moral" values of a mainstream newspaper. Of course, the Post knows as well as anyone that the impending smear of Rove is pure moonshine. He has been attempting divest himself of his stocks since taking office. There are circumstances which make this a slow process. His enemies are aware of this and are prepared to take full advantage of the situation. The Tribune-Review explains the circumstances: "The fact that back in March, when Rove met a group of Intel officials, he had been waiting for the Office of Government Ethics to approve his request to sell all his stocks, which included Intel, is of no relevance to the partisan pack. Only if the ethics office issued him a certificate of divestiture could he defer paying capital gains taxes on the forced sale of his assets. He did not get it until early in June because the ethics office is swamped with work on the new administration." Another potential target is Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. When he entered the Bush administration, O'Neill owned stock in Alcoa, a company of which he had been chairman. The Tribune-Review explained that, "Because it was a very large amount of stock, it was sold a bit at a time so as not to affect the market prices of Alcoa and other stocks." Not that the media and their pals in the Democratic Party took note of this, preferring to hound O'Neill in their accustomed demagogic fashion. All of which raises a delicate question: how can young George Dubya Bush, son of Kinder, Gentler George, break bread with the scoundrels who are attempting to smear his closest advisors using such transparently trumped-up, phony charges? Harry Truman would never have done such a thing. He breathed fire at Republicans who accused members of his administration of impropriety -- and half of them were guilty as charged. No doubt Dubya's strategy of killing the Democrats with kindness seemed worth a try, but is it working? Patient's Bill of Goods Michael Lynch, writing in Reason magazine, quotes Greg Scandlen, senior fellow in health policy at the National Center for Policy Analysis, who tells us that, "Congress has discovered what state legislators have known for years. "It's a lot of fun to pass health mandates. You get to say you've done something without any expense to the taxpayers." But the politicians are having to struggle in order to keep up with the marketplace in health care. Many of the "rights" that would be mandated by the latest health care proposals presently before Congress have already been provided. As Scandlen points out, "According to the American Association of Health Plans, 43 states and the District of Columbia already mandate that health plans provide women direct access to gynecologists. Forty-one states and D.C. mandate that consumers have access to independent medical reviews." Since the mandated services each add to the cost of medical insurance, what is the point of making them mandatory? Why not let the customer decide how much insurance he wishes to pay for? It seems that those who pretend to represent us are up to their old tricks once again -- they talk of giving us new rights when, in fact, they are taking away old ones. It's the same sort of Orwellian doublespeak they used in assuring us that our Social Security "fund" would be safely squirreled away in an impregnable "lock-box." Awkward as it is to mention this, there is nothing to be locked away but a bunch of moldy old IOUs. (Why must I always be the bearer of the bad news?) When this point was mentioned to Sam Donaldson recently on one of those Sunday morning political ghetto shows, he indignantly replied that the fund is guaranteed by Treasury bonds which are undergirded by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, his voice rising at the end of his statement in a theatrical flourish. Of course, that's exactly what I said, though somewhat less dramatically. What are Treasury bonds if not IOUs? The only task that remains is to fill in the blanks following "I" (that's us, folks) and "U", (that would be the recipients of the Social Security benefits). I mention this because some have the hardest time grasping the simple truth behind the baroque effusion of weasel words used by politicians to disguise the unpalatable fact that we get to pay once again for that which we are told we have already purchased. The dirty little secret about Social Security is that the program is pay as you go -- the money you pay in today is used to pay off those who are receiving benefits today. The benefits you will receive (it says here) some years hence will have to be paid by those who are working at that time. There is nothing magical about treasury bonds. Wealth does not materialize preternaturally [*paff*] upon the date of maturity. They are paid off with our tax dollars -- it's really no more complicated than that. I guess that is why I get such a sinking feeling when I see the Tribunes of the People increasingly involve themselves with health care. I can see it a few years hence turning into the same sort of Ponzi scheme that Social Security has become. The ones who really benefit from such a scam are those who get in first and then get out again before the roof caves in. Those who understand the extent to which they are being bilked are held captive by the others who are just a bit too dim to grasp that the pea isn't under any of those shells so deftly manipulated by Sen. Larson E. Whipsnade or Congressman Carl LaFong. (Yes indeed, yes indeed). Speaking of scams, a poll published last week by ABC News purports to show that the public prefer the Democrats' version of the health care legislation presently pending before Congress (surprise, surprise). Skipping the results for the moment, and moving down to the fine print under the rubric, "Methodology," we find that the poll is based on "a random national sample of 1,023 adults" taken by telephone on July 5-8. Once more we have a sample that is not screened for likely, or even registered, voters, taken on a weekend. And not an ordinary weekend, at that, but one following a national holiday. I would expect the results to be skewed just a tad or more in favor of the Democrats, wouldn't you? And sure enough, Dalia Sussman writes on ABCNEWS.com that "49 percent of Americans prefer the bill with a broader right to sue, which has passed the Senate. Just over a third prefer the Republican-backed alternative with a more limited right to sue. Seventeen percent are unsure." How about that? The other thing of importance in evaluating such propaganda polls is the wording of the questions. In this case, Sussman tells us that the two competing pieces of legislation were described as follows: "One 'makes it easier to sue and allows for higher claims; supporters say this would pressure HMOs to allow needed treatments.' The other 'makes it harder to sue and limits claims; supporters say HMOs otherwise would have to raise health insurance premiums to cover heir legal expenses.' " What was apparently left unmentioned is the fact that the Democrats' version of the bill, sponsored by Sens. John R. Edwards (D-N.C.) Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), and John McCain (R-Ariz.), would enable dissatisfied recipients to sue their employers as well as the doctors and insurance provider. This raises the question of how many respondents would have favored the Democrats' version of the bill had they known that it might deter their employer from providing them health insurance? Michael Lynch writes that a spokesperson for Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) told him: "Under the Kennedy bill, 1.2 million people will lose health care protection." Not that the rival bill, sponsored by Sens. Frist, John B. Breaux (D-La.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), is much better in that respect. Pressed by Lynch as to how many would lose their health insurance, the spokesperson insisted that, "Under ours, it's fewer," finally coming up with a figure just short of 900,000 Americans, presently insured, who would lose their coverage under the substitute bill. Cynics who oppose both measures assume that the game plan is to use the unwillingness of employers to provide health insurance as a pretext for ever greater federal incursions into the area of health care, culminating in a socialized medicine scheme similar to that in Canada. Why else would employers be made liable for the shortcomings of health care providers in the Democrats' version of the bill? Most small businesses do not have deep enough pockets to satisfy the insatiable greed of the Democrats' porcine lawyer pals, who stand to profiteer big time from the litigation that would result if the Edwards, Kennedy, McCain version of the legislation were to pass. The object of the exercise is to blow them out of the water, making way for more government intervention. As for the rubes who told the ABC News pollsters that they favor the version that "makes it easier to sue and allows for higher claims," these folks see it all as a great big lottery. Who knows, that sponge the quack leaves inside them as he sews them up may be their ticket to easy street. After all, didn't a jury of certifiable ding-a-lings recently award a heroin addict $3 billion for the damage that smoking had done to his health? (Presumably he had been too high to read those curt little messages left by the Surgeon General on his packs of ciggy-boos). The jurors later told the press that they wanted to "send a message." Message received: the country is rapidly filling up with cretins who, if brains were dynamite, wouldn't have enough to blow their nose. President Bush, taking a page from the playbook of his predecessor, has proposed that drug discount cards be provided the elderly, "so they can immediately get lower prices at pharmacies," according to Robert Pear, writing in Wednesday's New York Times. Pear added that, "Administration officials said they were exploring ways to promote the cards' use by quick presidential action, without a need for immediate legislation or federal spending." One such plan, run by Merck-Medco and the Reader's Digest Association, allows participants to "get discounts of 10 percent to 30 percent or more at any of 40,000 participating pharmacies, for a membership fee of $25 a year," according to Pear. This is part of the administration's plan to get ahead of the power curve on the health care issue and regain control of the agenda that was lost when the Democrats took over the Senate. A prescription drug plan is certain to be a major item in any health care legislation this year. Sen. Kennedy said recently that, medicare reform is "not going to take place. But there will be a real attempt to pass a good, effective prescription drug program." Blue Dress Democrats It was widely assumed that when Clinton went away the character issue would go with him. But of course, this assumes that the former president's character flaws were unique or unusual in the fever swamp that some refer to as Sodom on the Potomac. The abrupt departure of Congressman Livingston, who had been picked to replace Speaker Gingrich, should have been the tipoff that the mores of those who pretend to represent us are not quite as advertised. But at least Livingston had the decency to depart the scene rather than track dirt all over the House. That would never occur to those dissolute solons who have come to be known as "Blue Dress Democrats." They fight like rats when cornered -- they hire high-priced lawyers to lie for them, and if all else fails they wheel out the likes of Larry Flynt, the court pornographer, to smear their opponents. A recent editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News paints a dismal picture of the Washington scene, replete with "strippers ("Fanne Fox" with Arkansas Rep. Wilbur Mills), secretaries who couldn't type (Elizabeth Ray with Ohio Rep. Wayne Hays), prostitutes, lobbyists (and, yes, there's a difference), teen-age pages, young boys, gay movie theaters and more. Including really big hitters." Big hitters? Whatever could those editorial writers mean? Well, for example, there was Sen. Brock Adams (D-WA). "The daughter of a friend accused him of drugging and raping her. He ended his bid for re-election in 1992 amid reports eight other women said he sexually molested them and described a pattern of drugging and rapes." And if that doesn't remind you of another "big hitter" you have obviously been spending a lot of time off planet. Of course, you wouldn't know about the dozen or so women who accused Bill Clinton of molestation or worse, starting with Eileen Wellstone, who accused the former president of raping her while he was a student at Oxford, unless you had followed the story on the Internet. Our glorious, heroic press corps -- those guardians of the higher morality -- routinely spike such lubricious details concerning the "private" lives of politicians (provided they place a "D" after their names, much as the Israelites once marked the doorways of their homes with the blood of lambs). They are only interested in "the issues," you see, unless perhaps a nice, plump Republican should be treed by a feminazi lynch-mob, in which case he is fair game. As if to illustrate this point, the Daily News editorial mentioned, in the same breath with Brock Adams, another former senator, Bob Packwood (R-OR), the notorious serial kisser. It seems that ole Kissin' Bob Packwood was in the habit of bussing the ladies, some of whom were none too keen on this cozy custom. Once the feminazis got wind of it, ole Bob was a gonner. He resigned just as they were rounding up a posse to "investigate" him for "sexual harassment" (as a prelude to the hanging). Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas narrowly escaped the same fate after Anita Hill, extensively coached by the feminazi thought police, accused him of telling her a dirty joke. (How's that for a "big hitter?") "Some also say the Levy/Condit romance was very rare," the Daily News informs its readers, with a straight face. Do tell -- does that apply to the office help, as well? Never mind whether the secretaries can type, the key question is whether they are strong enough swimmers. Oddly enough, one of the biggest "hitters" of all, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), was not even mentioned in the Daily News editorial, although his reputation as a legislative Lothario is quite well known. That "D" after the name sure works a treat. Or does it? In the frenetically hyped case of Rep. Gary Condit (D-Ca.) and the mysteriously missing intern, Chandra Levy, the "D" suffix seems to afford the beleaguered congressman little if any protection. And why is that? After all, the congressman didn't drown the intern (so far as we know), he only held off revealing some of the more embarrassing details of their "relationship." What red-blooded, unhappily married, testosterone-crazed Democrat wouldn't have done the same, given a similar set of circumstances? With that bunch, situation "ethics" rule, okay? Mind you, Condit's earlier reticence has made him the target of a "preliminary" criminal investigation for "obstruction of justice." The theory behind this late development appears to be that had Condit been more forthcoming early on, the D.C. Police might have had greater success in tracking the missing intern to earth. (This may seem highly unlikely to those familiar with the handiwork of that organization). Unless the congressman were somehow involved in Ms, Levy's disappearance, however, there is scant reason to suppose that he would have any more of a clue as to her whereabouts than any of her other acquaintances. Contrast this with the culpability of Sen. Kennedy in the death of secretary Mary Jo Kopechne, who was left to suffocate slowly in a dwindling air pocket in the back of Kennedy's submerged car, whilst the senator busied himself with the details of his cover story. What accounts for the difference in the way these two cases are (were) handled? The congressman becomes the focus of a possible criminal investigation, whereas the senator merely had his driver's license suspended for a few months. Is it possible that the congressman's blood is just not blue enough? He's only a Blue-Dog Democrat, after all, and we know about them, don't we? It is rumored that they sometimes vote with the Republicans. In point of fact, many an article in the mainstream press concerning the Condit/Levy affair has mentioned that the congressman voted for the inquiry that lead to the impeachment of Bill Clinton (as though this put him one-down), though the newsies typically omit to mention that Condit voted against Clinton's impeachment by the House. Not that Condit is getting a particularly raw deal. His carefully crafted image as a "family-man" has been pretty well demolished, but what did he expect? The women who have come trooping in from the boonies by squads and platoons since the story sprouted legs, each one adding a few piquant details to round out the picture of this middle-aged, blow-dried Don Juan, suggest that he was up to taking the odd risk now and again. The only point to be made here is that justice, if it is to be worthy of the name, must be dispensed in an equitable fashion, but that is not what is happening. What is happening is that Condit has been measured up for the role of scapegoat by the mainstream media, and has been found suitable. Everyone knows that these Blue Dress Democrats are a bunch of scoundrels and that in time they will become the occasion for public indignation. That is why it occasionally becomes necessary to shoot one of them, the only question being, which one? It goes without saying that shooting a Kennedy would be considered outre in the best circles, but no need to worry -- so long as the supply of suitable scapegoats holds out. The theory is that the public, having had its pound of flesh, will be properly mollified and the indignation that has built up from observing young Kennedy thugs beat up airport gate-keepers, Skakels dispatch neighbor girls with golf clubs, etc., will dissipate. Of course, assuming the mantel of scapegoat-hood does not necessarily imply innocence. There is little left of Condit's reputation at this point, and his assiduously cultivated political career is said by local observers to be a smoking ruin. In fact, there have been calls for his resignation from Democrats desperate to save his seat for the party. Still, that doesn't necessarily imply that he is involved in the disappearance of Chandra Levy. It's just that -- well, there are a few little loose threads dangling from his story. It seems that the Levy family first became suspicious of Condit after their daughter had been out of contact with them for a week. They were phoning all of her acquaintances in an effort to locate her, and when they contacted Condit, he immediately offered to post a $10,000 award for information regarding Chandra's whereabouts. Needless to say, they found this a little bit odd, not to say alarming. Nobody had yet suggested that the intern had gone missing. And then there is the information, possibly erroneous, published near week's end by the National Enquirer and repeated by Matt Drudge, that Chandra was pregnant. If this is true, it provides one of the major elements in a criminal investigation: motive. Even so, it would be difficult (though not impossible) to make a case without a few of the other biggies, such as a body or a cause of death. The D.C. Police continue to insist Rep. Condit is "not a suspect." This is a trick statement since no crime has been committed in an official sense, thus, there can be no suspects. At least this is true so far as Levy's disappearance is concerned -- Condit will be in big trouble should it be established that he suborned perjury from a witness, as a certain red- haired flight attendant insists he did. Contrary to what Clinton supporters may believe, obstruction of justice is never a trivial matter. Condit would still be in trouble, even if Chandra were to pop up out of the shrubbery shouting, "Sur-PRI-i-se! Really had-ja going there, didn't I?" The D.C. authorities, who have already spent a bundle investigating this case, would be unlikely to see the humor in it, though they probably would not prosecute anyone. But Condit would still have to answer to the House Ethics Committee. Loose threads aside, there is scant reason to conclude at this point that Rep. Condit was involved in Chandra's disappearance. Although the public have not been told, the police are aware that two other young women from the Dupont Circle neighborhood where Chandra was living were murdered within the past two years. There is also the information that Chandra's telephone and computer were both used on the day after she is thought to have disappeared. If true, this might be taken as evidence of foul play, although it points to no one in particular. Still, it seems highly unlikely that Condit would have risked being seen at Chandra's apartment, especially if he had been involved in her disappearance. Of course, this does not address the possibility that a crime might have been hired done. Some observers speculate that the very thoroughness of Chandra's disappearance, the lack of clues and absence of a body, suggest that a professional hit-man was involved. Perhaps, but as much could be said of a serial killer. It has been pointed out that Condit does not fit the profile of a murderer. That appears to be true, but appearances are ofttimes deceptive. He sure had his constituents back in Modesto fooled, didn't he? About being a faithful, dependable family man, that is. The most convincing point in Condit's favor would be his ability to pass a polygraph test administered by the D.C. Police. For a time on Friday it appeared that he had done so, however it turns out that the congressman had taken a test administered by an examiner he himself had hired. This is unlikely to impress the police, nor will it convince many of those who suspect him of all manner of low skulduggery. The prattling of reporters who pretended to be persuaded by Condit's preemptive strike, which is really a standard ploy used by high-priced mouthpieces to take the heat off their clients, was amusing. Far from answering the big question, this stratagem merely raises a new question: if Condit has nothing to hide, why is he unwilling to take a polygraph test administered by the police? In any event, there are certain to be further questions. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) has filed a complaint against Condit with the House Ethics Committee. Drowning in Decadence Why devote so much space, or any space at all, to a sleazy story such as this? huff the critics of junk journalism. Loath as I am to be the bearer of bad tidings yet again, I am obliged to point out that sleazy stories such as this one have become the norm among our ruling class, whose values have largely collapsed during the past few decades. Does anyone really believe that a hedonistic monster of self-absorption such as Ted Kennedy gives a hoot about drowned secretaries? He made it abundantly clear from the outset that his only real concern was the damage he had done to his phony, inflated reputation. He had good reason to be concerned. As it turned out, all the king's boot-licking lackeys and sycophantic presstitutes were unable to put Humpty-Dumpty together again after the fall. Nevertheless, his degraded standards are considered adequate for a member of the U.S. Senate, which calls to mind the observation made by Marx (Groucho, that is): "I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member." The apparent victim in this little melodrama, Chandra Levy, is an identifiable Washington type, the intern and not-so-innocent ingenue who seeks to climb the social ladder by sleeping with a powerful politician. These bimbos seem able to convince themselves that some middle-aged pol has a genuine interest in them, apart from the obvious one, and that, in time, the old phud will divorce his wife of thirty-something years to marry them. This is typically sheer fantasy, of course, and one which the dissolute old reprobate is experienced at exploiting. The harems acquired by a Clinton or a Condit would seem adequate to staff a girl's basketball league. Not that all of the girls believe the sugary lies they are told. That part is the specialty of the interns. Jonah Goldberg writes in National Review: "Chandra cleaned the congressman's apartment. She planned on being an imperial or, more accurately, blue-dog concubine for about five years, at which time the 60-year-old "family man" from Modesto would trade in his wife for a newer model and have a baby with her. We know that was her plan, and presumably he led her to believe it was his too." We know that Levy had become Condit's live-in doormat because of the tales told out of school by her blabbermouth aunt, Linda Zamsky, who appears to have no more sense than Chandra. The Washington Post reports that, "when Chandra suggested to her aunt that she might move in with Condit so 'she could save money on rent, keep up his apartment and be there for him,' her aunt's response was that it sounded like 'wishful thinking.' " Nevertheless, Zamsky proceeded to encourage her errant niece in her home-wrecking enterprise, offering handy housekeeping hints to keep the big lug happy: cook him dinner, clean his apartment, etc. When Chandra replied that she was already doing these things, auntie responded, "Well, color-coordinate everything, you know, put all the long sleeves by color..." It didn't seem to matter to auntie that Chandra was breaking up a marriage. When told of her niece's plan to have a baby with Condit, she merely noted that "You'll be 29, fine. With him, he's going to be 59 years old, or 58 or 60. . . . That's not a great age to bring a child into the world." Such is the new "morality." Still, the old morality continues to be recognized in the double standards waved by feminazis and their accomplices in the mainstream propaganda media. Goldberg writes that, "When an unmarried Clarence Thomas was accused of asking an unmarried employee out for a date, Democratic congresswomen and their activist sorority stormed the Senate shrieking with sophomoric smugness, 'You just don't get it!'" The hypocrisy of these posturing phonies is truly a phenomenon to behold. If these harebrained harpies have even a shred of influence left after the shameless way they slavered over Predator Bill Clinton, serial sex offender, it is a tribute to human gullibility. The professional bird-brain, Katie Roiphe, actually sang Monica Lewinsky's praises during the impeachment scandal, writing in the New York Times, "There is nothing inherently wrong with Ms. Lewinsky's way of thinking, or with her attempt to translate her personal relationship with the President into professional advancement." The new "morality" has come increasingly to resemble the punch line of a nasty joke: "What kind of a girl do you think I am? We've already established that -- we're just haggling over the price." Let's hear it for situation "ethics." On second thought, Dubya may have the right idea, keeping out of the news, which is increasingly filled with human refuse of the lowest sort. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose rubbing elbows with such rabble. Consider the sheer novelty of it -- for once the mainstream press is engrossed in a sordid sex scandal relating to a public figure within the government and the president isn't even remotely involved. Imagine that. Even the phony mainstream push-polls show the president's job approval rating bouncing back up to around 60 percent. (Bush's personal popularity is around 70 percent). Campaign finance reform has foundered in the House, as expected by the more seasoned observers. Although similar measures had passed that chamber several times before, this year it was in danger of actually becoming law -- enough to make even hardened McCainiacs think twice. And so Mr. Nice Guy glides serenely on, aloof from it all, unsullied by so much as the need to veto this cockamamie piece of unconstitutional legislation, his popularity intact. (At the same point in his first term, Clinton was polling about 45 percent). One can sense the frustration of the mainstream presstitutes who have given it their best shot, only to see the round bounce harmlessly off into the moat, splashing cold water all over their plumed knight of preference, Sen. Jack S. McClown. Bush had better have a care, though -- at this rate he is going to make it look far too easy. Edward Zehr can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------- Published in the Jul. 16, 2001 issue of The Washington Weekly. (http://washington-weekly.com) Copyright © 2001 ======================================================= Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: *Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends ======================================================= <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
