American Politics Journal -- Pundit Pap

Pundit Pap
for Sunday, June 23
Mideast malaise hits pessimistic pundits as cracks appear in their unquestioning support for Smirk
by The Pundit Pap Team

June 23, 2002 -- New York/Washington (APJP, updated June 24, 1 PM) -- Are the Beltway pundits beginning to sense blood in the water? No, not another fake Clinton scandal -- but trouble at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Sure, there's still too much deference to George II and his hangers-on, but one gets the feeling that the press senses the infighting among Shrubling's ministers -- and may be preparing to pounce.

Mideast trouble dominated the Sunday shows -- here's what we caught.

ABC This Weak

First, the good news: after five years of covering ABC's substandard excuse for a Sunday pundit show, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts are being shown the door.

Now, the bad news: George "Little Brutus" Stephanopoulos will be the new host.

Based on his recent performance, it's no actual cause for celebration. Some claim that Steph has "gone out of his way to be fair" because he used to ask "tough" questions of Team Clinton, for whom he had worked, back when we had a real, elected president-- but one read of his self-serving memoir, "Now I Hate Bill", makes it more than obvious that he holds a grudge against the Big Dog.

Worse yet is ABC's decision to retain Cro-Magnon bloviator George Will as the regular comic relief on This Weak. Fear not --we'll continue to ignore most of what this family values hypocrite says.

The first segment was a near-complete waste of time: Steph in an interview with Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, framed by the news that Martha Stewart may have engaged in insider trading. Or maybe not. O'Neill did talk a little about new legislation to tighten regulation of securities (a little), an idea to which he gave lame lip service. O'Neill seemed a bit incensed that Steph dared mention obscenely high CEO salaries and stock options, but said that it is time for boards of directors to raise standards (for what? getting caught in crooked deals? draining money that should go into stockholder dividends?). O'Neill was avoiding discussion of the more corruptive issue: stock options. Steph's final issue: raising the debt limit (read: the GOP has zero fiscal responsibility). Steph raised the prospect of Social Security checks not going out; O'Neill said that Congress has to raise the debt limit "in a bipartisan way" (in other words, kowtow to the morons occupying the White House), and Steph reminded O'Neill that the GOP said they do not have the votes to raise the debt limit -- which led O'Neill into a ridiculous sermon about Congress honoring the Constitution!

Well, hear, hear, Paul -- but if that's the case, let's start with hearings into Cheney's secret energy panel!

Cokie got to talk real issues in the next segment -- the so-called "war on terror". On cue from Cokie, one of her guests, Sen. Bob Graham, said that Osama bun Laden remains a threat, and Sen. Dick Shelby agreed, saying he doubts he's dead. Wow -- nothing like Cokie asking those difficult questions! Graham talked about Al Qaeda's claim of responsibility for a synagogue bombing in Tunisia. Shelby said they're a global and domestic threat, "They're out there." Talk about going out on a limb.

Cokie shifted subjects, to the finding that last year's anthrax attacks were performed with fresh spores (i.e. about 2 years old). Once again, Shelby turned into a newscaster, repeating news we'd read yesterday; Graham said he cannot criticize the FBI.

Huh? You mean there's no substance to leaks from the agency saying they've narrowed the suspect list and they still won't move?

Shelby said he is pushing to get the NSA on the cutting edge of technology, and Cokie asked the obvious: how did they fall behind the global telecom boom? Shelby would not answer, instead saying they have a huge workload.

Cokie then said that Smirk's handlers are "hopping mad" about the leak of news that the NSA intercepted a key Al Qaeda phone call on 9/10 and did not translate it until 9/12. Graham said that he supports a full investigation.

Huh? The "leak" looked calculated to do two things: first, shut down talk of an independent commission; and second, act as a stalking-horse for more, bigger, more expensive security bureaucracy.

Should there be a Palestinian state? Shelby can't see one in light of Mideast violence and the perception that Arafat is a "spent force"; Graham said he is very concerned about Israeli reoccupation of Palestinian territories, external terrorist groups moving into the region and Hezbollah threatening Israel.

In the next segment, Steph declared that the Chimp-in-Chief's peace plan is on hold. The guest: Saudi foreign policy advisor Adel al Jubair. Now, Saudi leaders are not exactly the most popular people in these pages -- or in the minds of most Americans -- but they couldn't hope for a smarter, better and more articulate advocate than the eloquent and Westernized al Jubair, who first said he believes Shrub will make a big speech this week, but that the US must be careful about the endgame in light of UN resolutions and obligations on the part of Israel and Palestinians; when Palestinians create their institutions, they shall determine the nature of these institutions. Al Jubair also said that Arafat cannot control violence since his security forces have been decimated. Bottom line: Arafat has lost control.

That's a pretty strong statement from al Jubair and therefore from the Saudis. It is bad news for Arafat, who should realize that the fat lady is in the eyes of many being cued.

Steph turned to two "news analysts" (one of whom was George Will, the other being the sane and savvy Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution). There was a consensus that Arafat is no longer in control and that Smirk is in a pickle as to when he will be able to make a speech laying out his grandiose "plan" to save the region from war.

The boring roundtable followed a boring recap of the week's news; Cokie mentioned the SCOTUS ruling that stops execution of the retarded; Will grumbled something about evidence; Telhami spelled out the fact that many stated ban execution of the retarded but without saying the magic words "evolving standard" (that was left to Cokie); the dull-as-dishwater Karen Grigsby Bates of NPR mentioned that DNA evidence has exonerated some people who were executed; Will mumbled something about legislation. There followed a predictable "debate" about Title IX, with the requisite condescending nonsense from Will.

This is a political talk and discussion show? I've seen more spontaneity in Father Knows Best reruns! Let's hope that someone at ABC has the brains to revamp the format of this clunky, weak excuse for political "public interest" programming.

-- JJ Balzer

McLaugh-In

Our favorite dysfunctional pundit show, McLaugh-In, occasionally hits the nail on the head -- usually when they turn the focus to foreign affairs.

And this particular week, John McLaugh-In and his merry gang of hollering hot-air heroes did just that in their first segment. The focus was on a possible successor to Yassir Arafat. John mentioned his top candidate Mohammad Dhahlan. John focused on his higher media profile in the West -- and Sharon's having labeled him as a terrorist while some in the Palestinian and Arab world see him as an Israeli puppet because of his ties to the CIA top dog George Tenet.

John went around the table, first to Pat Buchanan, who first denied he was the Watergate scandal's "Deep Throat" -- and claimed it was a literary device. John called the shadowy figure mentioned in Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein's "All the President's Men" a "contrivance", and they both laughed over Bob Woodward's deathbed "interview" with Bill Casey. Pat said Hamas is running the show' they are matadors playing Sharon like a bull (wow -- even we have to agree for once with the minority-hating, authoritarianism-loving Buchanan). Eleanor Clift spoke up in support of Bob and Carl (Pat had claimed all the talk of "Deep Throat" was also being used to keep the two veteran Washington Post reporters on television) -- and said that the Palestinians should be careful what they wish for; moderation in the Palestinian territory is "dead" for the time being. Tony Blankley, whom John announced is newly-named editorial page boss at the Washing-Moon Times, said that Hamas has greater support among Palestinians than Arafat claims -- and may make a better interlocutor for Palestinians than Arafat. Mort Zuckerman said that there is no faith in Arafat among Israelis, and Shrub understands this -- along with most Arab countries, and Dhahlan is on the outs with Al Fatah, Arafat's political (and guerilla) organization. Hamas, he added, is a religious organization. So who could succeed Arafat? Mort was noncommittal -- and Arafat has made sure nobody has emerged. Eleanor said Sharon has no strategy other than invading the West Bank -- and Smirk shouldn't be backing off and should be go forward with his speech on peace. John agreed! With a liberal! Gasp!

Then John flashed a quote from Saudi King Abdullah -- a vote of no confidence for Arafat.

Is it time to start looking for a successor to Arafat with whom to negotiate?
Pat: No!
Eleanor: Reach out, yes, but deal with the leader in place.
Tony: Prepare to deal with anyone useful to America.
Mort: There will be no peace process progress with Arafat -- the problem cannot be solved but it can be managed.
John: We must talk with a successor!

Issue two: Amtrak on the ropes!

Allow The Doc a brief aside before he details the panel of shouters; opinions: the issue is not as pressing as, say, homeland security, but it is of particular concern to much of McLaugh-In's audience in the Northeast; the corridor between Boston and Washington is heavily traveled by political and business professionals and media types. The Doc has run into a number of politicians on the train between New York and DC -- including Sen. Joe Biden on a few occasions -- and has also learned that there are a number of lobbyists for the transportation industry, including air carriers, who would love to see a stake driven through Amtrak's heart so their sponsors can have a shot at moving in through privatization.

John ran footage of the Amtrak chairman telling Jim Lehrer that the federal money is not there -- and added there may be a need to curtail service starting Wednesday. John mostly depicted Amtrak as a boondoggle and pushed for partial privatization, citing four billion dollars in debt and Congressional hostility. Suppose Amtrak does cut back and there's another 9/11 attack? Mort said that we need rail as a backup to air transportation; Blankley wants short-term help followed by privatization; Eleanor pointed out that most rail systems are subsidized, and the Northeast Corridor's Acela service is outstanding; Pat is all for privatization.

None of the panel mentioned that Amtrak keeps expenses for many businesses and (in the Northeast) government way down -- and subsidies are fully justified.

The panel was unanimous, though: bail out Amtrak in the short term.

Manic-depressive predictions!
Pat: Dollar will continue to fall
Eleanor: Dollar will continue to fall
Tony: Al Qaeda in Kashmir -- problem for the US and Pakistan
Mort: Venezuelans will reform
John rattled some prediction off so fast The Doc missed it. Guess I'll have to double up on the caffeine next time.

-- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo

Feed the Press

Once again, the cream of the political crop stopped by NBC's Wisconsin Street studios in Washington to kiss the ring of the sleaziest pundit on American television, Tim Russert.

His guests this week were House Speaker Dennis "Fat Boy" Hastert and Massachusetts Senator (and presidential candidate) John Kerry. Pudgy Tim's big question at the top of the show: would a Democrat president handle the present crises differently?

Tim welcomed Kerry and first turned to the Middle East, trying to trap Kerry in "grading" the Texas Dauphin's performance. Kerry wouldn't, instead saying that Smirk had made a "catastrophic mistake" by dropping the continuity in the Mideast peace process -- and now we are all reaping the whirlwind (finally! it's about time -- and this is a signal to Democrats that it is NOT "unpatriotic" or "disloyal" to start hammering the incompetence of the Primate POTUS). Kerry continued with another roundhouse punch: now that Shrubya's team is engaged, they are sending a litany of mixed signals. "There is no continuity, there is no fundamental plan" -- and on top of that, he added, they're restraining Colin Powell and failing to pay attention to momentum toward a will for stability and peace from within the Arab world.

What would Kerry say, were he president, to Sharon about the threat of "crushing" Palestine? Kerry ignored Tim's question, instead saying that there is no moral equivalency between controlling terrorism and suicide bombers -- we need to make it clear that this is not a Jewish issue but an issue of stopping terrorism. Additionally, America has to offer an alternative. There is now a completely different dynamic since September 11th -- Arab nations found their governance under scrutiny, and now they want to be partners in peace, but the Shrub Administration has missed the chance to help.

Tim was looking uncomfortable. You could see the angry look in his eye as he thought, "This sonofabitch is hijacking my show! He's ignoring my all-important questions! I'd better go on the attack!"

So Tim claimed in no uncertain terms that Arab nations are launching a public relations blitz calling Israel "racist". Kerry responded by explaining to the nearly-blustering Tim that Israeli leaders have worked to find a middle ground -- and Arafat has not come to the table. Kerry then said he would NOT work with Arafat, since Arafat has not delivered on peace. That got Tim's attention. So, asked Tim, do we "eliminate" Arafat? No, said Kerry, he's sounding contrite about not accepting a Clinton-era plan. The Taba plan, Kerry explained, is not the solution, but it is a good framework for the beginning. The question becomes how the two parties get to peace.

Tim mentioned that Sharon has established 34 new settlements -- should Israel surrender and cease settlements? Kerry said that it would be helpful to stop the establishment of any more settlements, and he believe Sharon is ready to compromise -- IF he can be assured Israelis are safe. Tim and Kerry also talked about the issue of immigration to Israel, and Kerry asked if the world's sole superpower is going to change the "current construct" -- we should convince Sharon that there is a path to a peace process that goes further that Oslo. If the violence is curbed and the Arab nations sign on, Israel could well disengage. Tim asked if US troops should be part of the plan; Kerry said yes, but with limits.

Has the war in Afghanistan been a success? Only partly, said Kerry, who forcefully stated that US troops have done a superb job of soldiering, but the Taliban were not the target -- Al Qaeda remains the target. We made a mistake, he added, turning to the Afghans to rout Al Qaeda at Tora Bora; Operation Anaconda was a failure also (keep in mind that Kerry is an actual combat veteran, unlike George W. "Champagne and Cocaine Squad" Smirk).

Tim said that a spokesman for Al Qaeda has said in a recorded message released to Al Jazeera and other Arab news outlets that 90% of their leadership is intact and Osama bin Laden is still alive. Kerry said that the rhetoric about the war on terrorism is overblown; the operation against Al Qaeda is primarily one of intelligence, law enforcement and diplomacy. Tim tried to act as if Kerry was attacking that almighty Homeland Security scheme of Smirk's -- the horror! Kerry instead said he thinks it's a good idea, but the war on terror has been mismanaged. We have to find the enemy, figure out what they are doing, and get rid of them.

Tim then put words in Kerry's mouth, claiming Kerry said the military operation was a failure and that Kerry would be accused of "disloyalty". Kerry, who had made it pretty clear that our men and women in uniform had done a great job, said that he was critical of not using military power to its fullest extent. Tin then pressed the notion that Kerry was somehow sending the wrong message to the enemy. Kerry turned the tables -- saying that he'd make the right moves with open and honest statements. Tim again tried to trap Kerry -- would he send more troops to the Pakistan border? Kerry said that there needs to be evidence that that is where Osama is.

Tim then turned to the deficit -- and tried to paint Democrats as big spenders with their (superior) drug plan for seniors. Does Kerry support ending tax givebacks to the rich? Kerry said that IF the choice came down to giving money to the rich and getting prescriptions to the needy, it's obvious what he'd pick. He then dismantled GOP rhetoric about no tax givebacks being a tax increase. Tim tried to twist his words again, but Kerry would not give in. So Tim then talked about other Senators who want to kill the tax giveback -- why won't Kerry "step out"? Kerry said it's not time -- then slammed CEOs and companies for moving offshore. Tim kept pushing him -- and Kerry said it's just not time.

Tim then turned to a David Broder op-ed mentioning Kerry's vote against going after Saddam Hussein in 1991. Kerry said that while he stood and stands by action against Saddam, he stands by his vote -- because he felt that the plan needed more discussion and more international support. So would he vote for action against Saddam today? Yes, but only if the plan is solid -- including covert activities already approved.

Tim then tried another typical dirty trick: tarring Kerry with the Willie Horton brush. Kerry reminded Tim he was a former prosecutor who has sent killers and thugs to jail for life. If he decides to run, he'll run as an American. Tim tried to make it sound like a bad thing that Kerry opposes the death penalty. Kerry reminded Tim that 100 death penalty convictions have been overturned by DNA evidence -- besides, hard labor for life is a tougher punishment than death. Tim then turned to Kerry's vote against the "Defense of Marriage Act"; Kerry called it gay-bashing. Should Clinton have vetoed it? "I don't know; he made his choice."

Tim then made a really foolish mistake -- using an erroneous Roll Call article pegging him as the wealthiest Senator. Fact is, Kerry's wife is the rich one. Tim tried to make his wife's money controversial by mentioning that Kerry's wife, a Heinz heir, said that she'll use her money if anyone engages in character assassination against her husband in the process of a campaign (well, good for her -- and you can bet Terry McAuliffe is on board for turning dishonest attacks into GOP Waterloos).

Does Al Gore deserve a rematch with George Bush? That's Gore's call and the American people's, said Kerry -- and Kerry added that Gore is likely to be challenged this time around. Kerry then gave a mini-stump speech that wasn't half bad -- in fact, count on him hammering Furious George on his competence.

When Tim welcomed Denny "Looks like he eats at Denny's" Hastert, he confronted him with Kerry's desire to cancel tax givebacks to the rich. Hastert, in his droning patter, started talking about cutting the cost of drugs. Huh? Tim pressed him, and Hastert claimed the tax givebacks helped the economy. Tim did not follow up (no surprise there, given that the economy is a mess and he was in no mood to help Hastert hung himself), instead turning to problems with the GOP's fake plan to "help" seniors with prescription drug prices -- tying the legislation to a big GOP fundraiser sponsored -- you guessed it -- by Big Pharma. Why won't Hastert support helping seniors spending between $2,000 and under $4,000 with the high cost of their drugs? Hastert said the program is to help the needy.

Of course, the problem remains that high prices of some of these drugs make seniors needy!

Tim pressed Hastert on the high cost of a Department of Homeland Security. Hastert would not address that issue directly, talking about "efficiency", and admitting that the plans may not be in place by Sept. 11 of this year. Hastert claimed that the CIA had been "hollowed out" (which is nonsense, as most of the problems that have been uncovered since September 11th point to serious agency mismanagement, bad communication between agencies, and more of a desire to satisfy right-wing special interest groups than to tend to national security, for example Injustice Minister Ass-croft cutting back on counterterrorism to go after pornography).

Tim then came close to mocking Hastert about the vanishing Social Security surplus and a need to increase the debt ceiling. Hastert tried to play down Tom Daschle's suggestion that Social Security checks would bounce -- and claimed the economy is coming back because of money put back into it by a tax cut (note to NBC -- someone forgot to hit the "laugh track" button). But Hastert also had to admit that cutting federal indebtedness helps spur the economy.

Tim then turned to the "K Street Project", sleazebag lobbyist Grover Norquist's plan to demonize and punish Democrat lobbyists (neither Tim nor Hastert mentioned Grover's name). Hastert distanced both himself and even Trent Lott from this foolhardy Norquist scheme. Lord knows, Grover's one of the dirtiest political players in the world -- who can blame Hastert from ducking and covering?

Will J.C. Watts retire? Hastert hopes he doesn't. Neither do we -- the man is a poster child for GOP moral hypocrisy.

Tim the had one last bit of fun at Hastert's expense: the new spot encouraging tourism in DC featuring the singing voices of Hastert, Gephardt, and a slew of other pols, each doing a line from the Gershwin tune "Of Thee I Sing, Baby".

It's a great spot, actually -- and not just because it proves elected officials cannot hold a tune!

It should be noted that Tim Russert is still bearing water for Team Smirk-- but is not as eager to jump down the throats of the present administration's critics.

It should also be pointed out that Tim's suggestion that critics of the administration are being labeled as some how "disloyal" or "anti-American" may well be a signal that this particular notion being peddled publicly by W.'s top handlers is not playing well in media circles -- especially now that they see fractures in the once lock-stepped White House.

You can hear the shivs being sharpened behind the closed doors of newsroom offices in the Beltway.

And that, as the beleaguered Martha Stewart would say, is a good thing.

-- JJ Balzer

No-Facts, Hunt & Shields
Their guest: Denny Hastert, Communist!

I must admit to a little regional shame that today's guest, Dennis Hastert, is a product of my own great state of Illinois. But at least we don't grow our Repugs here in the wild-eyed, frothing, lunatic variety found in, say, Texas. We usually produce the average misguided corporate puppet variety that works diligently to advance an agenda that's usually not in the public interest. Hastert is no different, or at least he wasn't before being thrust into the speakership of the house by virtue of being the only guy the swinish Repugs could find that couldn't easily be exposed for falling far short of their own loudly bleated moral standards.

Hastert seemed malleable, so DeLay and the other jackals of the right threw him up there, secure in the knowledge that they could easily control him.

Hastert appears as if he wandered into Toonville and had his head pounded down repeatedly by a squeaking oversized cartoon hammer. He's proof that you don't need a neck to lead a full life.

Bob "No-Facts" started out by asking Denny to respond to John Dingell's (D-MI) correct characterization of the sham Repug prescription drug bill as being merely "a series of payoffs to insurance companies."

Hastert did a good job of mouthing soothing platitudes without revealing what a total con job his version of this needed legislation truly is. He also neatly sidestepped mentioning its hidden trap door that leaves people high and dry after a low cutoff dollar limit has been reached. This would leave millions of those that need this coverage most - namely, those with very high, sustained drug costs -- completely helpless.

It's the typical bait-and-switch scam used by businesses and drug dealers all the time. Sharing the ethical purity of dope dealers, you'll see the Repugs use the same fleece-job. They propose bills that are basically sound proposals on the surface with provisions they can cite and make it seem really peachy -- but hidden in the fine print is the fact that only your first taste is free. After that, you're going to have to pay and pay and pay. They and their corporate masters can then sit back and watch the cash pour in.

This Repug proposal is riddled with loopholes that leave the vast majority of seniors S.O.L. after reaching a low benefit limit.

When asked about the Democratic plan being moved through the Senate, Hastert just grinned and pointed out that that plan would cost over a trillion dollars, while theirs is far cheaper (350 Billion over 10 years).

With something like this crucial issue, though, you either do it or you don't. You don't squander money on a totally fake drug benefit for seniors that does about as much good as dropping a few food packages on starving millions. It's a multi-billion dollar stunt that doesn't begin to solve the crisis of seniors being driven to poverty and worse in order to get the drugs they need to survive.

In this case, as with every social program, the right will throw you a few crumbs to shut you up, but after that, they want you to just die quietly. If you want to continue living, you'll have to do it on your own dime. They got theirs, and they're not about to share any of it just because someone is old and very ill and doesn't have expensive insurance coverage or private wealth and assets.

They say, "If you didn't want to die years sooner than you would have with prescription drugs, I guess you just should have somehow managed to put away a half million bucks. Tough luck Charlie." Welcome to right wing America, where if you're not well off, you're a needless expense, even if you've worked your ass off your entire life.

Hastert said that "the American people" (UGH!) want "production, not politics" when it comes to the drug bill. There's your admission, in a slimy way, that this bill is just a sop -- a band-aid, if you will -- to prevent their true position on this issue from sinking the GOP ship during elections.

Denny hopes we'll all be satisfied that a prescription drug benefit plan was passed, even if it's in name only. They'll take credit as if they're magnanimous and "compassionate." When he says we supposedly don't want "politics", he's hoping to distort things so that any opposition or attempt to explain what a vacuous scam this bill really is will be branded as petty politics.

Then they'll bray, "Look, we have a benefit bill that covers seniors, what the Dems are doing is just whining because it's us that gave you this great package."

Listening to this sort of chicanery is enough to make you need expensive prescription meds!!

Shields accused Denny of bringing the bill up too late in the session, half-hoping it would die. Hastert again showed his colors by saying that he hoped it would pass -- then at least they'd give people something. (Though it's a Trojan horse of a bill.)

Something? What's a few hundred billion if it will give Repug candidates some cover from being exposed as the greedy soulless corporate puppets they really are? I'm sure none of you reading this mind if all of the taxes you've paid in your entire life are devoted to this effort to prop up the Repugs. (That is, if it wasn't already spent paying the salary of an FBI agent rooting around Arkansas looking for dirt on Clinton.)

What about the multi-million dollar Repug fundraiser held just as debate on this bill began? What about the fact that the top ($250,000 and up) donors were pharmaceutical manufacturers? Doesn't that stink to high heaven? Are we really supposed to believe that the Repugs are going to look out for the interests of our elderly mothers, fathers, and grandparents over those of the enormous drug companies?

Hastert coolly spoke the bald-faced lie that there was no need to worry, and tried to suggest that the drug companies would actually make more money under the Democratic plan, because the Repug version had guidelines on costs, evidently.

HO, HO, freaking HO! That's rich Denny.

These HUGE corporations are going to hand truckloads of cash to the Republicans on the eve of this vote because they just love Democrats? How can people stand this sort of LIE?

I mean, the right spent years trying to convince America that it was in the grip of rampant moral decay, mostly because of Bill Clinton. (They never exactly explained how a president could corrupt everyone's moral fiber, but the ditto monkeys ate it up with a spoon.) . Bill Bennett opens his filthy gob constantly to spew moralistic bull of the rankest sort, blaming the Godless liberals for every moral shortfall in the country.

Yet these men from the party of God sit there and CONSTANTLY lie and deceived the public with mind-bending nerve.

Hastert would have us believe that these multi-national mega-corporations are throwing cash at a bill that would profit them the least. Would these companies give tens of millions of bucks to the Repugs if they weren't GUARANTEED to get that back hundreds of times over as a result of the Repug bill? Hell no! It's either going to mean massive profits for them, or, conversely, will let them off the hook with only modest losses, where the Dem bill would stop them from their criminal over-charging and kill a part of the cash bonanza they enjoy now. If they thought they'd make FIVE BUCKS more with the Dem plan, they'd be throwing the millions their way, and everyone knows it. But Denny isn't afraid to shame himself by expecting us to believe otherwise.

In this, as with almost all Repug measures since Dim Son was elevated to office, the difference they're fighting for is the difference between obscene profits and very large profits.

But they've demonstrated over and over that they'd throw your Mom in the street rather than have to settle for just very large profits. They want every last million they can get their hands on.

The panel moved on to the current wrangling in the House over debt limit legislation. Sunshine Bob confronted Hastert with his concern that if a budget bill passes that is "too heavy", as Bob says the Senate version is (one wonders just how "light" it would have to be to suit Bob), then president Mortimer W. Snerd couldn't veto it if a debt ceiling bill was passed. What will you do, Denny, if the spending bill spends too much on the poor and middle class, or conversely, too little for his corporate masters for the Chimp to swallow?

Well, says Hastert, we just won't pass one that's "too heavy."

Oh.

OK.

Never mind. (Sheesh!)

What's his thought on the 500-headed, out-of-control monster that is to be the Homeland Security department? Well, Denny says we need it and tried to suggest that there would be efficiency due to economies of scale.

The fact is, that despite a long standing near-religious anti-bureaucratic fervor on the right, consolidating control of an unimaginably huge bureaucracy into White House hands is seen as a great idea.

This has NOTHING to do with efficiency or economics, and EVERYTHING to do with Bush thugs expanding and tightening their already enormous power. They want to make CERTAIN that the entire federal government answers to them, and them only. They're cutting out the middleman and reducing the autonomy of these many agencies.

This has enormous ramifications for the future. It means that the White House can run the enormous domestic security apparatus with an iron fist. They can monitor it and pull strings so that embarrassing things never see the light of day, and manage it for purely political reasons, namely, making sure they hold on to power in 2004.

In yet another brilliant blow against the people and for corporations, Hastert discussed his plans for making it literally impossible for insurance companies to suffer losses in event of a terrorist attack. This is the plan that says that our tax dollars will bail out an insurance company if it ever has to pay a claim on say, a building destroyed by terrorist acts.

Now, hold it, Denny!

Isn't that more communistic than anything a liberal has EVER proposed? Is this the party whose religion is the open unfettered marketplace? The one whose religion is sink or swim? Don't they always throw it in our faces about how business deserves billions in federal tax dollars because they are the ones that take the risks? Isn't this the same crowd that tell us that the very wealthiest among us DESERVE almost unlimited wealth because they were the ones that TOOK THE RISKS, and are now deserve to reap the rewards?

I guess not -- at least not anymore. Now if you're big enough and contribute enough, your Republican friends will pass a bill that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for your business to suffer a large loss.

So much for the miracle of the marketplace, huh? Amazing. These formerly chiseled-in-stone tenets of the faith are turning out to have been have been chiseled in warm butter.

You're retired and need expensive prescription drugs? Tough, you should have worked harder, gone to college, or something, who knows? Don't ask me. You just should have made a lot, lot more money. It isn't our fault you're not rich and got sick.

You're a multi-billion dollar insurance company and worried that you might take a hit in the event of terrorist attack? Hey, we're trying to deal with national security and waging a "war" in this legislative session, but we'll find the time to pass legislation for you. Just have your lobbyist swing by and write the bill up for us, give us some talking points, air a few million bucks worth of propaganda ads, and consider it done. By the way, I'd like you to meet Sid, the financial chairman of my campaign.

And as if that wasn't bad enough (it is), Hastert is also including a provision that bars anyone from suing either the insurance companies or the government.

The same people who went ballistic over national health care because it supposedly wouldn't allow you to chose your own doctor (it did) are now systematically making sure that you can't chose to sue if a huge company causes you severe injury, damages, or financial losses. Oh sure, you can still sue. But if you do, you'll find they've fixed it so that a suit would cost more than the cap they've put on damages, and many other kinds of crap that favors corporations, such as making you sue in federal court where standards are much harder to meet, or making you sue in a jurisdiction so far away it would be impossible. They've succeeded in effectively making it impossible to sue for anyone but the wealthy.

I want in on that, don't you? Why don't they pass something like that for everyone?

Operating your car while you're drunk and mow down some school kids? Hey, don't sweat it, you won't be ruined. Let's limit the amount you'll have to pay to say, $1000 or 0.0001% of your income (like these "tort reform" bills for corporations). Driving a semi with no brakes? Don't worry, the worst that can happen is it might cost you a few hundred bucks. Selling food infested with salmonella in your restaurant and worried about being put out of business with lawsuits? Fuggetaboudit! Got a 50 ft deep pit in your front yard that you've been throwing old cans and bottles in for years, and you left it covered with leaves with no barrier around it? Ya say some neighbor kid fell in and mangled himself? Don't lose a minutes sleep over that. We got ya covered. Work at a muffler and brake place and found you could make more money by putting on used brake shoes and charging for new? A family of 6 got killed because of it? Well, thanks to these new caps on damages, you can be sure you can still continue your business.

Cool, huh?

The right tell us constantly that it's not a matter of negligence, it's only those EVIL trial lawyers that are out to make a buck. Hey, everyone can easily hate lawyers -- that's reasonable, so let's blame them. But don't worry, the Repugs aren't just eliminating truly frivolous lawsuits, that might be justifiable. They're pretty much trying to eliminating ALL personal injury and civil lawsuits, unless of course, you're wealthy and can hire a lawyer from a white shoe firm, not one of those evil lawyers that work for average people for less than $100 an hour.

What it boils down to is that they're trying to take the ability to sue for compensation for injury away from the lower and middle class. Period. No wonder so many poor and middle class people are staunch Republicans. That way they can pretend they're rich while voting against their own interests! What fun!

How can Smirk sign a bloated farm subsidy bill and the steel tariff bill when he's supposed to be so rabidly pro free trade? Hastert says it's only because dumb as a stump hasn't had the chance to go out and negotiate trade agreements with other countries! HUH? The shallow dunce hadn't even been out of the country in his LIFE before 2000, with the exception of drunken benders in Mexico and going to Dad's fiefdom in China once. And thank the stars above that the inch deep moron wasn't allowed to negotiate ANYTHING. Oh, the horror!

Hastert is trying to argue for giving the Chimp even MORE power to negotiate trade policies all by himself with NO input from the congress. They showed a clip of Dick Gephardt rightfully saying that if the Repugs bypass the house and give Smirk carte blanche to make trade policy, it's "the end of democracy" in the house. Damn Dick, did it just dawn on you? Did you wake up thinking it was a bad dream and realize that you weren't dreaming? Well it's about time!

Hastert just tried to make a joke out of this, saying that Gephardt "must have had some bad bean soap that day." (If this gig falls through, Denny can always do open mic night at the Laugh Factory.)

Yeah, it's easy to laugh while you steamroll over the government and solidify power in unprecedented ways. I bet Hitler probably chuckled in much the same way when he overran Poland with almost no resistance.

Then Shields put The Big Question to Hastert. Mark mentioned the thoughtful debate in congress on whether or not we should get involved in the Persian Gulf, which ultimately ended up giving Dad O' Smirk the go ahead.

Shouldn't we, as a democracy, have a debate in Congress about just what the hell we're doing, why we're doing it, and what the hell we're expecting to accomplish and when? Oh yeah, and how much is this going to cost?

(Think about it. We've been in this "war" now for roughly 8 months, and we still don't know the answers to ANY of those questions!!!!)

Shields put the question to Hastert.

Hastert said that shortly after 9/11, he asked the Knuckledragger to come to Congress and lay out the plan and lay out what he wanted to do, and that was done.

OK, Denny. But you're overlooking the fact that he didn't tell us SQUAT, only gob of meaningless rah-rah-cowboy, tough-guy drivel, and you guys just handed him our checkbook and said, "You go, girl!"

What the hell was that? HE didn't know what the hell he was going to do, let alone when or why! And you think that's all he owes the public? That's all we need when we're expected to give away our retirement security and send our sons and daughters into "war"? Boy, are we EASY!

Hastert then went into right wing la la land by saying that there already HAS been a public debate. HA! Some debate! Anyone that even remotely opposed anything the administration wanted to do was kept off the air and out of print, and when they were allowed to sneak on, were viciously attacked as everything from un-American to being in league with the terrorists themselves!

I'd about had it at this point, and luckily, the show was drawing to a close.

It's pretty bad when the arguably most mild mannered top Republican can get on TV and within a few minutes, manage to outrage any sensible person with defenses of the indefensible.

No more in '04.

-- Dash Riprock

JJ Balzer is a former television news producer. He lives in New York City.

Dave "Doctor" Gonzo is a media producer and guru. He lives in fortified, high-rise compound in New York City.

Dash Riprock is a free lance smart-aleck based in Moline, IL He reminds you to keep on rockin' in the free world while it's still free. He sometimes thinks he knows what everyone is thinking, but wants to check and make sure. Tell him at dashriprockapj@hotmail.com