Flush twice... it's a long way to Sally Quinn's place!

Pundit Pap for May 25, 2003
Memorial Day Doldrums
By the Pundit Pap Team

May 25, 2003 -- WASHINGTON?NEW YORK (apj.us) -- Usually, the Memorial Day weekend guarantees C-list guests on the Sunday talk shows. This year was better than most - B-listers and a handful of A-minusers showed up on FAUX and NBC to discuss Smirk's latest scam to transfer wealth from working families to the rich (tax cuts), an unexpected development in the Middle East (the Israeli cabinet has okayed the "roadmap for peace"), and even touch upon a scandal involving the sleaziest elected figure in the Beltway, Tom DeLay (who has been tied to a plot to intimidate Texas Democrat legislators using the federal Department of Homeland Security - that's your tax bucks, reader).

The talk was mostly gloomy - as gray as the skies in New York and DC this Sunday. Here's a little of the non-action:

FAUX News Spin Day!
The Players:
Ever-chipper Tony Snow -- who seems to be going very gray very quickly in an effort to offset his entertaining wisecracks with anchorman-look "gravitas" -- or maybe he's readying a run for office?
Senate Majority Leader and notorious cat euthanizer Bill Frist (R-TN)
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (DINO-CT)

The ever-patriotic FAUX News Sunday made much of the Memorial Day weekend at the top of the show -- and Tony immediately cut to some hapless FAUX News reporter situated somewhere in the Mideast to report on the Israeli cabinet's surprise vote in favor of the "roadmap to peace." She stumbled, fumbled, ummed and urrred her way through a report that should have led with the fact that this is the first time that the Israeli cabinet has accepted a Palestinian state.

Where do they get these "journalists"? Whoever this one was wouldn't cut the mustard as a local field reporter on the local news in a second-tier market. This is a continuing problem with the attempt by Roger Ailes to foist FAUX News as a "serious" operation: the handful of polished (if biased) reporters are conspicuously offset by a gaggle of dumbed-down pretty faces that are the laughingstock of the television news industry.

Tony then welcomed Senate Majority Kitten Killer Bill Frist to flog those tax cuts Smirk has lusted after for so long -- and finally got, even if they were reduced to a mere 350 BILLION dollars. Tony disingenuously played devil's advocate, saying that even FAUX news "polls" show a large number of people who think the will hurt the economy. But it was all a set-up for Frist to claim that the tax cuts are a stimulus to create jobs (we snickered, as we would again and again as Frist again and again tried to ply that spin) and that the middle class will be the big beneficiary of these tax cuts (loud guffaw). Tony and Frist tried to spin this as a bigger tax cut than Chimpy requested -- which is an outright lie. Tony also gave Frist a big opening to say that the tax cuts should become permanent.

Frist must have used "make these permanent" a half dozen times and "tax relief" more than a dozen. His main point: "tax relief will grow the economy".

Gee, it sure worked every other time the Republicans have gotten big tax cuts. NOT! Frist doesn't seem to understand that tax cuts have failed time and again to stimulate the American economy -- nor does he get that people are getting sick of having their intelligence insulted with this constant repetition of lies, lies and lies on top of lies by Little George and his handlers and surrogates.

I hope that Democrats are paying attention to this constant tax cut nonsense. They have to seize the real underlying issue that can work for the party: tax inequities and real relief for working Americans are needed. And when these latest tax cuts fail to restart the economy, then they have a major point for the 2004 campaign: "They LIED." Of course, the best thing the Dems can do is steal the issue from the GOP by calling for an overhaul of the tax code and retasking of the IRS to pursue corporate and wall Street tax cheats.

Tony then turned to the two judicial extremists out of over 200 that Democrats refuse to approve (Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen). Frist called it an "unprecedented... partisan filibuster" (somehow forgetting that his good friend Orrin Hatch engaged in partisan stonewalling of Bill Clinton's nominees) and Tony gave him a chance to preview Frist's plan to destroy filibusters by "changing the rules." Can they filibuster the rule change? Frist then admitted the big problem: yes, they can, and it would need a 2/3 majority to pass -- so Tony and Frist talked about the possibility of suing the Democrats. Frist also claims that Estrada has "55 votes in the Senate" -- but that's not what many Senate-watchers say.

Bottom line: can Frist guarantee they will get a vote? Frist: no -- which gave him a chance to whine about those awful Democrats and the possibility they may block a whole slew of judges.

Well, too damn bad, Kittie Kevorkian -- and please, make up your mind: when you oppose a judge, you say that the ABA approvals are irrelevant, but when Democrats block judicial extremists, you tout their ABA rubber stamp! Can you say "hypocrite," Billy-Bob?

There was some back-and-forth about SARS -- Frist, naturally, blamed the Chinese -- and opposition to genetically-modified foods. Frist tried to claim there is no scientific basis for opposition to genetically engineered foods when in fact there is, and he shilled for businessmen knowing more about what's good for starving Africans than biologists.

Tony turned to Iraq -- does Frist think Al Qaeda will strike against American servicemen in Iraq? Frist said yes.

Tony then brought up Democrats who justly "complained" about DeLay being involved in tracking down the Texas "killer Ds" who decided to walk out on the Texas legislature in a move to block DeLay's gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts to give further advantage to the Republicans. Tony even mentioned allegations that Texas law enforcement officials were ordered to shred relevant documents -- but downplayed the fact that the federal Department of Homeland security is now caught up in the mess. Frist dismissed the shredding as being somehow less important than the Dems "skipping town" and not "showing courage."

Oh, please, Bill -- the Dems stood up for their constituents. Besides, Republicans did the very same thing in California some years ago -- did they lack courage?

Next up was Lieberman -- and Tony first turned to the Mideast. Lieberman immediately lit into Smirk's disengagement in the region and said he has to go there to show a commitment to peace -- there "won't be peace unless the United States is there." Tony said the US should not talk to Arafat and Lieberman agreed -- he "missed opportunities" to achieve peace, but the questions remain: will Arafat let go and will Abu Mazan fight terrorist cadres? Tony played footage of French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepain (you could practically smell the French-bashing on the way) saying he'd meet with both the Palestinian PM and Arafat -- and Lieberman, predictably, bashed the French for "interfering" and "not being a good ally of ours" and champions of peace -- completely ignoring the fact that France had what many feel are legitimate business concerns over contracts that are now worthless, contracts that would have likely been recognized if Saddam had been deposed in a coup, as many think would have been inevitable in the near term had the US and UK not invaded.

Tony also said French passports for Iraqi officials were found in Iraq -- and blamed the French for the passports!

So, Tony, you're saying that it's impossible to forge passports? Is there any PROOF that they are genuine Didn't think so...

... but Lieberman nevertheless took the opportunity to bash French diplomacy in other areas.

Tony then turned to the ominous possibility that the US may seek regime change in Iran -- and Lieberman said that their government is run by extremists, and the US should look for the Walesas, Havels and even Gorbachevs in Iran. Lieberman did say he is not in favor of military and that there is no other case of a government being anti-US and the people being pro-US.

Is there a 9-11 stonewall on the part of Team Smirk? Lieberman would not say yes, but did say that there is resistance in turning over information and intentional underfunding -- and "unless we know everything that happened before Sept. 11th" we cannot know how another such attack can be prevented. "Everyone benefits when the truth comes out."

Tax cuts: will Lieberman allow then to run out in 2005 and 2008? Lieberman blasted the Smirk-o-nomic policy of "draining the national bank account... these folks are making a bet" that tax cuts will help the economy, but the debts are going to have to be paid out of Social Security and Medicare and by our kids. Lieberman said "they are putting the nation on a course to a kind of bankruptcy."

In the final minute, Tony asked about the "controversy" of DeLay getting involved in "local" redistricting. Lieberman blasted Homeland Security -- which should be fighting terrorism -- for getting involved. Lieberman said there "could" be a violation of federal law, and also suggested that White House players may have been involved -- and called for an investigation.

Now that was amazing, and it looked like Tony didn't expect it: Lieberman actually sounded like a Democrat for a few fleeting seconds!

-- Morrie Friendly

Eat The Press
Players:
Tim Russert, poster child for journalistic corruption
Four Senators: Joseph Biden (D-DE), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Before I begin, I want to urge you to go out and buy, beg, borrow or steal Sidney Blumenthal's new book "The Clinton Wars" -- whether or not you think that what we have been writing for the past 15 years at American Politics Journal is bunk. Buy this book and you'll be better informed in either instance..

In that light, and with all bad intentions, let me go over Mr. Blumenthal's remarks about Tim Russert -- so you can more easily understand what I and others have been saying about Russert for nigh on 10 years now: that he's a closet neoconservative and a whore for the General Electric right.

First, when Russert accused Hillary Clinton or not writing her own book, "It Takes a Village," the piglet pundit refused to apologize, nor to be shown the evidence he was lying. it should be said that Howard Fineman, the arch-propagandist for TIME magazine, was the original culprit -- but Russert was offered the hand-written notes of Hillary Clinton to verify that Fineman was lying. Russert refused and "stood by" his original lying broadcast.

Second, and even more notoriously, Russert "introduced" Matt Drudge, of all people, some five years ago on MTP by saying, "There is talk all over this town [that] another White House staffer is going to come out from behind the curtains this week... There are hundreds, hundreds, according to Miss Lewinsky... We're in for a huge shock that goes beyond the specific episode, It's a whole psychosis taking place in the White House." The slimy and simpering Michael Isikoff was also on the Meet the Press panel that day -- sympathizing with Linda Tripp. Russert did nothing to stop him or challenge him about Tripp.

When the Blumenthal bashers, largely led by those who Mr. Blumenthal correctly identified and challenged as Clinton-bashers, cast him as "Satan," Russert, a tired, old, non-intelligent boxboy of pundit television, grilled John Podesta, parenthetically alluding that Blumenthal was digging up dirt on "people's private lives."

Podesta told Russert, "It was not Mr. Blumenthal." Translation: "In no uncertain terms, you, Mr. Russert, are incorrect and seem to be supporting outright falsehoods."

But Russert kept it up -- again fanning the flames of prevarication: "The FBI is going to investigate this matter. Will you provide White House phone logs from Mr. Blumenthal to the FBI?"

Podesta remarked that Tom DeLay (who was, by the way, a professional pest exterminator before weaseling his way into Congress) would attempt to use the FBI in that manner.

At another point, Russert said to ex-coke-addict turned mean-spirited neocon Don Imus about Lisa Myers's story about Juanita Broaddrick: "This is one of the most amazing stories that I've ever been involved in, because it just hit the Internet, and had a button-up bombshell, we would go with it in a flash."

No one, recall, believed Broaddrick's story -- save a few brainwashed FReepers. Again, Russert was pumping up his own ratings -- or trying to.

Then Russert had the chance to attack Blumenthal and Bill Clinton over Christopher Hitchens legal filing, which I believe was a false affidavit -- in his pursuit of neoconservative largesse. Russert invited the salubrious sot to Meet the Press where Hitchens was characteristically self-conflicted and worried. Hitchens looked like he hadn't slept in days, as I recall. Russert, always far too dramatic, read a release form Blumenthal basically accusing Hitchens of lying about Blumenthal's revelations regarding Monica Lewinsky as a "stalker" (which she was, in my opinion -- a stalker of the wealthy and powerful man judging by both her history and her subsequent testimony).

Then Russert turned to two of the biggest ignoramuses in Congress -- then-Rep. Asa Hutchinson and Ed Bryant -- two of the House "Managers," or Manglers as I call them. "What fate awaits Sidney Blumenthal?" he asked with faux seriousness. Of course, the "Boobsy Twins" of Clinton crotch-sniffing answered that it was "serious" -- knowing all the while that is was not. Russert, predictable, said not one word to pierce this facade of ludicrousness.

When Hillary Clinton ran against Tom DeLay's errand boy, Rick Lazio of New York, Tim Russert decided to moderate a debate between the two of them. Lazio, of course kept peppering his delivery with questions about Hillary Clinton's character and trustworthiness -- this after he was caught up in rumormongering about her being a closet lesbian! But Russert wasn't satisfied with Lazio's cheap-shot attacks -- so Tim jumped in himself remarking, out of order of course: "The issues of trust and character has been raised repeatedly in this campaign, Mrs. Clinton I wasn't to start with you. In January of 1998 you went on the Today show [an NBC program] and talked about what had occurred at the White House." THEN, incredibly, Russert played a video clip in the middle of the debate in which Hillary Clinton said that she believed her husband when he told her he had not had an "adulterous liaison," as the interviewer put it. Then Russert said -- if you can believe it -- "Do you regret misleading the American people?"

With that single question, Russert proved what a sleazy, oily bottom-feeder he was. And, of course, Hillary Clinton had not known the truth at the time -- but he purposely and purposefully sought to humiliate and give Lazio the chance to strike again (to no avail, of course).

Russert was also eager to attack Gore. Again, utilizing the leathery-looking Imus, he mocked Al Gore for "sighing" during his debate with George W. Bush every time Bush made one of his famous moronic statements. Russert told Imus, "Yeah, I was in the hall, I'm familiar with Al Gore sighing., he did eighteen times in the December debate with [Bill] Bradley.... It's unbelievable!"

I will never forget or forgive Tim Russert for destroying one the finest political opinion programs on national television. He is a disgrace and his conduct is disgraceful.

And the few "lowlights" above are only the tip of the iceberg with respect to Russert's one-man lynch mob launched against the Clintons.

I recall, one day, when I was enraged over another of Russert's partisan escapades, I phoned him to read a column for his response. In that column I accused him of Hitlerian tactics -- propaganda tactics. His secretary -- because Tim is such a "big" man -- made me read her the column first before she would deign to put me through. It was a riot -- she began screaming, "A Nazi? A NAZI????" and then slammed down the phone.

It was a keeper.

Now on to today's Eat the Press: it was, as usual, a bore.

Russert began with four senators -- two Democrats and two Republicans. On the Dem side were Joe Biden (DE) and Jay Rockefeller (WV). On the Reep side were Pat Roberts (KS, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) and Chuck Hagel (NE) -- who seemed more on the Democrat side than the Democrats.

They spoke of all things Middle East -- including whether we are ready to fight terror in this country. All agreed we probably weren't -- but would be. On Iran and the eye-opening leaks from the desk of Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld earlier this week that Tehran may be the next target for these musketeers, Roberts said, "We are worried." And then he actually says he will "...dodge the question on toppling the regime." Rockefeller replied that we had better be far more cautious here -- this after all, is not Iraq.

The next "target" of discussion was the Saudis. Naturally, Roberts came to their defense -- on every issue. Biden said they had better change their ways given the 600 oligarchs who preach anti-Semitism in their mosques and newspapers. Rockefeller thought is was "a very difficult time for them." Huh? Roberts excused their failure to stop the murder at the international compounds, remarking that there are one thousand such compounds and they finally got the targets down to 350!

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Great one, Roberts.

On Iraq: almost all agreed that the efforts in Iraq were, after the victory, poor -- including Roberts.

Senator Hagel was the most interesting, because he really came down against the failures of the Bush Administration in accomplishing what they had promised the Iraqi people after toppling Saddam. I was pleased to see this balance from the Republican side.

Russet then turned to whether the American people had been deceived by President Bush about the so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and its alleged support of Al Qaeda.

One could almost hear the hush among the four Senators. Even Roberts, the most hawkish of the four, said that if we don't find WMDs the Administration could have a "credibility problem." Rockefeller pointed out that Iraq was not trading in uranium for nukes as Bush had stated in his State of the Union address, a point Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) recently made on the floor of the senate. But Rockefeller (you never know where he's coming from) said that perhaps the Bush Administration had "misread" the reports! Hm?

Roberts then seemed to wake up -- this was obviously not good spin for the Bush team. So he claimed that Rumsfeld ordered an investigation of the CIA in October of 2002 -- long before we invaded Iraq. He tried to cover for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz here. Biden supported Bush's claims. What's with him? Gee, could it be that as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee he had come to the same, possibly erroneous conclusions? Roberts then chimed in with talk of trailers and trains that "could" have been used as mobile chemical labs. Whatever.

They all then engaged in a discussion of how everything seems to be going wrong in Iraq today and hoping that Paul Bremer -- the new viceroy of Baghdad -- will cure things. Let's hope so. Russert showed a poll that 60-some-odd percent of Americans are not happy about spending $60 billion to rebuild Iraq. Gee, what a shock. But the four grouped behind Bechtel -- saying we "had to.... Our credibility is at stake."

I ask, "What credibility?" There's certainly not much on this issue -- unless you equate having a super-swift military capable of taking an entire country in a few weeks with trustworthiness. You decide.

Russert seemed, thankfully, to take aim at Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz on the credibility of intelligence reports preceding September 11th. The discussion ensued about what to do about the "sensitive" nature of these reports. Should the American public be allowed to see the results -- or non-results of our very expensive intelligence service's failure to know about the upcoming attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and possibly the White House?

Roberts was forced to almost yell, "There is no cover-up!"

But, the most interesting moment came up when Russert brought up the use of the Office of Homeland Security, by House Republican Boss Tom "The Hammer" DeLay, to track down Texas Democrats who had left the state in order to stop DeLay and his statewide officeholder Republican cronies from engaging in shenanigans toward redistricting Texas.

NOT A SINGLE SENATOR WOULD UTTER A WORD ABOUT IT.

And what's that all about?

Does this portend the resignation of DeLay -- or just "another" cover up?

Aside from a flashback to the 1970s in the form of a replay of then-CIA boss Stansfield Turner making some prescient comments on Islamism and terrorism, that was it for Eat the Press!

-- Jeff Koopersmith

This Weak
What's going on in the world and the nation? If you watched George today, it's still all Greek to you.

Players: George Stephanopoulos, host
Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations
Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States
Hasan Abdel Rahman, chief Palestinian representative to the United States
tennis player Billie Jean King
boxer Laila Ali
race car driver Janet Guthrie

Stephy launched (if one can use so dynamic a word for such a snooze of a subject) his show today with yet another futile discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian debacle. After announcing the hot-off-the-presses news that the Israeli cabinet had narrowly endorsed King George the Lesser's "Roadmap for Peace" scheme at Sharon's urging, Stephy brought on Israeli Ambassador to the US Daniel Ayalon and Hasan Abdel Rahman, Chief Palestinian Representative to the US to square off in a segment which could have been called "Can this marriage be saved?

Typically, precious little light and copious heat was shed on the critical problem of peace in Israel.

The discussion could be condensed thusly:

"We're for the peace plan as long as the other side holds up their part of the deal, which they've never done before because they're dirty liars. As a matter of fact, the things they've done and are doing are much worse than what our side is doing or has done. We're the ones that want peace, they're scum. Everything they've done is just savage aggression, while everything we've ever done are perfectly justifiable responses. We'll do anything for peace. We're nuts for peace! As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for the other side, we'd have peace right now! "

"We've made reasonable offers to solve this problem, but the other guys are just a bunch of savages, are totally unreasonable, won't cooperate and continue to commit outrageous acts. The other side is guilty of ongoing violence and brutal terrorism and that is the reason there is no peace. We're totally innocent and only defending ourselves. We'd stop the conflict tomorrow if it wasn't for the fact that the other side are inhuman bloodthirsty savage barbarians who delight in the slaughter of women and children and feast on their bones and should roast in the fires of hell through 1000 eternities."

Apply this to both sides, and you get the idea. A real hopeful situation. Sounds like two parties who are close to getting along. How would you like to be a marriage counselor with these two as clients?

Steph then moved along to Iran. It seems that the evil eye of the US is now cast upon Iran, where a group of supposed Al Qaeda members were rounded up. A State Department report recently called Iran "the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world." (Nice of them to not be too provocative.) In keeping with his thus far all-diplomat theme, George interviewed Javad Zarif, the Iranian Ambassador to the UN.

The ambassador pointed to Iran's efforts to round up Al Qaeda and continuing efforts to find and arrest them. Steph kept pressing him on the supposed capture of these Al Qaeda members, but Zarif would not identify any of them, saying that their identities have not been verified.

Stephy just would not give up, and asked the same question for the third time. Zarif again repeated that these suspects are in prison in Iran, "which is much more than your government can say about the people connected to MEK (the Mujahedin-e-Khalq) in Iraq."

Stephy then showed his cards by admitting that his concern is that Iran is simply giving these people safe haven, rather than imprisoning them and cutting them off from terrorist activities. Zarif of course, said that this was absurd -- these Al Qaeda members have committed crimes within Iran and that they will be tried and punished accordingly by Iranian courts, and said tellingly that they will be extradited to "friendly" governments (read "anyone but the US") if called for.

Stephy played the ugly American by impatiently asking how long this would take, seeming to demand that they hurry up and get their silly Iranian justice done in a rush so that the only country that matters, the US, can get their hands on the evil evildoers. Zarif, appropriately, said the process would take as long as it took.

Steph then blustered ahead, noting that in the past, Iran has turned over suspects to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and asked whether Iran would turn over suspects now to Saudi Arabia or the US (henceforth known as the only country that matters.) Zarif said that they would "certainly not" turn over anyone to the US because Iran doesn't have "that type of relations with the United States."

He then noted that Iran has extradited many suspected operatives to several countries, including European countries, and pointed out that many were released after they were extradited to these European countries. He stated that Iran has and will continue to be committed and carry on a strong effort to clamp down on Al Qaeda.

Steph then mentioned how the period of good-will following 9/11 has been destroyed by right wingers in the administration who are trying to make Iran the next boogeyman and suggesting openly that efforts should be made to destabilize the government there. Zarif said this was nothing new, though it was a serious matter. He struck a note of conciliation by saying that Iran is always open to discussing matters of mutual concern as long as it is based on mutual respect and not oppression.

After aging considerably while enduring an interminable commercial break, the topic turned to the more fluffy subject of women's role in sports.

Naturally, Annika Sorenstam's classy showing in the PGA tournament was the impetus for the discussion. Georgie had on tennis great Billie Jean King, Indy racer Janet Guthrie, and female boxer and daughter of The Greatest, Laila Ali to kick it around.

To Steph's question of whether the attention given Sorenstam shows that women can only get attention when they play in men's sports, King quickly replied, "No, it shows that the media is dominated by men."

Guthrie said that there are still few if any women in racing because of the huge sums of sponsorship money required. In most sports, it's physiology that matters, while in racing, it's technology, and technology is extremely expensive and women have a hard time finding the necessary backing.

Ali noted that even though she's world champion in women's boxing and is on the card for the upcoming Lenox Lewis fight (a huge event for you non-boxing fans), HBO has informed her that they will not televise her match because they "don't do women's boxing." Despite the fact that she is there as a boost to attendance and ticket sales, they refuse to televise her because she is a woman.

Steph noted that Ali's situation went back to Billie Jean King's assertion of male control of the media and asked King why women's tennis has been a success compared to other women's sports. King cited the Virginia Slims tournament, great sponsor support, and great promoters in the success and growth of women's tennis. She echoed the point that all that counts in this matter is money, money, money (like everything else), and until women's sports can attract it, it will languish.

To the matter of physical strength differences between the sexes, King laid it out logically saying that women have never suggested that they were better or stronger than men, and that men will always win as long as it comes down to a matter of brawn, but, King says, women are just as skilled and just as entertaining and deserve the same attention as men. As a big fan of skilled and entertaining women myself, I heartily endorse King's view.

After waiting through another commercial break, the lame "roundtable" segment began. About the only interesting thing in this dreary segment is seeing what sort of idiotic drivel George Will embarrasses himself with. Today he was okay, but didn't provide that deep, gut-level sense of shocked amazement that I've come to depend on him providing. He didn't make my jaw drop once -- and I was sorry to get not one howl of outrage out of it.

Of course, he was shallow and pompous while devoid of rational reason in his left-handed defense of the disastrous tax cut plan. He avoided predicting that it would actually help the economy or jobs, but simply moved on to gloating about what a great victory for Republicans this was.

Whoopeee! Let's all dance and sing, for the Republicans are unstoppable in passing catastrophic measures that will cause serious hardship and burdens to the elderly, the disadvantaged, and future generations, the destruction of the environment, and corporate autocracy, while even more firmly establishing a permanent underclass and elevating the uber-rich to untouchable status. Three cheers!

Then it was on to bonus drivel from George Will in his commentary. He took the Lacey Peterson case as a springboard to argue for the slimy tactic of pro-lifers who are attempting to insidiously inject the recognition of a fetus as having the full legal rights of a person into laws unrelated to abortion. Once they legally establish that a mass of cells is somehow a human being with full legal rights, it's only a short leap to outlawing abortion.

More commercials from the usual suspects (pharmaceuticals, etc.) preceded Stephy's chance to respond to a viewers accusation that he was in error by saying "I didn't make a mistake, nya, nya!"

Evidently, he'd had that reprehensible slime Newt Gingrich on his show last week and had addressed him as "Mr. Speaker."

Understandably, this nauseated legions of viewers, for whom it is enough to control their gag reflex at seeing and hearing this discredited load without his being accorded undue respect. One viewer said that it "just drives me nuts."

George reported that Leticia Baldridge, the manners poo-bah, says that it would be proper to address Gingrich as "Speaker Gingrich", as the title of "Mr. Speaker" should be reserved for the current speaker, Denny "Meatball" Hastert.

Not content to be shown wrong, Stephy continued to dig and asked the House Sergeant-at-Arms. They vindicated Stephy by saying that it was appropriate to call the weasel from Georgia "Mr. Speaker" as they claim the title sticks for life -- as will the memory of Gingrich's shocking hypocrisy and loathsome tactics during his time in the house.

Not content with that, Georgy then asked an authority at the White House who said that people are addressed with the title of the highest position they've held, even if they now hold a lesser position. For instance, Andy Card, who is now Smirky's chief of staff should be addressed as "Secretary Card", since he was once Secretary of Transportation under Bush the Less Stupid.

At any rate, now we're all clear on that thorny issue of protocol, and there was a great feeling of relief felt all around, though I'm not sure if it's because this issue was resolved, or because the show was over at last.

I'm betting on the latter.

-- Dash Riprock

Jeff Koopersmith is a political consultant, authority on opinion research and polling, policy analyst, and self-described "dissident lobbyist."

Morrie Friendly gave up a career as a political consultant to become a management consultant and pseudonymous travel guide author. He retains close ties to top players in both the Democratic and Republican parties and lives with his dog in Georgetown.

Dash Riprock is a free-lance smart aleck keepin' it real in Moline, IL Send your bon mots, witty repartee, incisive observations, gift offerings, or verbal boots to the ass to him at dashriprockapj@hotmail.com.

I think it's time to learn how to say I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T again.

Bush should be turned out of office.