Darkness in His Heart, Hate and Lies from His Mouth
The Bush double-stumble that the press is ignoring
by Morrie Friendly

Thursday, Oct. 12, 2000 -- NEW YORK (AmpolNS) -- Being the one moderate on the Ampol team isn't as lonely a job as it sounds.

I have no love for the extremists who hijacked my party during the last decade (yes, I'm still registered as a Republican, but only to help see my party pushed to the center).  I'll admit it -- I have even been won over by Bill Clinton, the smartest, slickest and savviest politician in America -- because he has championed prudent economic policies, reasonable tax cuts, a strong foreign policy emphasizing "peace building" and stability, and a social policy more in line with reality than liberals or conservatives have put forward.

Come to think of it, Clinton's been the best "Republican" in the White House since Teddy Roosevelt.

And for all his faults, he is everything George W. Bush is not -- and, for that matter, never will be.

Bush just plain disturbs me.  In fact, everything that alarms me about Bush can be summarized in the answer to one question from Jim Lehrer in last night's debate:

Mr. Lehrer: Do you have a different view of that [i.e., hate crime legislation]?

Gov. Bush: No, I don't really.

Mr. Lehrer: On hate crimes violence?

Gov. Bush: No, I, we got one in Texas. And guess what? The three men who murdered James Byrd -- guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death. A jury found them guilty and I, it's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death.

Bush leered with bloodthirsty glee as he gave the answer, looking as if he savors the taking of lives, as if he were so shallow, smug and desensitized that it has become some sort of sport.

It was a disgusting, abhorrent moment -- especially when you consider that Bush had such a solid opportunity to talk about bridging the racial divide that still haunts our country.  He also could have talked about the grave decision juries are forced to make in capital cases.  Instead, he came across as -- "guess what?" -- a hateful, dumb redneck who just can't wait for the frontier justice of a good killin'.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I support the death sentence for heinous crimes such as the depraved dragging murder of James Byrd.  But it makes me sick when a candidate for office not only uses the death sentence to appeal to our basest instinct, but lies twice.

That's right, twice.

The first lie was Bush's implication that the three men responsible for Byrd's killing were charged, convicted and sentenced under some sort of hate crimes statute.  They weren't -- they were charged with murder.  In fact, a few minutes after Bush had made his leering "we're gonna kill 'em" statement, Lehrer caught in that lie:

Mr. Lehrer: But they were...

Gov. Bush: ... the death penalty. 

Mr. Lehrer: They were prosecuted under the murder laws, were they not, in Texas? 

Gov. Bush: Well -- in this case, when you murder somebody, it's hate, Jim.

Well, in this case, when you imply something that isn't a fact, it's a lie, Bush.

As was your claim that all three will be put to death.  Only two were sentenced to death -- the third man, who turned witness for the state, did not get the death sentence.

And just where is the press on these "exaggerations?"  Or, for that matter, on the inaccuracies that Bush foisted in the first debate?

It can only make you wonder if they don't have a vested interest in the outcome of the presidential race -- and want to put a man with darkness in his heart, and hate and lies emanating from his mouth, in the Oval Office.