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

Pundit Pap
For Sunday, October 5, 2005
Tom DeLay's Smarm Offensive Overshadowed by George stephanopoulos' Leak
By JJ Balzer & Jeff Koopersmith

October 2, 2005—WASHINGTON (apj.us)—Tom DeLay was all over the Sunday shows, trying desperately to save his career as the top Republican "playa" in the legislative branch. He did little to help his own cause—not even Chris Wallace was giving him a pass. And a parade of military brass was on hand to tell America that we're making just splendid progress in Iraqnam.

But the big news so far this Sunday happened on ABC's This Week.

Read on...

ABC This Week
Steph Has a Leak of His Own... and the White House Must Be Panicking

George Stephanopoulos led hard with three major Republican scandals:
• the indictment of Tom DeLay;
• charges of insider trading against Bill Frist; and
• the release from prison of Judy Miller after she agreed to testify before a grand jury on what she knows about the blowing of Valerie Plame's cover.

Steph would drop a major bombshell later in the program about that last scandal.

But George's first guest was General George Casey, fresh from Iraq. Casey said that the two success stories that must emerge from Iraq are the rebuilding of their government and the establishment of a security force. Stephanopoulos brought up a disconnect with both the political progress and the security situation; Casey, naturally, said that Steph should not characterize it that way — it is "a very positive thing" for people who've lived under tyranny to start fighting over politics. Stephanopoulos brought up the possibility that the present political plan may actually lead to the break up of Iraq; the Sunni insurgency, said Stephanopoulos, could tear the nation apart. Casey asserted that the Sunnis would have more of a voice if they would participate in the democratic process. (Of course, they are in the minority, and they are still seen by the other ethnic factions in Iraq as Saddam's people, so it won't be much of a voice.)

Casey then turned to the issue of Iraqi defense forces, and the White House's spin about having made good progress in building these forces. Casey did concede that more aid is needed to bring them up to level at which they can operate on their own. Stephanopoulos reminded Casey that he had testified that the number of Iraqi battalions ready to fight had slipped from 3 to 1. Casey said that he had gone through those details at the press conference a few days ago, then tried to "explain" his comments in such a way as to make everything sound simply hunky dory in Iraq. "We set of very, very high standard for the first level ... we know because you don't build an army to that level overnight that it's going to be some time for them to get there."

Golly! That sure doesn't sound like "Were makin' good progress" to us.

After playing the requisite Bush "happy talk on Iraq" video clip, Stephanopoulos and Casey turned to the issue of a hypothetical "average" insurgency taking about nine years. George, sounding for a moment like Don Rumsfeld, asked if the strategy is stay until the "terrorists are defeated"; Casey stayed on message, saying the goals are to build an Iraqi government and the security force. Casey talked an enthusiastic game about drawing down U.S. forces gradually . (Translation: don't look for quick drawdown of American forces. — look for Iraq to turn into a net negative for the GOP in the 2006 election, and maybe the 2008 election.) To our shock and delight, Stephanopoulos talked about American sentiments against the war as he played about 30 seconds from last weekend's antiwar protests in Washington.

Steph: "Do you have a strategy to turn the American public around?"

Casey: "I think we will contribute to a strategy by the government to continue to apprise the American people realistically about what is happening on the ground [note the wording: "contribute to a strategy," not "level with the American people"]. ... This is hard business [shades of Bush's "It's hawwwrd work."]. ... We've been in tough fights before to protect democracy and to protect our way of life."

Huh? Where's the democracy in yet another Islamic theocracy? And how exactly does this protect our way of life? The spin ain't stickin', General.

In the second segment, Stephanopoulos interviewed Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. In his new book, Breyer says that he is concerned that the current court may be underemphasizing "active liberty." Breyer gave as one example campaign finance cases that come before the court (but was not sufficiently specific enough in demonstrating why this is a good example, or, for that matter, exactly what he means). Stephanopoulos mentioned one critic who calls Breyer's discussion of "active liberty" a bit of jurisprudential mysticism. Breyer sounded almost like an originalist as he talked about textualism and what was meant by the original authors of the Constitution; Stephanopoulos even used the word "originalism." Breyer reiterated his point: "They must look back to basic purposes and consequences — it's necessary to do that, and that means that I have to explain originalism, textualism, and why that doesn't work very well!"

So, that's what he's talking and writing about — the shortcomings of strict constructionism! It's a shame that neither Justice Breyer nor Steph made that clear in the first place.

Breyer cited some interesting examples of where originalism runs into serious problems: the emergence of the Internet, the application of the commerce clause to horses versus automobiles, and other technological and social developments of which the framers could never have conceived or imagined.

Breyer talked about the Bill of Rights as a document that not only protects personal liberty but helps create institutions that will allow people themselves to decide what their communities, states, towns and national government will be like. (So Breyer does believe in states' rights — but not exactly in a way that will always please proto-Confederates. Breyer's comments were clearly aimed at political and judicial activists who are out to strip federal and state laws that protect consumers and individuals.)

Stephanopoulos said that Breyer's views are being used to claim that the courts are out of control; Breyer said that he is always seeking as a Supreme Court justice to explain the role the Constitution and how decisions should be made at the court level. Is Breyer worried about attacks on the judiciary? Breyer pointed out that no one attacked the judiciary more than Thomas Jefferson, and reminded Stephanopoulos that there were calls to impeach Earl Warren because he dared decide that desegregation was legal. (In other words, yes, he is concerned, but understands that attacks on the judiciary come with the job.) How has the court changed over the 11 years Breyer has been on the court? Breyer recalled that Byron White said that with each new appointment, the court becomes a new court — and there have been no changes since Breyer was appointed. Stephanopoulos asked Breyer if he feels especially nervous when he knows he's the "fifth vote" on many issues. Breyer said that in such a situation, he wants to make sure he gets it right — and that the job of a Justice on the Supreme Court is forward looking, not backward looking, as he reminded Stephanopoulos that there is no bargaining about cases — each stands on its own.

Interestingly, Breyer said it that presidents don't always get the judges they want, and that a court filled with people of different points of view is not a bad thing because of the diversity inherent in the United States (in response to question about Ruth Bader Ginsberg wanting to see another woman on the court). Has the job been what he expected? Breyer said he didn't have "definite expectation, but [the job] is far more challenging and time-consuming" than any job he has had. Breyer reiterated his concerns about doing his absolute best on the job.

All in all, the interview was not revealing (which is hardly a surprise) — but it did pique our interest in Breyer's new book.

Following the break, we were treated to videos of Bill Frist and Tom DeLay trying to defend themselves against ethical and criminal charges. Stephanopoulos spun the indictment against Tom DeLay as thin; Stephanopoulos and reporter Linda Douglass both said that prosecutor Ronnie Earle had better have something of substance. Douglass did say that the real danger is not so much the prosecution but the focus on Tom DeLay at a time when it hurts the GOP. George Will savaged DeLay for overreaching in the matter of taking corporate money, funneling it through the RNC, and sending it back to Texas. Stephanopoulos pointed out that the current situation takes DeLay out of play. GOP-friendly Terry Moran showed his bias by saying that Americans will see this as just more partisan bickering. Will talked a little bit about David Dreier not having been named interim majority leader in the House (without bringing up those rumors about Dreier's sexuality). Douglass pointed out that if DeLay does not get a trial by December or portray the prosecutors overreaching, it is likely he won't come back as House Majority Leader.

Stephanopoulos changed the subject to allegations of insider stock trading by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist — and took the new claim (first published in The Washington Post) that Frist had contemplated dumping his HCA stock before the stock price plummeted at face value as some sort of proof that he is off the hook. Steph quickly shifted the focus to Judith Miller's departure from jail after hammering out an agreement to testify before a grand jury about the Valerie Plame leak. Terry Moran, expectedly, played up the spin that Judy Miller wanted a specific and unambiguous release from confidentiality by Scooter Libby. George Will furthered the "Scooter was coerced" meme. Stephanopoulos was the first to inject Karl Rove's name into the discussion (in what turned out to be the beginning of a build-up to a major revelation on the part of This Week's host). Stephanopoulos also brought up a few possible crimes: the blowing of a CIA agent's cover, lying to a grand jury, conspiracy to cover up a crime. Linda Douglass, unfortunately, sounded like a sycophantic Bush cheerleader with her claims that so far there has been no public evidence or admission that Rove or Libby had blown Valerie Plame's cover. Stephanopoulos brought up the repeated claims by the White House that Rove and Libby were not involved in mess; if Fitzgerald is able to show this happened, will he be under pressure to get rid of the crooks? Even Terry Moran had to admit there was a "disconnect" between what press secretary Scott McClellan has been saying and what was happening between senior White House staffers and reporters (translation: McClellan was lying to the press). Linda Douglass said it definitely is a political problem, and wondered if it could remain a manageable one for the White House.

Then came the surprise revelation from George Stephanopoulos that is guaranteed to make waves — and headlines on tonight's network news shows: "I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House, especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments, but if he is able to show — as a source close to this told me this week — that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions?"

Okay, repeat after me, dear reader: "unindicted co-conspirators." Or perhaps "indicted co-conspirators."

If Steph's source is on the money, this means that Bush's insinuations and implicit statements that he was not involved, including all those promises to "get to the bottom" of the matter, are bogus.

When the subject shifted to who the White House's next Supreme Court nominee might be — well, after that juicy tidbit that Steph had just dropped, who cared? The mere implication that Bush was involved in concealing or deceiving the public about the identity of the party or parties who outed Valerie Plame will effectively end his domestic agenda until the matter is resolved.

-- JJ Balzer

Fox News Sunday
Saving Swill-vermin: Tom DeLay monopolizes FNS and spins, spins, spins

Tom DeLay and it was the first guest on Fox News Sunday; ride out the date he said the indictment against him is frivolous: this politics at its worst, sleaziest. " DeLay said he predicted it that the matter would be over very soon and he is going to remain active as a congressman. Chris Wallace took a slightly different tack than expected: He said there were a number of Republicans who want to move up for the food chain; some of the once DeLay shunted aside. DeLay answer the question by saying that the Texas statutes upon which is been indicted don't apply to him! Wallace then through DeLay a bone asking what his role was going to be in the near term; DeLay said that he will is going to work closely with the speaker because they get along and around the same page. DeLay and list litany of issues he wants to deal with; interestingly, cutting gas prices was first — but of course, the last one was cutting taxes, and naturally, DeLay was emphatic about cutting taxes (and obviously, he wasn't going to say that he won't cut them for the rich, not the average working Joe).

Chris Wallace then went through the allegation against DeLay, using a series of diagrams and pictures to demonstrate the process of how money was laundered through the Republican National Committee. DeLay called it business as usual, trying to cast the laundering as legal use of legally raised money in a fully legal manner. He must've used the word "legal" at least a dozen times in his wordy, convoluted answer. Wallace, however, suggested that it was "a form of money laundering. " DeLay claimed that lawyers and accountants had checked everything they did. (Translation: they looked at the best ways to bend the law.) Wallace asked DeLay specifically about an agreement that he had entered into with Jim Ellis (who heads DeLay‘s national political committee) and John Colyandro (former executive director of TRMPAC); DeLay denied any wrongdoing and tried to spin his meeting as "business as usual."

Wallace then confronted DeLay about his role in TRMPAC, using a number e-mails to demonstrate Dow that he was in fact very active in fund-raising and strategizing. Tom DeLay fell back on the line he has been using all weekend: all the decisions had to be approved by been dedans

Look for DeLay to keep using that excuse for the foreseeable future: the lawyers said it was all OK5 will give you 10 that this advice to DeLay came from trial lawyers. Um — er — hold it ... don't Republicans think trial lawyers are a bad thing ?

Wallace said that there is enormous speculation that Ronnie Earle got someone to "flip" on DeLay; DeLay whined about the "travesty", characterizing it as an attack on conservatives. "I did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong. I broke no laws. I broke no rules of the House. I broke — this — Chris, this is been going on for 10 years."

Interesting — if this has been going on for 10 years, one can only wonder how many more indictments are coming down the pike!

Following the break, Chris Wallace asked DeLay about his role in raising millions from lobbyists to peddle their agenda points to Republicans — and if DeLay regrets it. Naturally, DeLay said "No" with a big grin. Wallace reminded DeLay that he has had repeated run-ins with the House Ethics Committee going all the way back to 1997 — and that he was admonished in 2004 on three separate occasions. Why does an ethics committee, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, constantly feel that DeLay going over the line? DeLay's answer was pathetic: "Admonishments are no sanctions." He added that he is under incredible scrutiny. (Well, no kidding.) "I am creative in how I do things." (Well, that's two no kiddings!) So the allegations are all frivolous? DeLay said yes.

Wallace asked DeLay about Jack Abramoff and a now-notorious junket that DeLay took to England and Scotland a few years ago. Does DeLay really believe that Abramoff had nothing to do with paying for the trip? DeLay said yes, then, in one of the year's best pundit show non-sequiturs, said he stood up against the Contras, for Taiwan, and for Israel (which, as you'll know, has a lot to do with being able to go on a golfing junkets to Scotland). DeLay then started whining about how he's unable to go golfing or a show with his pals because it might raise questions about who was paying for what. DeLay claimed that American conservatives want to send him abroad to work with foreign conservatives. Is he still friends with Abramoff? DeLay said that due to present circumstances, he is not been able to talk to Abramoff.

Wallace asked if Republicans are going to have to scale back their agenda; DeLay said no and suggested that they would actually be ramping up efforts to move on agenda points . It gave DeLay yet another opportunity to rattle off a litany of issues, including "reforming entitlements." If this latest agenda point is anything like the GOP's version of "tort reform," seniors and the poor can say goodbye to any sort of support in getting access to medicine or health care.

Wallace wrapped things up by quoting anti-DeLay op ed in the reliably conservative Manchester Union-leader. They want DeLay to go. DeLay said he's not going, and added, "Look at what we've done" over the last decade.

Indeed, Tom. Look at what you have done as chief architect of Washington's culture of corruption.

-- JJ Balzer

Meet the Depressed
Tim at least takes a light swipe at Dick "Human Aneurysm" Cheney

This morning, Tim Russert decided to examine Iraq, Tom DeLay, and nothing much else.

General John Abizaid led off the parade of palaver. Tim showed the Alfred-E.-Neumanesque clip of the "preznit" fum-fahing over whether the two men flanking him were generals or what. Bush could not get the word "generals" out from between his lips (as if he was not sure of their ranks), again showing the impact of being a dry drunk.

...or is he a wet one again?

Russert went after Abizaid, asking why — after 2.5 years — we only have 650 Iraqis qualified to be in their armed forces? The General said, "Well, Tim, you can 'parse' the words." (You do mean sentences, don't you, General? It's tough to parse words. We'd say it's "hard work," but we have to be careful to choose words that won't make us sound like George W. Bush.) "Over time Iraqis can take the lead." The General again said "parse" emphatically. He must have been coached (badly) about use of this word. He needs a new P[a]R[se] guy.

Russert said, hey, we have only ONE Iraqi battalion available — and so said Senator Susan Collins (my vote for most luscious old Senator in DC), who is disgusted with the lack of progress. Abizaid actually said that overall the trend is good! That got a good laugh out of us. Abizaid forgets that much of Baghdad is now under total control of pro-Al Qaeda forces (as anyone who reads the NY Times or Washington Post knows). Yes, Iraqis are in charge of the battle spaces, as the General puts it, yet he doesn't say which side they are on, does he!

"You just don't bring an institution, like an armed forces... and you gotta have armed forces development keep pace with political development. ... People are confident, they know there are a lot of battles ahead." Russert said that Abizaid told Washington last year that we could begin withdrawing American troops next year. "Now you seem to be backing down."

You're right, Tim — but the General stuck to his guns (at the behest of his Commander and Chief, we bet).

The discussion then regressed into the excuse of foreign fighters who have come into Iraq. Tim, of course, doesn't ask how they get there — nor does he say that the administration has greatly exaggerated their numbers. Tim shifted the evildoing to Iraq's neighbor to the west: what is wrong these idiots who allow these Syrians and others who come in to frag our troops? But he also asked one good question: how are these people living there if they are NOT supported from the Iraqi citizens themselves?

Tim reminded Abizaid that the Vice President, idiotic Dick "Big Time" Cheney, had claimed that the insurgency was almost finished. Abizaid made certain that we knew Cheney was lying as usual — even though he didn't say so.

On 15 October, said Russert, there will be a referendum on the Iraqi Constitution. Most likely it will be defeated. That will be another huge blow to the dimwit theorists in the Bush Administration who think that U.S.-style government is what the Iraqi people are just aching for. The General started a rant about how democracy movements are "so strong" in other nations surrounding Iraq.

Like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, f'rinstance? He must be joking. All these "movements" — without the threat of US military power — would be worth less than a Sunday garlic bagel on Monday morning, and all their supporters would be hanging by their necks from some bridge. We can't blame the General here. He is a sworn whore for Bush, who is his boss and Commander-in-chief. At least he took a light swipe at Cheney, the human aneurysm.

"I think as long as we continue on the path we're on, and we insist that people show the courage and determination to stand by the Iraqis..." mumbled Abizaid. So now the White House is going to INSIST we show courage and determination? Fine. But neither with my son's nor my grandson's blood.

Here's an IDEA: Let's pay the Iraqi men and boys to fight their own war. Isn't that a better — and cheaper — idea?

Also, keep in mind the corporate scum who support this war as Tim pauses for commercials. The usual suspects show their ads, including ADM, who will soon receive $2 billion in taxpayer checks to support there otherwise-losing fuel-ethanol business, which rips off farmers who sell their corn and grain to thieves like ADM in the USA. Microsoft also makes an appearance on Meet the Press this week with a commercial about seeing into the future genius of female kids (who won't be helped by Gates' buggy, security-shy, overpriced software). There followed a spot for JP Morgan Chase, still hoping for privatization of social security as they tout their HUGE inroads into helping minorities fund homeownership – not! Next came Boeing, almost always near bankruptcy, telling us how they are making our world SAFER even as they help make it more dangerous. Morgan Stanley then tells us they can make your tiny business a huge one with it its own office tower. Just trust them. Finally, The Royal Bank of Scotland? They must want something very bad from Congress, because it just doesn't "talk a good game."

Segment Two: Tom DeLay, whom Russert touted as "indicted, stepped down as leader."

The GOP mouthpiece this morning - Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-nobody) begins by telling us that DeLay is a "victim" — but Russert said that this is not DeLay's first mess with immoral and illegal activity. First the Gulf fundraisers, then the FAA hunt for Texas state Democratic legislators, and his promise to endorse someone for the House if his father (a sitting member of the Texas legislature) would vote DeLay's way. Three times now, DeLay has been admonished by the House Ethics Committee, yet the crooked Republicans leave him in the most powerful position in the House — inasmuch as Denny Hastert is merely DeLay's puppet.

Reynolds said yes, but it was lowest form of admonishment! That got yet another long laugh out of us. Gee. I wonder why DeLay got the least possible punishment?

Rahm Emanuel was also on hand to balance Reynolds. Russert asks him about the charges that DeLay made that the DA who indicted him was in cohorts with Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Emanuel said websites do not indict members of Congress, then reminded us that the GOP was elected to "clean up" Washington — but instead we have the House Majority leader indicted, the Senate Majority Leader being investigated for stock fraud, and more. "There is a history, a pattern here." Look at the bill on prescription drugs, said Emanuel. "They told us it was $400 billion — it cost $800 billion."

But Russert turned on him and brings up the Texas D.A. again because he backs Democrats. Russert conveniently forgot that this man has been the DA in DeLay's district for nigh-on 25 years and has indicted far more Democrats than Republicans during his tenure.
Emanuel called for ethics reform — but he should have pointed out that DeLay forbade American corporations from hiring Democratic lobbyists only two years ago, a travesty and a potential felony as well. Emanuel missed that shot.

House elections are built from the ground up, said dimwit GOP Congressman Reynolds, who added that the GOP is going to "stick with its ground game" that builds House members from the ground up. (Talk about repetition.)

If that's the case, why did DeLay had to launder so much money for GOP candidates using every trick and trickster in the book including Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist (soon to be indicted himself, I'd guess)?

Emanuel then began to rag on the GOP for bungling the war in Iraq. Russert asked whether we should then withdraw. Emanuel didn't take the bait. "Was it a mistake to authorize the war?" chimed Timmy boy. Emanuel hinted that it was, but didn't say it. "We offer education, we have a summit to end the deficit, an energy policy to cut our dependence on foreign oil by 50%, we do a science and technologies thrust — and provide health care for anyone working."

Russert: Will you increase taxes to pay for all this? Emanuel said the nation can't continue to reward the wealthy. I guess that means yes — at least on the rich.

Reynolds, the idiot, talked about so-called Democratic "tax and spend, slash and burn, no new ideas and attack."
Look who's talking!

It is true that Emanuel's suggestions here are the first "new ideas" to be laid out by the Democrats in years. And I must comment they were pretty weak and boring.

What Emanuel should have done was to suggest that we might use weapons of mass destruction on all Islamic terror organizations — and if need be on all populations which support them.

Then what would Bush man do then, offer to explode the rays of the sun touching all Arab nations? I know you might be cringing now - but it's the answer for a big win in 2006. Guaranteed.

Talk turned to New Orleans. Tim quoted the Moonie Times' interview with one politician: "It's not going to be as Black as is normally was." Next, we see a GOP spokesman talk about how Republicans can win in the third congressional district of Louisiana (that used to be a black district) because the blacks won't come back!

Unbelievable!!!

Reynolds then sneered back, called the Hurricane "Cortina," and went on to say that Tom DeLay will come back as House Majority Leader!!! He's hilarious. What a complete moron. We hope Time remembers to interview him as DeLay enters prison.

Emanuel tells Tim that DeLay will not be back in that position.

We agree happily.

The next segment was a weak discussion by a no-name panel about how the GOP and the White House are surviving.

Skip their spin. Here's the fundamental truth: President Bush, who is generally an irresponsible teenager in mindset and intelligence, does not give a damn how he or his party are doing. Like a senior in high school with a C- average, Bush knows he is a lame duck. He sees any problems for his administration as "a pain in the ass" and a problem for his golf game. He wants to be left alone. He has no sense of or concern for his "legacy" and is busy preparing himself to take his Daddy's place on the Board of Directors of the Pro-Arab Carlyle Group upon his retirement.

That's all that need be said, thinks Bush. Let the politicians be damned — bring on the Jack Daniel's!

-- Jeff Koopersmith

Copyright © 2005, 1999-2004, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Read our privacy policy. Contact us. Operating software by Underwriters Digital Research. Data development by Gaudette & Associates. ISSN No. 1523-1690