| |
| |
| ||||
| | | Flush twice... it's a long way to Sally Quinn's place!  Pundit Pap Jan. 7, 2006 /New York & Washington -- apj.us/ Holy corporate haven, Batman! This must be the first Sunday in months when Sen. Joe Biden (D-Visa/MC/AmEx) hasn't "graced" the tube with his presence. And — miracle of miracles — the Sunday shows actually treated the issue of epidemic corruption among Republicans as issue one! Mind you, not one of the bobbleheads dared mention that the scandals involving Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff constitute the worst congressional scandal in decades — and hold the potential of being the worst in over a century. And they dared not mention the speculation over Casino Jack's White House ties when a number of outlets reported that Karl Rove is desperate to track down 9and, we assume, destroy) any and every photo of his boss Junior with Abramoff. Hmmm… But best of all, this new year of pundit prevarication and palaver got off to an explosive start when Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, delivered a sizable helping of red ass to Leslie "Wolf" Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition. Here's what we saw: This Week Even though George Stephanopoulos detailed the disastrous week of scandal headlines that engulfed Abramoff and DeLay, topic one was Sam "The Sham" Alito's impending Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the Senate. Ted Kennedy, the first guest, blasted Alito's fundamental hostility toward individual rights, his pattern and practice of briefs and rulings that cede power to the executive branch, and rulings that sell out individual rights to corporate interests. Kennedy made particular note of lying liar Alito's promise under oath to recuse himself from Vanguard-related cases -- and subsequent breaking of that promise. Georgie's attempt to trip Kennedy of by bringing up a comment Kennedy had made during the confirmation of Stephen Breyer backfired badly when Kennedy essentially proved that there was no analogy between Breyer and Alito – because Breyer did in fact recuse himself from cases where there would have been a conflict of interest. Steph looked miffed that Ol' Ted had smacked him down like an ill-mannered yappie dog. Kennedy next tweaked Alito for conveniently "forgetting" that he was a member of the ultra-right wing Federalist Society. For a second time, Kennedy brought up the recusal issue. Stephanopoulos gave Kennedy pretty free rein in to tear into Alito over his present position on giving the president near-imperial power during "Wartime. " Kennedy said that Alito appears to be far too accommodating to extreme executive powers. Kennedy used the military torture scandal as an example of abuse of executive power, pointing out that the photo op that Bush Jr. had with McCain about "Working out differences" in torture legislation was immediately followed by Bush jettisoning McCain's wording that would of reined in the executive's ability to torture military prisoners. Will Alito be filibustered? Kennedy said that Democrats will not take the possibility of a filibuster of the table. (Good. ) Stephanopoulos then welcomed Senator Sam Brownback, who essentially regurgitated the same talking points that special-interest groups have stuffed into those goofy, pompous, pretentious television commercials urging the public, mind you, to "Confirm Justice Alito!" (As if it were their choice.) Brownback accused Democrats of trying to throw everything they could at Alito, implying that Democrats are out to smear him. On the touchy subject of Roe v. Wade, Brownback made excuses for Alito, claiming that he was merely advocating conservative positions during a conservative administration when he worked as a Reagan shill. Brownback essentially implied that Alito need not answer questions about his position on specific issues. And, naturally, Brownback pulled out the false "Ruth Bader Ginsburg don't ask don't tell" analogy like a severed head out of a duffel bag. It was almost comical. Brownback tried to frame the argument: "This is a different job" than an elected legislator (that, in fact, can also be used as a good argument for subjecting Supreme Court nominees to even more rigorous questioning than a Senate or House candidate would get). Brownback called for members of the Supreme Court who will show "judicial restraint. " Well golly, Sam, it turns out that the three least restrained justices sitting on the current Supreme Court are Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Why are you criticizing them by name? Stephanopoulos said that Brownback had received $42,000 from clients Jack Abramoff. Brownback denied impropriety. How well did you know Jack Abramoff? Brownback said Abramoff never asked him to take action on behalf of any of his clients. Brownback did admit that Abramoff was raising all lot of money from Indian tribes were interested in cashing in on the casino boom. Brownback couched his answers in just the right weasel words – but it is true he didn't receive direct campaign contributions from Abramoff. Unfortunately, some of his strongest allies in both houses have. What will the House and Senate have to do to clean up their own house? Brownback wants reform as opposed public financing. (No surprise there — Brownback doesn't want his gravy train cut off.) Stephanopoulos raised the specter of rigorous lobbying reform, but Brownback said that the current restrictions are just fine, thank you, although he said it might be time for a few new ideas. Brownback implied that "the right thing [has taken place] in this case." At the top of the show's second segment, Stephanopoulos welcomed Cokie Roberts, George Will, Fareed Zakaria and David Brooks — a mix of moderate conservatives and conservative conservatives. That's what passes for "balance" on network TV these days. We went to grab a coffee. We got back just as the panel was wrapping up discussion of corruption to hear David Brooks castigate the Republican Party for its culture of corruption! He didn't use that term, mind you — he used the word "DeLayism" to describe the process of sneaking earmarks and amendments into bills after midnight, which is something Brooks would like to see "Reined in." Now, that's not as pressing as other GOP or White House shenanigans, but it does give Brooks just enough cover to claim he's tough on Republicans too. (Snicker.) Zakaria said that America is constantly preaching about democracy and trying to be "the shining city on the Hill" as a litany of scandals is going on. When you add the current corruption scandals to the redistricting scandal, it does give the impression of a GOP "culture of corruption." Zakaria and Cokie had a brief and very irrelevant argument over lobbying in Great Britain. George Will had to quote ultra-right commentator Michael Barone who said the First Amendment protects three professions: the press, the clergy and lobbyists. Oy. Most of the remaining "Debate" was predictable and redundant — until Fareed Zakaria went on a tear, describing a self-perpetuating culture of corruption and bribery (sadly, without specifically putting it on the Republicans, who fostered and nurtured that culture into what has become today). David Brooks got a last word in that, interestingly, we also heard from a number of progressive-leading commentators this week: Why not require Congress a 72-hour "cooling-off period" between the publication of a bill in the Congressional Record and the first vote on said bill? When, oh when, will ABC finally can Cokie and Will? Meet the Depressed Tim Russert's issues this week were no surprise: Congressman Tom DeLay will not return as House majority leader. Washington lobbyists and fund-raiser Jack Abramoff pleads guilty to fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion. And the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito begin on Monday. But who did Russert invite as one of his guests? Why, old Snaggletooth herself, Kate O'Beirne – to square off with Kate Michelman about SnaggleBeirne's new, full-o'-crap book, "Women Who Make The World Worse" (which should've been more accurately titled, "Women the Right Wing Conservative Ideologues Require You to Hate" ). Funny but Snaggletooth did not include herself in the book, which is a travesty of truth. But well before this "Americans with British Teeth" segment would air, Russert showed a video of Tom "Roach Man" DeLay – who, if you check, I've been writing about and whose ouster I've urged for nearly 10 years. The crook DeLay, whose claim to fame before weaseling himself into Congress was driving around Texas killing roaches, has a fine resumé for a Congressman, no? In fact, the American People had better begin to think about the qualifications of the men and women they elect to office – and they should not include idiot actors, exterminators and real estate salespeople for starters. The House is littered with them. The Senate isn't much better – it is stocked with failed lawyers! DeLay called his felonies "personal distractions" (I bet) as he announced that he had given up on his pipe dream to re-insert himself as House Majority Leader once again. No one wants him. For that matter, no one wanted him. He was a cheap, Mafia-like specimen of upwardly mobile white trash who deserves to be federal prison, not the House of Representatives.
That provided the first belly-laugh of the morning. I nearly spit out my coffee through my nose! Yeah, fer sher – Cornyn "respects" DeLay for this. Cornyn claimed that he isn't sure that DeLay was freaked out about felonious lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to paying DeLay off! Yessirree, that laughs just keep on coming – this Cornholio's funnier than Senator James Inhofe (R-moron)! Boy, talking about digging a hole for yourself, Cornyn! Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who kinda looks like a weasel even when he isn't, laid a line of gobbledygook on Timmeh, including this, after Russert had asked him about the crime going on in the capitol: "Yeah, I think, Tim, it's going to play a great deal, both in itself. After all, when the Republican Party took power in 1994, it was a party of 'change,' and the Democrats were regarded as the party of the 'status quo' and involved in all these various little scandals. And now it seems to have flipped. Corruption matters in two ways: obviously, it's bad in itself; but it also indicates a status quo situation, that a party of 'change' is there too long, becomes too enmeshed in the Washington power structure. And the public – America, Tim – says America's headed in the wrong direction, and we, Democrats, stand for change not only in trying to clean up this lobbying and corruption but on the meat and potatoes issues like energy costs and prescription drugs and health care. And I think they're going to be tied together and it's going to be a good Democratic year in 2006 at least if things continue as they are now." So, is Schumer saying that all politicians who remain in office for a long time are corrupt? If so, then he would be included. The problem for Schumer, of course, is that it's only a matter of time before the Republicans dig up some of the worst lobbyists in history who have been proud to call themselves Democrats. And it will happen. Russert said he wonders if DeLay will run for re-election. Duh, Tim! Of course he will – unless he is in federal prison by that time. He is that insane. Tim asked Cornholio what he thinks, and whether it might be best for the GOP if DeLay does not seek re-election. Instead of saying, "The man is a swine," Cornyn said: "I think, you know, what would be best if we allow the process to run its course, the charges against him – there's a lot of informed judgment that he actually will be acquitted of those charges." I love it! "Informed judgment." What the heck does that mean? To Cornyn, it means that DeLay says he will be acquitted – but like Gingrich, in the end DeLay will bury himself and go back to bug spraying – that is, if anyone will hire him. Of course, Tim – to be fair and balanced – then claimed that Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, got $60 grand from Abramoff – and won't give it back. But the truth is that Reid DIDN'T receive $60 grand from Abramoff, but from a client of Abramoff in a group of donations that don't look to have been orchestrated by Abramoff. Tim "Mister Washington Journalist" Russert surely knows this – and just as surely showed is viewers once again that he's nothing more than a waterboy for the Grand Old Culture of Media Corruption. And Schumer said that Reid did not get the money from Abramoff, but from Indians (Abramoff's clients). Schumer, who didn't look too good today, added, "I mean, lots of senators, Democrat and Republican in the West, have relationships – particularly in the West, have relationships – with the Indian tribes. " "Relationships." Now, what does that mean? What did Senator Reid get for that $60 thousand anyway? Or better yet, what did he give? Russert then wondered aloud if Reid should give back the money just the same to avoid "any sense of taint" (that is, any sense of taint with which Russert can smear Reid). Well, Tim, maybe he shouldn't. It seems that the Republicans who gave back their "wampum" did so in a manner that demonstrates that they DID trade their votes for the campaign cash. Schumer – even thought he has no idea – said Senator Reid "[has] done nothing wrong. He's a person of integrity. In fact, next week, he's going to be unveiling a whole plan to clear up the corruption, particularly with lobbyists in Washington. He's on the right side. He's on the force for change. And if the Republican leadership would allow his bill or a bill of their choosing like it to come to the floor, I think we could do a lot to eliminate these kinds of problems." Russert then, thankfully, stabbed Cornyn in the back – to his face – saying that his name surfaced as having taken a grand from Abramoff's associates – and even better, that Ralph "Damien" Reed, former Chief Imam of the Christian Coalition, confirmed that he helped "choreograph" Cornholio's response when he was Attorney General towards the "tribal problem." "Will you give the money back?" asked Russert. And what does Cornyn say? "Tim, it was a legal contribution. I don't plan on giving it back " Schumer stupidly had to bring up the fact that Reed was the head of the Christian Coalition – really for no reason I could see here. Cornyn then said – if you can believe this, "[T]here were these e-mails I had no knowledge of where Reed and Abramoff were somehow claiming credit and then bilking their Indian clients for millions of dollars, apparently. And I certainly disapprove of that, did not know anything about it." Ah, so Cornyn knows that Abramoff is guilty – and just sold out Ralph Reed to boot! Gee, why even bother having a trial, then? With everyone excited by the latest smear, Russert bored us by turning to the confirmation hearings for Sam Alito that start tomorrow. He tried to embarrass Schumer by saying that because he wrote that the ABA evaluation is the gold standard, and because Alito was judged 'well qualified' by unanimous vote of the standing committee" of the ABA, that Schumer should not oppose him. Schumer replied: "Not quite, Tim. Don't push it. Not that fast.... The most important qualification for a judge – and I made this argument in 2001 as well – and that is their judicial philosophy.... He has said some very, very, very extreme things throughout his career, both when he worked for Ronald Reagan and as a judge." Russert started yammering about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation and other more liberal (intelligent) justices, then asked Schumer this stupid question: "Why shouldn't Democrats support Alito, who has been rated well qualified, the gold standard of the ABA, and whose philosophy may be conservative, but is no more conservative than Ginsburg and Breyer were liberal?" Hey Tim, the answer is clear: conservatives are creeps. We don't want them on the highest court in the land – even if they went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford all at one time! Look, the answer is clear: the Democrats will fight Alito because he has been nominated by that smirking "chimpleton" Bush (which really means that Cheney probably ordered it). Alito might be the biggest liberal of all when he gets his lifetime and well-paid seat on the high court. No one ever knows exactly what will happen – except when you scheme to put an idiot on the court like Clarence Thomas, who knows that even the Republicans wouldn't blink an eye if he didn't toe the line – and would impeach him as a result. Russert tried to impress us with yawn inducing talk about the Commerce Clause; Schumer showed signs of life and dished the real dirt on Alito, who "said, for instance, that a 10-year-old girl could be strip-searched even though the warrant did not call for her to be strip-searched. He has said, for instance, in the past, that one man, one vote; something that's accepted as a tenet of our democracy that you shouldn't have one legislative district or congressional district with 20,000 people and one with 300,000 people. He said that was OK.... He said he believed in the unitary executive. That means the executive has all the power. It would mean you couldn't have an FTC. It would mean you couldn't have a 9-11 Commission. It might mean in a time of war, relevant to today, that you could have warrants issued so you could go into someone's home without going to a judge." Schumer confirmed that the Democrat leadership has not ruled out a filibuster on Alito. Cool! Russert asked Cornholio about Alito's idiotic views on abortion. Alito wrote, "It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued... that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." Cornyn must have rehearsed this answer while drunk: "Well, Tim, the – obviously Judge Alito joins other groups of distinguished legal scholars and jurists who have questioned the decision in Roe v. Wade.... But the important issue is not what his opinion was when he applied for a job in 1985 but whether he is going to substitute his personal views for the law." He will be the law, you drooling idiot. Russert, acting as is he were deaf, asked Schumer again about a filibuster against the Alito confirmation. Schumer repeated himself slowly, to make sure Tim got it this time. Russert stabbed Cornholio with a good one, asking, "Senator Cornyn, the whole issue of presidential power and how Judge Alito would come down on that issue – we have this debate now about eavesdropping on domestic citizens without a court warrant. You entered the fray with this comment in late December: 'None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead.' Is that a kind of..." Cornyn interrupted, "No, (heh-heh), what I meant by that statement, which, of course, was part of a much longer statement, was the most certain deprivation of your civil liberties would be death at the hands of a terrorist." Yes, and...? Despite the fact that there have been no hearings at all on Alito, Cornyn actually told Russert, "I believe he'll be confirmed unless there's this extraordinary use of the filibuster, abuse of the Senate rules, in order to prevent it, as has happened with a number of President Bush's nominees. Russert asked: "Kate O'Beirne, let me start with you. 'Women Who Make the World Worse' – who are they? Snaggletooth Katie's answer was laughable: "Tim, they're the kind of women who – apropos our discussion this morning – hype the phony gender gap in order to intimidate politicians. They're the kind of women who claim to celebrate women's choices when it comes to family and career, but they only think there's one responsible choice, which is following a male career pattern. People think that feminism is sort of a spent force. And my book makes the point that no, it's not. The modern women's movement is enormously influential. Their premises have been widely accepted in our institutions. They engage in social engineering in our schools, trying to – very hostile to little boys and boyhood; have enormous influence on our university campuses. We certainly saw that with the dispute over President Larry Summers at Harvard. And our institutions, I argue, are weaker as a result of these feminist ideologues." I ask you, how many times can one person with so many bad teeth lie in a single answer? First, the gender gap is not phony. Second, women concern with their rights do not "intimidate" politicians – they pressure them to think, and to vote fairly. Third, feminists do celebrate motherhood as a viable and good choice rather than career. Fourth, feminism is not a spent force, though that seems to be the desire of so many self-hating females such as O'Beirne, who is one of the least feminine woman I've ever seen, and one of the ugliest in spirit – a Beltway media whore who has attacked feminists mercilessly and tried to damage them quite a bit. And here's a fact: if the women's movement had not been damaged, you wouldn't hear the Senate even discussing the potential to make abortion illegal. O'Beirne continued her lies: she claimed that liberal women engage in social engineering of the schools, which is really laughable inasmuch as the idiot so-called GOP soccer mom has been ruining our schools for more than 20 years. O'Beirne claimed she endorses "all of those goals. I endorse equal opportunity. I endorse equal pay." So Snaggletooth believes that because something is illegal that it's not practiced widely? What a laugh. What a jerk. The rest of the debate centered on abortion and politics – nothing new. The terrible truth is that Russert gave O'Beirne a long commercial for her terrible and treasonous book, but that should surprise nobody: Timmy's a gung-ho Catholic, and Kate O'Beirne's a big player in the ultra-right-wing Catholic League, which is rumored to be nothing more than the PR wing of Opus Dei. I wonder if Russert and O'Beirne, like Bob Novak, are members of the cultish, secretive and fascistic Opus Die. I would also love to know how Dame Marjorie Scardino likes this trivial book. Scardino runs Pearson PLC, which owns Penguin Publishing, which owns Sentinel, which has published this piece of garbage. I think she would be unnerved at best. Curing the rest of this "fair" debate – Michelman said "Well..." maybe a dozen times while the smug O'Beirne just talked right over her. Michelman is a gentlewoman; O'Beirne is a slob. And Russert – full of authors today – also hosted James Risen to talk about his new book "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration." Risen broke the story about the National Security Agency (read: George W. Bush and Richard Cheney) spying on American citizens – with or without a court order. This back and forth is illuminating. Russert said emphatically, "The president said that we're in a state of war, that this was an important program to find out what the enemy was up to, and it was a shameful act for people to leak that information to you." Russert seemed more interested in whether Risen would go to prison rather than reveal his sources for that story. Risen said he would, and he would not comment on why the New York Times held up the story for a year. On that latter point, I wish he had gone forward and told us. Russert then went on to nearly accuse Risen of treason for his book's discussion of some idiot idea in the Clinton and Bush Administration called "Operation Merlin," which supposedly would provide nuclear plans to Iran and others that were phony. Sounds like they got the idea from Hollywood. Risen: "I think it's important to talk about this is because there are people who believed that it was mishandled, and it's possible we actually aided the Iranian nuclear program rather than try to stop it; that this operation was conducted so poorly, it reflects the larger issue of one of the issues that I deal with in my book, which is the failure of the CIA to adequately deal with weapons of mass destruction and intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction." Russert was obviously sent out today to destroy Risen's credibility. He asked Risen about another CIA problem which may have led to all of our CIA agents to be "rolled up" – taken out of Iran. He claimed the CIA says this is not true – but Russert is lying about this. The CIA said that the damage was not all that great – not as great as Risen claims. He also asked him about a reported story that George W. Bush talked with former CIA chief Tenet about who authorized putting some Al Qaeda leader on pain medications. Risen's point was that the CIA believed that such goings on were stamped "approved" by the Bush White House. I say, so what? I really don't care if this Al Qaeda guy was put on pain meds or not. Russert kept it up – the CIA must have a bundle on Russert! He then asked about WMD and the CIA having talked to 30 relatives of Iraqi citizens about WMD. Risen wrote about one woman, a doctor from Cleveland, who is an Iraqi-American who was asked by the CIA to go to Baghdad and meet with her brother who had been in the nuclear program. She went to Baghdad in 2002. Her brother said, you know, the nuclear program has been dead for a decade. And she came back to Washington and told the CIA that and they didn't believe her. MR. RUSSERT: And we went forward. MR. RISEN: Yes. Geez! Well, that's a bout all you need to know about justification for the Iraq invasion. Late Edition Props to Atrios, who posted the transcript to his venerable blog (http://atrios.blogspot.com/): TV's Wolf Blitzer: Let's talk a little bit about Iraq. The president sought to reach out to some of his critics earlier in the week, bringing in some former secretaries of state, including Madeleine Albright, among others -- William Cohen, the former defense secretary during the Clinton administration. Are you satisfied right now that the president's getting enough information from a variety of sources to better move forward as far as the situation in Iraq is concerned? DNC Chairman Howard Dean: Well, most of the reports that came out of that meeting, Wolf, were that the president engaged in a filibuster of his OWN in there. He talked at them for some time and then went in for a photo op and really didn't bother to ask most of them for their advice AT ALL. So, I think these photo op ideas that he's going to get advice and they're really nothing more than photo ops -- I think we're in a BIG pickle in Iraq. The president, frankly -- I was DISGUSTED when I read in the New York Times yesterday that 80 percent of the torso injuries and fatalities in the Marine Corps could have been prevented if the Pentagon, the secretary of defense and the president had supplied them with armor that they already had. Wolf: About a month ago, Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee spoke out, urging his fellow Democrats, including yourself, to restrain themselves in criticizing the president's position on Iraq. Listen to what Lieberman said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that, in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril. (END VIDEO CLIP) Wolf: What do you think? Is that advice good advice from Senator Lieberman? Dr. Dean: No. This president has LACKED CREDIBILITY almost from the day he took office because of the WAY he took office. He's not reached out to other people. He's shown he's willing to ABUSE his power. He's not consulted others. And HE'S NOT INTERESTED in consulting any others. And I think, frankly, that Joe is ABSOLUTELY WRONG, that it is incumbent on every American who is patriotic and cares about their country to STAND UP FOR WHAT'S RIGHT and not go along with the president, who is leading us in a WRONG DIRECTION. We're going in the wrong direction, economically, at home; we're going in the wrong direction abroad. ... Wolf: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back? Dr. Dean: There are NO Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, NOT ONE, not one SINGLE Democrat. EVERY person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person UNDER INVESTIGATION is a Republican. Every person INDICTED is a Republican. This is a REPUBLICAN finance scandal. There is NO evidence that Jack Abramoff EVER gave any Democrat ANY money. And we've looked through ALL of those FEC reports to make sure that's true. Wolf: But-but through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff. Dr. Dean: THAT'S NOT TRUE EITHER! There's NO EVIDENCE for that either. There is NO EVIDENCE... Wolf (interrupting): What about Senator Byron Dorgan? Dr. Dean: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're NOT agents of Jack Abramoff. There's NO evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed ANY contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would LIKE to get the Democrats involved in this. They're SCARED. THEY SHOULD BE SCARED. They haven't told the truth. They have MISLED the American people. And now it appears they're STEALING from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this. Wolf (heaving a deep sigh, then 5 seconds of dead air. Game, set, match to Dean) Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there. PWN3D! Now THAT is how to conduct and CONTROL an interview. We need to clone Howard Dean's brain – and spine – and insert it into every elected Democrat in the Beltway. | |
| | | |
| 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 |   | |
Idiot Texas Senator John Cornyn, who colleagues call behind his back "Cornholio," told Tim that poor little Tommy couldn't get a quick decision on his felonious activity from the courts – so "out of respect" for the House and get "the nation" back on track, DeLay chose to put "our" interests ahead of his!