Say Something NiceIt's always a good idea to say something nice about someone whom you've spent considerable time attacking (fairly, but rigourously). So, thanks to another article from the New York Times, I'm pleased (really!) to say that President Bush has said something I can at least partially agree with.
The quote: "Five twenty-sevens [freelance political organisations that are not controlled by or have direct links to the official parties or candidates] - I think these ought to be outlawed,'' Bush said. "I think they should have been outlawed a year ago. We have billionaires writing checks, large checks, to influence the outcome of the election.''
While the fantasy of outlawing any free speech by political groups not directly approved by the two controlling parties is a communist dream come true that will never happen, I can certainly agree with the President that "billionaires writing cheques" is a danger to democracy.
What the President doesn't seem to realise is that the "billionaires writing checks to influence the outcome of the election" are primarily his pals Richard Mellon Scaife (psychotic obsessive Clinton-hater) and Rupert Murdoch (destroyer of journalism). Oh and let's not forget that nice Mr. Diebold. And Rev. Moon.
The Democrats only have, to the best of my knowledge, one "billionaire" on their side, George Soros (an immigrant who made his fortune in America, yet is amusingly attacked by right-wing billionaires as "anti-capitalist"). Soros has pledged up to $15 million of his wealth in the fight to unseat George Bush.
Sounds like a lot of money to you and me, but it's about 1/10th the amount Scaife and Murdoch are each putting into this. Heck, it's less money than Fahrenheit 9/11 makes in a typical weekend at the dollar cinemas. It's extremely unlikely Soros would even be bothering if it wasn't for the decade-long head start Scaife, Murdoch and Moon have had trying to smear and destroy the opposition political party -- almost entirely with lies and distortions, I might add.
So, we have a president controlled by right-wing billionaires claiming to call for an end to billionaires writing large checks to influence the outcome of the election. A promise to mount a court challenge that will be laughed away at the first go-round. This from a man who owes his very career to these "billionaires."
What's also remarkable about the article is how much evading Bush does. The interview is not published as a Q-n-A, presumably because it would be embarrassing to President Inarticulate, but rather as a summary of his remarks sprinkled with direct quotes. Most of the questions posed by the New York Times editorial board were not answered, or evaded with generalities.
Example: Asked repeatedly if he would condemn the Swift Boat Sociopath ads, Bush said only that he condemns "all 527 ads" and characterised himself as having been "attacked" by them too.
Note to Mr. Bush: there's a big difference between the left-leaning 527s and Swift Boat Sociopaths. The Not-So-Swiftees are proven liars. Stop trying to paint yourself as an equal victim of those bad ol' 527s. It would be impossible to smear your reputation the way Kerry has been smeared, or distort your record the way you have distorted Kerry's.