Thursday, October 24, 2002

Paul Begala Asks for Synonyns for "Liar"

Since it isn't polite to call a sitting pResident a liar--even one who was appointed by the Supreme Court, one can say he molds the facts to fit his agenda, or that he's too flexible with the truth to be trusted to state the facts accurately.


Paul Begala of CNN Crossfire asked his viewers to send in their euphemisms for "liar" so he could be polite to the Bushmaster-in-chief. If you have any choice words to submit, send them into

Begala sent out the message in response to this article in the Washington Post: For Bush, Facts Are Malleable.


The entries poured in, especially from the Democratic Underground. Some of them include: Depressingly disingenuous, Republican, perjurer, fuzzy facts, truth enhancer, tall tale teller, stretches facts to fit his agenda (that's mine), lacking honesty, manipulator of truth, schlock broker, misundertruthinatior (good new word), selective use of carefully managed information, creates his own truths, creatively factual, unconstrained by facts, beats around the Bush, bearer of false witness, unburdened by reality, prevaricator, impostor, pretender, economizing with the facts, distorts the facts, speaks with forked tongue, undisclosed loquation, confabulator, four-flusher, and he never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.

He has earned some titles, some of which even Clinton's enemies wouldn't even put on him: The Texas Truth Twister, the Crawford Fact Rustler, The Disinformation pResident, the Truth Smearum, and......this takes First Prize....
The Lone Star Executioner of Truth!

Ken Starr Says Rehnquist Court Neutral

Neutral, my pig's eye! The Scalia "Fascist Five" have made a mockery of justice, truth, and the rule of law, and have rewritten the Constitution to suit Scalia's extremist agenda. "Judicial tyranny" is more accurate a term!

Former "Independent" Counsel Ken Starr has praised the super-repressive, anal-retentive Rehnquist Court as a paragon of judicial restraint, while chiding the "activist" Warren Court. Starr. He's only half right. While the Warren Court was a liberal activist court, the Rehnquist Court was no bastion of moderation, neutrality, equality, or judicial restraint, as Mr. Starr alleges ( ). Starr conveniently ignores the indisputable fact that these five bandits in robes that comprise the majority of the Supreme Court are conservative activist Justices, if you want to call them Justices, effectively subverting every piece of legislation intended to protect workers and small investors from corporate criminals; domestic violence victims from their tormentors; and people with mental retardation from the execution chamber, while sanctimoniously calling themselves "pro-life" (this just in: real pro-lifers don't relish in the death penalty--right-wing counterfeits do), just because they oppose abortion.
Have you no consistency, hypocrites?! If those so-called "pro-life" conservatives were really pro-life, they wouldn't just fight like dogs to protect the lives of the unborn, but also they'd struggle to help protect the lives of those of us already walking the Earth!


Starr has nothing but contempt for the four more progressive members of the Supreme Court: Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Bader-Ginsburg. Even though he offers some faint praise for Justice Breyer for "moving to the center" on some issues, he spews nothing but hatred for the other Supreme Court Heroes, calling them "forlorn liberals", as if standing up for the rights of the weak were some sort of a weakness, or even a crime. He also sneers that they're "irrelevant" (did I hear that somewhere, as from the Borg on Star Trek?), and even "marginalized." Who the hell does Starr think he is? But then again, he's the one who tried to bring down Clinton on bogus charges of "perjury" (telling the truth when Starr wanted a lie) and "obstruction of justice" (obstruction of partisan witch hunt).


Starr does sound like a male Ann Coulter with the way he rants and libels liberals, and he definitely can't afford to talk about liberal judges being "activists"; the right-wing extremists on the bench, especially Justice Scalia, practically wrote the book on judical activism, rewriting the Constitution to match his personal opinions--and he has the temerity to say he's a strict constructionist who practices judicial restraint. Translated into plain English, "strict constructionist" and "judicial restraint" are code words for "conservative judicial activism" and "judicial tyranny." Starr praises these tyrants, who admittedly say "the Constitution is what we say it is", to the skies, calling them the "Five Friends of Federalism." Five Friends, my kiester! Scalia's Gang of Five should be called the "Five Fiends of the Constitution", with what they did to President-in-Exile Al Gore! He has the gall to call the Fantastic Four (Stevens et al) the "Four Foes"--the Four Foes of Dictators if you ask me! What do you expect from the Grand Impeachment Inquisitor? Fairness?! I don't think so.


Mr. Starr is too flexible with the truth to be a credible opinion. He shouldn't benefit from a gender double standard. If professional ostracism due to ideological extremism to the point of dangerousness is good enough for Ann Coulter, it should be good enough for Ken Starr. He deserves to be severely punished, not rewarded, not only for his persecution of Clinton, but also for his fanatical, anti-democratic (small 'd'), Constitution-shredding views. For all we know, Bush may reward him for his fanaticism and nominate him for a bench on the Supreme Court. Should that happen--God forbid-- then I'll know for a fact that the rule of law has given way to the rule of the lawless. You can't find many more lawless than Starr!